Opinion: The collective belief that we are living in times of unprecedented technological change is anxiety-provoking and misleading
Technological hand-wringing is nothing new. That we are living in an 'unprecedented’ and ‘uncharted’ time of technological change is a well-worn narrative. Advertisers constantly bombard consumers with the ‘latest’, ‘newest’, ‘fastest’ gizmos. Policymakers assure constituents that 3D printing will solve housing crises and AI will help slow climate change.
On the other side, technology is regularly presented as the bogeyman threatening our existence. A case in point is social media, which is being blamed for everything from enabling terrorism and promoting political polarisation to eroding democracy. Thus, a defining feature of our epoch is an almost neurotic, collective belief that technology deserves our undivided attention and a confusion over whether it is a panacea or a Pandora's box.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Brendan O'Connor Show, Irish Times technology journalisy on how 15 years of smartphones have changed our lives
What might surprise today's tech-obsessed is that the disconcerting feeling that society is barrelling toward the technological unknown - or, to borrow from Star Trek, going "where no [one] has gone before," - is nothing new. In 1898, an Irish newspaper reporter, awed by a demonstration of sea-to-shore radio in Dun Laoghaire Harbour, mused that "long lines of isolated ripples of past discoveries seem to be blending into a mighty wave".
With a flourish of technological anxiety, the reporter added "the suspense is becoming feverish, at times almost painful." Given the primitive nature of early radio, many of today’s readers will find these words quite melodramatic. But are they any different from Stephen Hawking claiming that AI might "spell the end of the human race"? Probably not.
Undermining the false narrative
A sure way to undermine technology’s monopoly over our collective conversation is to acknowledge that humans have successfully accepted, rejected and shaped rapidly changing technologies for hundreds of years. Indeed, a whole academic school of thought called 'social constructivism' promotes this idea. Social constructivists push back on the belief that technological progress is ‘inevitable’ by showing that the relationship between humans and tech is reciprocal.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's today With Claire Byrne, how technology is changing general practice with Dr Máire Finn, GP
The most famous example is the evolution of the modern bicycle. The most popular design during the bicycle craze of the 1890s sported an oversized front wheel and a small back one. This configuration was considered quite desirable by men, though not by women. Victorian Era women took action and petitioned for the safer, more skirt-friendly layout of two wheels of similar size. Thus, the bicycle design we now take for granted was born of social protest.
Another way to put technology in its proper place is to recognise that today’s innovations are pretty unremarkable relative to the social context. Take Victorian Ireland, for example. During this relative blip in history (1837-1901), the country saw the first railroad laid, electric street lighting installed, and the first transatlantic telegraph message sent (from Valentia Island by Queen Victoria herself). All of these dazzling inventions emerged during a period most known for the Great Famine and in which the average person’s daily life was not that much different than their ancient ancestors.
It is logical then to conclude that today’s humans are more prepared for and less phased by technological advance than any previous generation. For example, a currently fashionable prediction is that the 'invisibility cloak', a garment-like device that renders the wearer transparent, is just on the technological horizon. What is likely is that when (or more appropriately if) the invisibility cloak does materialise, the most pressing question on people's minds will be, "where can I buy one?".
From CNET's WTF, how 'invisibility cloak' material is made and how it works
A more balanced way forward
But to admit that grappling with technology has long been part of the human story does not mean we should not critically examine technologies. Exhaust from internal combustion engines does indeed heat our planet, and social media undoubtedly enables a volume of incivility previously unimaginable.
What we need is a balanced view which acknowledges that technology does not define our existence nor causes or answers all our problems. Indeed, the current media obsession with social media glosses over the role that long-term economic trends have played in contributing to widespread dissatisfaction with representative democracy. Thus, fixing the ‘social media problem’ means both regulating and reforming platforms’ technical operations and addressing decades of politicians' poor policy decisions.
Meditating on the technological un-remarkability of our times can be quite liberating. Understanding that our current relationship to technology is not that different from that of humans who lived decades and even centuries ago can have a grounding effect. Moreover, recognising that technological hype essentially serves commercial and political ends can facilitate more clear-headed thinking about the role of technology in the 21st century. The next time you sweat over whether your mobile is eavesdropping on you or giddily rush to buy the next Bitcoin, remember that you come from a long line of technology obsessors. If there is anything to learn from the past, it is that we have been here before.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
