The year 2030 is less than 8 years away and yet within a so-called technological revolution, each year that passes brings with it exceptional advances in technology and the way that we operate within society. The advancement is fast. Innovation dictates how we can continuously do things better. But where is the limit? Will we ever reach or be satisfied with ‘good enough’? What is the impact, in particular on the environment, of continuous innovation?
The world of Ed Tech is very much a forward-looking field in which innovation and transformation are the focus, with less time spent on the present and learning from failures of the past (Selwyn et al., 2019). Meanwhile, as we embrace each new technology, many of which are packaged in a new device or tool, our e-waste grows. Selwyn (2021) points out that recycling devices is often simply dumping them in some of the poorest regions in the world contributing to increased levels of pollution, contamination and toxic waste. This is concerning and a warning to us all.
Although the year 2030 may bring with it exciting and transformative innovations to improve education and learning, we must consider the cost of this innovation by looking at the impact on the environment and the survival of humans on earth. Does continuous innovation bring us closer to our devices and reliance on technology while simultaneously facilitating a lost connection to our roots and our land? As the gap in connection to the land grows, do we care about it less?
I look forward to digging deeper into these questions and considering the future of Ed Tech from a sustainability perspective as I write my final essay for LRNT 523.
References
Selwyn, N., Pangrazio, L., Nemorin, S., & Perrotta, C. (2019). What might the school of 2030 be like? an exercise in social science fiction. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944
Selwyn, N. (2021). Ed-tech within limits: anticipating educational technology in times of environmental crisis. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(5), 496–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022951