7. Conclusion

The axiom that guides decisions is that freedom and diversity (FD) needs to be encouraged to the extent that FD does not undermine the fabric of life. As caretakers, we need to be guided by this axiom when we test out decisions, in terms of the consequences for others and the next generation of life.

Systemic transformation is required rather than mere technological intervention to address existential risks which are largely ignored. The current approach to productivity and consumption places an unmeasured burden on the voiceless and the environment. Current forms of capitalism and socialism have exploited the environment. The monitory democracy approach suggested in this paper is to enable the people to have a say, rather than being the objects of design they are setting the agenda. By finding a way to acknowledge what people perceive as valuable, perhaps we can actively reframe policy? The printing press transformed society (Florini 2003), but, as McLuhan and Powers (1989) stressed, it enhanced access to ideas for some, whilst others were left behind, because they could not read, or because they were manipulated by powerful controllers of the message and the media. Technology per se can be used in positive and negative ways. The design and application can enable monitoring either from above or from below.

Human rights underpin all relationships within the nation state and within the wider region. This has implications for social and environmental justice. This book makes a case for recognizing that the containerist vision of the world is over. Our so-called containment anxiety cannot be addressed by living a schizophrenic existence where we see ourselves as benefitting at the expense of other nation states. We already have regional conflicts fuelled by energy shortages and competition for the last of the non-renewables. Satellite monitoring from above seems to be more of a priority at the moment by USA than space travel. Digital communications are already widely used, but their potential is under tapped as stressed in this paper and other research on wellbeing, representation, accountability and sustainability (McIntyre-Mills and de Vries 2011). How can engagement be enhanced so that the Orwellian future is avoided? How can designs reframe technology in ways that (a) re-claim designs from below and (b) drive policy so that they inform the final decisions? How can elected leaders be held to account on the basis of the lived experiences of the electorate as well as by those who are so-called discipline experts? How can the decision (or cut) be made by the elected representatives in ways that balance individual and collective interests – rather than the interests of elites. The challenge is that individualism has been taken too far as a result of the power associated with capital. It is possible that the low carbon footprint could be decreed from above as necessary for human survival, but that the elites will exempt themselves from the low carbon lifestyle. This could become increasingly likely if the media (print and digital) are owned by elites. This is why it is vital that cosmopolitan citizens hold elites to account. The argument spans the issue of complex wicked problems that span many, diverse variables that are valued very differently by different stakeholders and that also have a strong value dimension (Flood and Carson 1993). For this reason, transdisciplinarity is vital, and the contributions of social scientists, including economists, natural scientists, such as contributions of physicists and natural sciences, such as Rockström et al (2009), neuroscientists, such as Greenfield, who discuss the implications of digital technology on the human brain, the implications for our identity, and Hulme, who discusses why our emotions influence the way in which we think about climate change and the extent to which our emotions affect rationality. Private subjectivity that allows for diversity should be respected and ensured to the extent that it does not undermine the rights of others or the next generation. So greed and the misuse of resources that impact on the capabilities and rights of others need to be limited. Thus, the approach takes the capabilities approach and extends it beyond the human rights domain to the environmental domain—of which we are part. Just as racism—othering and exclusion have been challenged by the capabilities approach—it needs to be extended to the environment.