Thursday, 02 July 2026

The home and personal computing revolutions of the 70's, 80's, and 90's put the power of computing in the hands of the masses. For those of us that grew up with these machines, it can be hard to reconcile the computer culture of our youth with the industry we find ourselves in today. But at some point, a threshold was crossed and increasing computing power no longer translated to increased autonomy. Quite the opposite.

In 1973, before the first commercially successful home computer, and with the Western world in the beginnings of an energy crisis, Ivan Illich wrote an essay titled 'Energy and Equity'. In it, he argued that - above a certain threshold - energy had marginal disutility. And that applying more of it would yield negative returns.

What is generally overlooked is that energy and equity can grow concurrently only to a point. Below a threshold of per capita wattage, motors improve the conditions for social progress. Above this threshold, energy grows at the expense of equity. Further energy affluence then means decreased distribution of control over that energy.

To make his argument concrete, he applied this theory to traffic and speed:

Beyond a certain velocity, motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them only for a few.

And he singles out speed, not the form of conveyance, as the factor driving transport inequality.

Accelerating speed inevitably concentrates horsepower under the seats of a few and compounds the increasing time-lack of most commuters with the further sense that they are lagging behind.

Eventually, in 1974, the UK - feeling the pinch of the oil crisis - did introduce restrictions on vehicle speed to more equitably ration fuel.

Slowly and reluctantly, we have continued to constrict vehicle speed ever since.

But while we still fall short of the "low-energy, convivial modernity" imagined by Ivan Illich, politically determined limits on what a vehicle is technically capable of are accepted as necessary.

In computing, however, we are at the very beginning of this legal and political journey. Restrictions on the industry tend to focus on data processing and accountability rather than limiting the power of our machines. But imagine the effect of a maximum hard drive size, CPU clock frequency, or network speed.

If we still had the machines of the 80's or 90's, would we face the same problems we have today? Could you build Meta or Anthropic on the backs of Amigas and Acorn Archimedes? If not, technological capability plays a role. So how many of our problems derive from the inherent inequity of increased computing power?

Of course, there's no sense dragging everyone back to the 70's to re-run the home computing revolution. But I'd like to highlight a technology in a different category that is defined by its restraint: the e-bike.

In the UK and Europe, the motor of the 'electrically assisted pedal cycle' (EPAC) cuts out at 15 mph [25 km/hour]. This is not a technological limitation but a legal and political choice that slots it neatly into the infrastructure built for the regular human-powered bicycle. That rule might have been a convenience, but I think, surprisingly, it's now the e-bike's most radical intervention.

The speed is what's important. Because, when Ivan Illich attempted to determine a threshold for the disutility for speed, he observed the following:

From our limited information it appears that everywhere in the world, after some vehicle broke the speed barrier of 15 mph [25 km/hour], time scarcity related to traffic began to grow.

In other words, he believes we maximise utility for all by travelling at the speed of a bicycle. And because it is the speed and not the effort of your legs that is crucial, the e-bike increases access to transport (for those who cannot pedal unassisted) without increasing the 'time-lack' of others. It is a new application of energy capable of furthering social progress.

The pedal assisted e-bike is also exempted from many of the restrictions we place on motorbikes and cars thanks to its low speed. It is a whole class of product defined by its energy restraint. And, in the UK, you do not need a license or mandatory insurance to ride one.

In computing, however, we have no comparable machine. Where governments have attempted to apply legal and political constraints to technology - in an attempt to stymie our loss of autonomy to big tech - the collateral damage has been the loss of real community infrastructure that cannot meet their demands.

So, could we make space for a restrained class of computer? A category of machine designed to attract fewer laws and offer some "low-energy, convivial modernity" by its use?

What limits would it have, this bicycle for the mind?