At events of this nature, two 'faiths' will always prevail: 1) Technological optimism, the belief that technological progress is inherently good and should be encouraged; and 2) technological determinism, the belief that progress is relentless and cannot be prevented. This heady mix often disregards the pace of change and its impact on the folks left behind.
We need to ensure that the divide between have-techs and no-techs doesn't become an unbridgeable chasm. It's ironic, for example, that living longer (140 years!) is more likely to exacerbate this challenge, as younger generations innovate for themselves, with scant consideration for their elders. Technology often adds and subtracts at the same time. It gives and it takes, leaving the world no better for its presence.
Therefore, uppermost in our minds should be both the social value of technology and the pace of its introduction. Unicorn status is a meaningless, politicised metric, whereas measures for social cohesion and happiness are rarely discussed. Somehow we need to transform these tech jamborees into debates about real human needs and technology's response to those needs.
Martha rightly says, "I didn’t hear enough deep discussion at the top tables about the horror show going on in our oceans, deserts and forests." Technology should be pulled by demand, rather than pushed via smart, random (and often ridiculous) ideas. 'Technology pull' should prevail over 'technology push'.
Let's identify our collective needs, then challenge technologists to solve them. We should reward those that do, and castigate those whose self-indulgent innovations (flying pizza deliveries?) add nothing of value, and probably make civilization even worse.
At events of this nature, two 'faiths' will always prevail: 1) Technological optimism, the belief that technological progress is inherently good and should be encouraged; and 2) technological determinism, the belief that progress is relentless and cannot be prevented. This heady mix often disregards the pace of change and its impact on the folks left behind.
We need to ensure that the divide between have-techs and no-techs doesn't become an unbridgeable chasm. It's ironic, for example, that living longer (140 years!) is more likely to exacerbate this challenge, as younger generations innovate for themselves, with scant consideration for their elders. Technology often adds and subtracts at the same time. It gives and it takes, leaving the world no better for its presence.
Therefore, uppermost in our minds should be both the social value of technology and the pace of its introduction. Unicorn status is a meaningless, politicised metric, whereas measures for social cohesion and happiness are rarely discussed. Somehow we need to transform these tech jamborees into debates about real human needs and technology's response to those needs.
Martha rightly says, "I didn’t hear enough deep discussion at the top tables about the horror show going on in our oceans, deserts and forests." Technology should be pulled by demand, rather than pushed via smart, random (and often ridiculous) ideas. 'Technology pull' should prevail over 'technology push'.
Let's identify our collective needs, then challenge technologists to solve them. We should reward those that do, and castigate those whose self-indulgent innovations (flying pizza deliveries?) add nothing of value, and probably make civilization even worse.
I completely agree - that’s what I worked on for over a decade and why I started doteveryone - thanks for the comments