Technology’s Immutable Laws?
Placing some laws around how we think about technologies and our societies could enhance and improve technological innovation.
Humanity’s relationship with technology is intrinsic to human culture. Just as culture is always changing and evolving, so is technology. It’s been this way since we figured out how to whack stones together to make tools. And it will always be so as we survive as a species.
Digital technologies offer us some of the greatest opportunities to advance as a species. To set humanity on some interesting roads that before were the domain of science fiction and artists. We know too, that technologies can be equally deadly to us as a species.
We’ve had enough time now, evolved our understanding of the world, our role in it (somewhat) and played with enough revolutionary technologies, and not so revolutionary ones, that I think we can lay a foundation of immutable laws around them. Why would we and should we?
As I’ve written before, we tend to go through three main phases of technological absorption into our sociocultural systems. Awareness, Evaluation and Adaptation. This is how culture decides the success or failure of a technology over time.
The success or failure of any technology is never decided by an individual. It is an inherently social act. Technologies are social. In our present model of capitalism, this is referred to by economists as markets. Yes, but this approach often disconnects from what it means to be humans. Most, not all, economists, tend to separate human action from economic transactions. Bit odd. But that’s why we now, thankfully, have behavioural economics.
Why Do We Need Technology Laws?
We’ve realized for some time now that some technologies need rules around them to be better for humans. It’s why cars, aeroplanes and boats are much safer today and why we have real medications and vaccines instead of snake oil and hopes.
Much of these rules are through standards. Such as IEEE, ISO and CE in Europe. One of the latest to bring benefits to broader society was the EU setting the USB-C standard for all mobile devices. This forced Apple to change to a USB-C port on their iPhones and iPads. It’s better for the environment and society. Same as electrical sockets are standardized in countries. The EU alone created global change in a set of technologies. This is quite an interesting signal.
The laws I’m theorising about here aren’t standards, however. These are ways that technology companies and inventors of technology might consider when they create them. Some already do. They give us some pause for thought. That the inventor may place guardrails as they develop them. Something we’re sort of doing with Artificial Intelligence.
The Immutable Laws of Technology
So what can we reasonably consider some immutable laws of technologies given where we have evolved to with them so far? Perhaps these are a starting point.
Not Neutral: No technology is neutral. We imagine and invent technologies to solve problems. Sometimes small, like fixing a machine, sometimes big, like energy generation at scale. Some technologies are invented for the express purpose of eliminating human and other animals lives. We don’t invent a technology to just, well, languish. A technology may be invented with good or bad in mind. Recognizing this is helpful.
Unintended Consequences: When the telephone was invented, Alexander Bell thought it was a useful way to share opera music. He did not intend for it to be used for social connection. How we did use the telephone was an unintended consequence. Twitter was created for paramedics to communicate with ERs en route. We all know how that turned out. Zuckerberg and the crew could have never predicted Facebook would be a sticking point in geopolitics and social norms.
Predicting any and all unintended consequences is impossible. But some time spent thinking about alternative uses is beneficial to helping innovate in a socially responsible way.
Compoundable: This is especially so with digital technologies and almost all technologies can be mixed with another technology to result in an improved technology. The smartphone is a compounded technology. It’s only viable because it compounds other technologies like GPS, cellular, software, batteries and cameras etc.
The creator of a technology may not always see how it could be compounded with another technology and sometimes, it’s not until much later that a new technology comes along that benefits a prior technology. A desktop printer wasn’t very viable in the 15th century with Gutenbergs first printing press.
Culture is the Ultimate Arbiter: It was culture at work that decided the telephone was in fact a benefit for our sociocultural systems. Yes, it was annoying at first to have this rather loud thing doing ringy-dingy noises in our homes in the wee hours of the morning. But we’re social creatures and the benefits outweighed the pains. Besides, we can now choose all kinds of fun ring-tones.
The Segway was supposed to change societies all around the world. Or so the hype went. Society was collectively underwhelmed. Culture said it’s okay, but only in certain parts of society. That doesn’t mean Segway products aren’t any use, they are.
Culture will always decide on a technology’s acceptance into society over the longer term. Oddly enough, stone tools can still be useful if we get lost in the woods. Culture is the means of survival humans chose because it moves faster than biological evolution.
If we accept these and perhaps there are more, as immutable laws of technology, then we can see them for what they are, explore them with greater depth and evaluate the risks faster. This won’t stop those with nefarious deeds in mind, but socioculturally, it helps us advance and innovate smarter.