Faktor Mensch

This maiden voyage for this autonomously-controlled lorry is now almost a year in the past, and the dilemma is precisely revealed in this snapshot: the automobile manufacturer Daimler emphasises that the majority of traffic accidents can be traced back to human error. If we were to outsource all driving to technology, we would be able to prevent accidents. The decisive question is however expressed, indeed involuntarily, by the forced smile on Winfried Kretschmann’s face, and even Daimler poses the query quite often: “Do human beings really want whatever it is that technology can do?” This is a question that concerns the scientific arena as well. Is the human factor too unpredictable for the implementation of technologies? What is the deciding factor concerning whether or not humans accept a technological change? “It probably looks like a paradox sometimes when people protest against a new technology, even though there are many factors in favour of it,” says sociologist Matthias Groß, who is involved in technological research, innovations and societal perception at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ). “It is not my task to judge whether someone is acting irrational or whether certain behaviours are better than others. I am conducting research to understand behavioural patterns and their origins as well as cultural influences.” Another example for allegedly paradoxical behaviour is the light bulbs: When the EU Commission decided in 2009 to take them off the market step by step, it lead to panic buying of their beloved light bulbs among the Germans. Even though 95 percent of the electrical power is lost to heat, the customers were not very quick in accepting the more efficient alternative such as energy-saving bulbs.

“Regarding such processes as the energy transition which revolves around environmental behaviour, socio-cultural factors always play a significant role.”

It is a development in recent years that social scientists like Matthias Groß have become more and more involved in technology-oriented research projects – sociologists, psychologists, political scientists and solicitors, for example. Particularly in connection with the energy transition, this subject-overlapping collaboration has become relevant: the planned sea-change in the German energy infrastructure is not only technologically complex: “For processes such as the energy transition in which the issue concerns environmental conduct, socio-cultural factors always play an important role as well,” says Groß.

This can be seen in the energy transition in particular. “In principal, we support the expansion of renewable energies in our society because we are then able to take proactive steps against climate change, thus doing something positive for ‘nature’,” says Matthias Groß. “But when this is accompanied by changes in the landscape that we perceive as ‘nature’, our attitude changes. There are fundamental reasons for conducting research in many areas.”

This behaviour reminds many of the old Saint Florian Principle: “Blessed Saint Florian, spare my home – burn down somebody else’s!” In modern language we would probably express this with the idiom “not in my backyard,” and the scientific world even uses the acronym ‘NIMBY’ effect – a pejorative characterisation of opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development because it is close to them. This can be seen, for example, when citizens come together in local associations against the construction of wind turbines. Alone the European Platform Against Windfarms, EPAW, has 178 members in Germany – these are citizens’ action groups from North Friesland to the Allgäu that protest against windfarms in their regions.

That pure egotism would express itself through this NIMBY effect occurs, however, quite seldom. This is what Ortwin Renn, Scientific Director at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam, is involved with. The sociologist and economist deals with technological impact assessment and was Chairman for a group of experts who published political recommendations, under the auspices of the National Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech), concerning the topic ‘Man and Technology’. “In part, human beings turn against the thing itself when, for example, there exists only a low level of benefit, due to high costs, for the common good,” says Renn. “It is also emotional misgivings, in part, against changes in the landscape or moral concerns that take effect.” In Germany, the population is neither euphoric nor hostile vis-à-vis technology; the NIMBY effect also emerges when plans are being made for a kindergarten in a residential area. In reference to the energy transition as well, the big issue is how to involve people. “It’s not a matter of ‘bringing technology to the people’, rather, of integrating the people in such a manner that the design process becomes harmonious for them,” says Ortwin Renn. “More than 80 percent of the population express their consent in questionnaires regarding the energy transition. Thus we have to reconcile, if possible, the big prescribed objectives with the individual’s desires.” The results of the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS show that politics and economics have to incorporate the general public in a structured fashion. The research association, in which Helmholtz centres and university partners  have been conducting research – from 2011 to 2016 – on future socially-responsible energy provisions, has also determined: “Citizen participation is, however, not suitable for gaining acceptance for previously existing proposal recommendations.” Participation presupposes that various alternatives would be in place.

