Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peter Gerdes's avatar

I think people who worry that, "technology will change faster than society can adapt" have something like the following in mind:

There are always ways that people can defect from social good in ways that hurt others and benefit themselves. For instance, theft, identity theft, selling defective products, misleading consumers about science, even political attack ads that undermine beneficial ways of deciding on our leaders.

Society has evolved ways of curbing these harmful behaviors. Sometimes in a top down fashion (law enforcement) and sometimes in a bottom up fashion (community norms about gossip or sexual fidelity). People who worry that technology will change faster than society can adapt really mean that societal corrective forces can't keep up with the social changes technology brings about.

So yes, in one sense, tech like the atomic bomb trivially can't be brought into play faster than society can adapt. If generals and governments stick their heads in the sand and pretend nukes don't exist and refuse to use them nothing changes. But people can start using the atomic bomb without stopping to change the norms of warfare that applied before the development with disastrous consequences.

Expand full comment
Riothamus's avatar

Given that society is not homogeneous, what prevents a segment of it from adapting more quickly than the general rate? The question would then be whether the segment in question is a large enough market by itself to continue development of the relevant technology.

This seems relevant because the influence of technology on my life isn't chosen chiefly by me, but rather by a series of specialized groups. My life is chiefly the consequences of their decisions.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts