As part of the promotion for the Spanish translation of my Digital Degrowth book I got asked some questions for an education newspaper. The Spanish article is now published … so here is what I said in English!

Q. Regarding the diagnosis of the problem, at what point do you think digitalization stopped being merely a tool and became a growth logic that is difficult to question?

It is always important remember that digital technologies have a long history – we have had AI since 1956, and computers have been used in classrooms since at least the 1970s. 

However, over the past 20 years I think we have seen a definite shift to a distinct form of what I’d term ‘digital excess’ – a dominant class of digitisation that is driven by a growth-at-all-costs logics, and is proving to be highly detrimental to our everyday lives.

This is undoubtedly linked with the rise of transnational Big Tech corporations as dominant power-brokers across the world, and the accompanying rise of digital capitalism. Everyday life in most global north countries in 2026 is now utterly digitally-driven and digitally-dependent in ways that was simply not the case in the 2006. 

Q. You speak about the limits of digital growth. What concrete signals do you consider most concerning today, especially in the educational environment?

You can see the stress points all around the world. People have been talking about the planetary limits of digital growth for years. Our devices are manufactured from rare minerals and metals which are fast depleting and dependent on forced labour. Mountains of toxic e-waste continue to be a problem, as we seemingly appear addicted to buying new devices rather than working out ways to repair and recycle.

So the state of coltan mining in the DRC and the massive e-waste dumps in Agbogbloshie are concrete signals that the digital age is built on fragile and exploitative foundations. 

Perhaps the most obvious stress point is illustrated by current concerns around the highly detrimental impacts of hyperscale data centres – a concrete example of how our thirst for ever-increasing cloud storage, data processing and bandwidth comes with real environmental consequences. If the increased use of AI means that local communities are now having to live with water shortages, unbearable noise pollution and the death of local eco-systems, then universities and schools need to think really carefully about their priorities. Education is not the worst offender in terms of the environmental impacts of tech, but we are certainly implicated … and we can take a lead in demonstrating what change might look like.

Q. What solutions can be proposed from pedagogy and the university sector?

Many of the possible ways forward highlighted in the book relate to education – much of my work looks at digital technology use in education, so I’m very interested in how these concerns around digital degrowth bump up against tech use in education.

One of the main points made in the book related to building different forms of tech. Universities are an idea place to be doing this. Indeed, much of the tech that we currently have originates from universities, so the education sector is perfectly capable of building its own tech. Universities are places full of computer science and IT expertise, so let’s make the most of our own expertise.

The education sector can also play a key role in developing public understandings around digital technologies – particularly in raising awareness of many of the digital problems that societies currently face, and the alternatives on offer. These are ideas about technology that don’t usually get covered in news coverage or in public discussions around tech. Universities and schools are spaces where people can have these more critical conversations, and also get to experience different ways of engaging with technology. So, when educators are facing calls to be teaching AI literacy, we can be thinking about this from a critical pedagogy perspective – rather than just parroting what the likes of Google and OpenAI would like us to believe.

Q. Throughout the book, there is a strong structural critique of the current model. So, is the main problem digital technology itself, or the economic system that drives it?

Both! Modern economies are now so entwined with digital tech that it is difficult to separate the two. Late capitalism can be described as digital capitalism. In this sense the first step toward thinking differently about digital technology is to decouple it from economic growth imperatives that currently dominate the ways in which we imagine digital technology – ideas of technology ‘progress’ that always has to be faster, more efficient, scaled-up and always-on. Degrowth is a challenge to think about post-capitalist forms of living. So, what would technology progress look like if was slowed down, scaled-back and not driven by what is profitable? Rather than constantly wanting more technology, how can be imagine doing more with less technology?

Q. Why does “technological solutionism” remain so dominant among governments, companies, and in education?

We live in a world where we are always sold the idea that new technology will solve old problems. This has been the case since the industrial revolution – the steam engine, nuclear power and now the computer!  IT firms clearly rely on this idea when selling us new technologies, but the idea of quick technical fix is also an easy way for governments to appear innovative and trying to improve things. And education has also long been susceptible to hoping that technology can address problems which are – in reality – extremely complicated and rooted in social problems that might never be solvable. Humans are by nature hopeful, and the latest technology gives us an opportunity to hope that things might soon be getting better!