What kind of citizen participation is ideally suitable, a round-table or conciliatory mediation for example, depends on the groups and severity of the conflict. According to Renn, a ‘social-science diagnosis’ would be necessary in advance – in other words, an assessment provided by experts. “Some formats unfortunately amount to nothing more than placebos, that is, a drug replacement without active ingredients. In medical circles, they might indeed have a positive effect, but it represents a problem in citizen participation when I assemble people for a dialogue and don't really make use of the results.”

Whether the implementation of a project is going to be difficult can already be analysed beforehand – of this Ortwin Renn is certain. For example, there is hardly any resistance to the practice of solar-panels on roofs – but this is not the case in some regions involving voltaic systems in an open area, regardless of the surroundings or the area’s particular prehistory. What is the political landscape on site, and what old conflicts are still in place? Are many new residents involved, who had moved there because of the idyllic environment? “It is important that sociologists, psychologists and political analysts get together and analyse the situation that is specific to the location,” says Renn.

Armin Grunwald is aware of such differences in acceptance. He is Professor for Philosophy of Technology at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and Director of the Office of Technology Assessment in the German Bundestag. “It depends considerably on how specific the topic is.” If it involves a key technology such as synthetic biology, which is currently rather abstract in its current stage, people don’t feel that their interests are impacted. But it is different when the technologies are ready for application, such as with power lines or wind farms.

“If we as a society are ready to take advantage of a certain technological advancement, then – and only then – we have to be willing to accept the side effects as well. Where it is that the acceptance threshold emerges – that is usually related to a personal risk-reward assessment. We protest, for example, against the radiation from radio towers, but make almost exclusive use of mobile phones, because their added value is simply too vast,” says Armin Grunwald.

It is often times the individual himself who initiates and advances all of these processes, which he at the same time considers to be ‘disruptive’ factors in the implementation of a technology.

Acceptance cannot be artificially produced – this is the observation that he has made. It is produced on its own whenever the government or an enterprise enjoys trust. “One could also define acceptance as ‘tolerated intransparency’,” concludes Grunwald. Citizens are not able to understand all of the details in a new technology – but that is acceptable as long as they have the impression that a project is being carried out properly and fairly.

Social scientists are able to find out, with the use of empirical methods, what factors are inhibited or promoted by acceptance, from which veritable checklists for innovation processes can be developed. Are problems openly addressed and queries taken seriously? Is contact with all of the involved parties intact?

That a ‘socio-technological transformation’, as Armin Grunwald refers to the energy transition, also requires behavioural modifications is self-evident. He makes reference to the example of electric automobiles: Due to the cruising range alone, they are simply not capable of replacing conventional internal combustion vehicles. Not to mention the fact that filling up still takes hours instead of minutes. This requires human beings to adapt their routines.

Over the course of time, man-technology relationships change, as this example has shown. “If we talk about how readily today’s technologies will be accepted in the future, then we can only generate various futuristic scenarios,” says Armin Grunwald. There are no general rules. Prognoses are therefore not possible because values change profoundly. Grunwald refers to the 80s: “Those who were declaimed as ‘eco-crackpots’ back then have become mainstream” – such as the anti-nuclear-power-plant movement, which has shifted to the centre of society today.

What do such imprecise prospects signify for technology planned for today? “To work towards a rigid plan for the future would be to strive for a utopia – with the danger of sanctifying all measures that would lead to that end,” says Grunwald. More important is the clarification of how decision-making processes and scientific policy consultations should be organised, what rights should be guaranteed, and what ethical issues should be taken into consideration.

“We should always keep in mind in reference to politics, economics and science that man does not only appear as a – disruptive, in the worst case scenario – factor in the implementation of a technology. It is rather man himself who initiates and promotes all of these processes.”

Thus it is with the energy transition, the light bulb issue, and even the autonomous vehicle.