[Slide: list of bad ecological consequences.] When we talk about ecological limits, we are often actually talking about consequences of economic growth. The size of an economy is measured in GDP, Gross Domestic Product. Increasing GDP has been a policy goal in many countries for decades. In practice we use GDP as an indicator of overall social well-being. This is a mistake because GDP does not aim to quantify social well-being. It just counts monetary exchanges. It leaves out many "goods" and includes many "bads." Economists know this, but we do it anyway. We do a similar thing in firms when we incentivize managers to maximize financial returns to shareholders without much regard to the unpriced social or ecological consequences. I think the norms of increasing GDP among nations and maximizing shareholder returns among firms are the social causes of many of the ecological problems we talk about when we talk about limits. To stop making the problems worse, economic policy and corporate management need new goals. What does this have to do with us? Computing research and practice have taken place largely within organizations that aim to increase economic activity and shareholder returns. Indeed many computing systems are built precisely to increase productivity and leisure consumption. [Slide: computing systems supporting work/spend cycle.] Computing researchers have a few different approaches to mitigating ecological problems. The approach I find easiest to engage with looks at what constructive things people already want to do and tries to support them in doing those things. One nice example is Juliet Norton's sustainable polyculture composer, which aims to help people grow food in their backyards. A lot of people would like to do this, but it's hard and time consuming and a specialized information system could help. Here are six pieces of advice for computing researchers who want to work in this way. These are not new, but I think they are part of a sort of emerging consensus. [Slide: six pieces of advice.] [Slide: embed and engage.] Please build systems for people to use in their real contexts of living and working, not just little studies. Little studies are fine if they are in service of a larger project. But I would like to see us use technology and social action together to create real new options for people in their everyday lives. I would like to see us do research with stakeholders with whom we share deeply felt concerns and aspirations, not research on "subjects" we detachedly study. I would like to see us being active participants in sociotechnical change, not disinterested observers producing supposedly objective knowledge. [Slide: draw on outside research.] Drawing on outside research is still a weakness of ecologically-motivated computing research. That's understandable, because these are new topics for computing. But I do think we are getting better, so this is just a reminder. [Slide: maintain your systems.] Please don't just build a prototype, run a user study, and write your CHI paper, and leave implementation and maintenance to somebody else while you move on to the next idea! We can't rely on industry to incorporate our ideas into products any more -- after all, these problems exist because they are not profitable to address. Indeed sometimes they are unpriced "externalities" of profit-making activities. If you are too busy to build and run your system, think about how to work with stakeholders to build an organization to do it. [Slide: build human capital] Please build social and human capital, not just technology. Computing systems are complex. If you build a complex system for use in a community, and you are the only one who can run it, you have built a brittle system that will require your oversight forever. I am in this pickle right now. I am trying to get out of it by building connections within stakeholder communities and luring young researchers with the promise of meaningful work. [Slide: be ready to change course.] I think this is old news by now, but a reminder: We often don't know what technologies are needed until we get into "the field." And what's needed may change with time. [Slide: keep the big picture in mind] It's important that we focus on the social and ecological benefits, risks, and consequences of real sociotechnical practices, not on novel technologies per se. The literature suggests that social returns to technical innovation per se are in decline in our society broadly. But technologies tailored to the needs of particular communities can yield social returns, even if they are not technically novel. As we come out of our roles as technology specialists who produce abstract knowledge and novel technologies to support economic growth and shareholder value, we have a chance to reassess the centrality of technology in our work. Technology is powerful, and our facility with it gives us relatively unique powers. But these powers are only meaningful if we use them in service of ongoing efforts whose main content is not technological. I'll wrap this up by pointing briefly to two other topics. [Slide: organizational structure] The first is organizational structure. Different kinds of organizations can do different things, partly because they are accountable in different ways. Public companies, VC-funded startups, nonprofits, crowdfunded startups, government agencies, stakeholder-owned cooperatives, and research groups in universities are all evaluated differently. They live or die by different things. If we as a community want to build and run computing systems that support collective practices that mitigate rather than worsen ecological problems -- even if those practices are not profitable financially -- we may need to design the organizations in which those practices are carried out. [Slide: is this research?] Finally, I'll ask a question I was asked recently at my dissertation defense, which was, is this research? I'll add, is this computing research? My answer is that what research is, and the role of the university in society, is changing in response to the problems we are talking about at this workshop. And we can and should participate in those changes. [Slide: eight pieces of advice] Thank you.