Q. Can so-called “green technology” be a real solution, or is it rather a way of prolonging the same model?

This idea of the technical fix is nowhere more apparent at the moment than the area of green technology – the idea that the environmental harms of our current times can be overcome through investment in even more technology. We are seeing the promise of ‘green’ data centres, and the application of AI to overcome climate change. I would love for there to be an easy way out of the current environmental crisis, but I suspect that it is not that easy. There are long-standing reasons (such as the ‘Jevons paradox’) why even greener technologies do not lead to genuine environmental benefits. So, a lot of the green tech talk looks to be a means of distraction – allowing the IT industry to carry on as usual, just with a green veneer. This is what is often referred to as ‘green-washing’ – the IT industry has a long record of this!

Q. How does digital degrowth translate into concrete public policy decisions?

One of the key elements of degrowth is that it calls for the local determination of what happens next. Transitions toward any form of degrowth need to be led by local communities – as a form of deliberative democracy. Public policy can be set up to support these movements, but degrowth is not something that governments or public policymakers can take a lead on!

Q. Which types of technologies should be reduced first in a highly digitalized society?

Communities need to get together and decide on which forms of digital technology are utterly irredeemable – technologies that are genuinely broken and clearly do more harm than good to the people that end up using them. There are a lot of technologies that fit this bill. Cory Doctorow has captured the zeitgeist with his description of ‘enshittification’ and the decline of the major platforms and apps that we us that have steadily become less useable and useful – clogged up with ads and AI slop. 

So, in education it makes sense for school and university communities to get together and honestly talk about what technology they simply do not want in their institutions. Do we really want online exam proctoring or other forms of student surveillance? Do we really want chatbot counsellors or the clunky LMS that the university has had for 10 years? Are Google Chromebooks genuinely the best devices that students should be using … do we want mandated devices at all?  The more you think about it, then there is plenty of ed-tech that definitively needs to be reduced – if not gotten rid of altogether!

Q. Is the current digital model deepening inequalities between countries and social groups?

Yes! One of the important ways to think about sustainability and tech is in terms of social sustainability. We know that most forms of digital technology do not make life fairer – in fact they work to increasing existing injustices, disadvantage and discrimination. This is important to think about when we’re talking about the need to develop more sustainable forms of technology use. Even the ‘greenest’ AI system is likely to discriminate against people who don’t fit the norms of its training data.

This is also important to think about when we’re talking about which technologies to reduce our use of. Digital degrowth is a process of re-balancing. So the main places where technologies need to be reduced are those that have previously benefited most from technology – the middle classes in the global north. It is essential that we try to reverse the trend of digital technology dividing societies and disadvantaging those who are already disadvantaged!

Q. Is it possible to implement digital degrowth without generating strong social or economic resistance?

There is obvious resistance to any idea of degrowth from economic interests that are wedded to the idea of economic growth at all costs. As such, talk of degrowth has traditionally provoked considerable hostility from the IT sector and Silicon Valley. 

But degrowth is a social movement – something that comes from the bottom-up – from people and communities that can see the benefits of moving on from an economic system that does them few favours. I think people are coming around some of the basic ideas that animate degrowth – and the more that people can be encouraged to see degrowth as a fundamentally progressive and innovation move forward, then the more that support for these ideas will grow. 

Degrowth is about doing things differently. Degrowth is about doing more with less, rather than simply having less. I think that this sort of thinking is  increasingly appealing … and might become increasingly necessary in future decades.

Q. What current examples do you consider closest to truly sustainable and experiential technology?

I love the idea of digital technology being brought into contact with the ‘right to repair’ movement. We have examples like Fairphones and Framework laptops – modular digital devices that can be repaired and have parts replaced. I love the idea of device loaning libraries – where shared devices can be loaned out when people need them. I love the idea of community mesh network initiatives, solar-powered websites and – for all its faults – something like Wikipedia which is a great example of the digital commons. There are plenty of existing ways of doing digital technology differently!