Stop Asking if It Scales

Point:

“Big, global problems need big, global solutions. Big solutions spread fast, to lots of people: that is scalability. So scalability is a requirement for any solution that seeks to solve big problems.”

Counterpoint:

“Big, global solutions proposed are often ineffective, unfeasible, or counterproductive, because people and places are different. Any long-term solution is adapted to the unique place where it happens. Throwing out “unscalable” ideas for not being globally copy-pastable is shooting ourselves in the foot.

Definition:

“When small projects can become big without changing the nature of the project, we call that design feature “scalability.” Scalability is a confusing term because it seems to mean something broader, the ability to use scale; but that is not the technical meaning of the term. Scalable projects are those that can expand without changing.” (Tsing 2012)

We have been dazzled by the power of scalability. Like an infection, “modern” and “scalable” technologies have spread rapidly and often coercively. The solutions, whether they be solar power, blockchain, green building, or political activism, must be scalable: clearly defined and standardized, packaged and exportable, and with a mobile app. We become convinced that we must fight fire with fire, exponential problems with exponential solutions.

After a couple years in the clean-tech/sustainability space, I have become concerned with the deference to “scalability.” It feels like a popular and vague buzzword that ties good intentions to sloppy, uncritical, inconsiderate, and ugly ideals, like the commodification of everything. As Sebastian Pfotenhauer writes, “the prioritization of rapid up-scaling entails a series of normative assumptions about how society and social change function… what kind of solutions are feasible and desirable, and who authorizes social change” (Pfotenhauer 2021). Indeed, I notice that worshipping scalability as a core value leads to lots of things I don’t like. Ignoring the diversity of people and places. Overly simplifying assumptions. Turning a blind eye to risks. Making experiences quicker, shallower, and cheaper. Adherence to and upholding of the insane growth paradigm. Dependence on money.

Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing writes, “Even as technologies of scalability advance, the charm of world-making scalability is unraveling in our times. Scalability spreads—and yet it is constantly abandoned, leaving ruins” (Tsing 2012).

It feels like sustainability efforts can unintentionally sabotage themselves by trying to copy the scalability of the system that is the problem: the system that assumes that humans are well-represented by Homo economicus, that everyone wants and deserves unlimited stuff, and that success means domination. Yet, the proof is right in front of us, of how well-intentioned, “scalable” projects often turn out to be disasters on all fronts except for concentrating wealth in the few at the expense of others.

Just a few examples: Uber increased traffic congestion without decreasing car ownership. Single stream recycling makes chucking things in the bin more convenient, because we thought Americans would be too lazy to separate stuff, but it actually reduced the amount of stuff actually recycled by increasing contamination, while setting up systems that would inevitably fail (let’s just ship it all to China! Oh wait, China doesn’t want it anymore.) Slapping millions of identical saplings into the ground and then forgetting about them is easy, compared to cultivating long-term community relationships that steward lands, but many tree-planting programs have often failed and backfired. Building more roads is easier than making places better to live in, but it increases traffic rather than decreasing it.

These giants of upscaling did not deliver on their promises of forever more production and wellbeing. The simplified, atomized model of the world was critically incomplete and inaccurate. It was powerful, yes. Powerfully disastrous, hard to stop, hard to clean up after, self-perpetuating, and self-justifying. Why should we copy these models?

“Any site where scaling is made to look easy should thus raise red flags about a likely lack of comprehension or inclusiveness of perspectives” (Pfotenhauer 2021).

Perhaps even worse than turbocharging sloppy ideas, the demand for scalability also deprives good ideas of support by dismissing them as “not scalable enough.” Befriending your neighbors? Unscalable. Running for local office? Unscalable. Deciding to stop flying? Unscalable. We struggle to appreciate the importance of these “unscalable” actions, in part because of the worship of scalability, and the illogical perfectionism that fuels it. If it can’t fix everything everywhere, don’t even bother! There must be something else that will fix everything, just keep looking, and while you’re looking, do all business as usual.

When I think about what people are really asking for, deep down, when they ask if it scales, I think about worthwhileness. We want to know whether something is worth putting the effort into, or if other options are better. So here are some questions that more directly get at that, without the incorrect assumptions that all growth is good and that global copy-paste solutions are possible and necessary.

Better Questions to Ask Than “DoEs iT ScALe?”

• What are we trying to do?
  • Does it truly change the world for the better?
  • Are there better ways to achieve what we’re trying to achieve?
  • What are we willing to compromise on and where do we draw the line?
  • What will make this worthwhile?
• What are we trying to not do?
  • What do we refuse to let it become, what side effects do we draw the line at, how do we prevent that from happening, and how do we respond if it does?
  • What are the risks and what are the rewards, for all involved, and are they worth it?
  • How will we understand how those risks and rewards are happening as we go, and how will we account for that information in decision-making?
• How will the organization change as we go, and how do we direct that change for the better?
  • How can we share our learning and success with others?
  • How can we bring in new members, collaborators, and their ideas for the better?
  • What opportunities should we be on the lookout for as they emerge?
  • How will all the above change as people join, leave, and change? How can we ensure that it continues to be a force for good?

Good intentions aren’t enough. Good intentions paved the road to ecological chaos that we are rocketing down. So I urge people to be vigilant about how the work they are doing is actually affecting the world and to be unafraid to question whether something is on the right track, to face the question of what the right track is, and to jump on to it.

---

Works Cited

Tsing, A. L. (2012). On Nonscalability: The Living World Is Not Amenable to Precision-Nested Scales. Common Knowledge, 18(3), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754x-1630424

Pfotenhauer, S., Laurent, B., Papageorgiou, K., & Stilgoe, and J. (2021). The politics of scaling. Social Studies of Science, 030631272110489. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211048945