The Promise of Technology

Historically, the promise of technology has been to make our lives easier, and therefore happier. In the 1950s, household machines promised women liberation and the opportunity to find meaning outside of the home. But what promise are we fulfilling today? More critically, we should ask ourselves: what kind of future do we want to realize and are we solving the real problems we face? Whether pursuing connection with friends and family, energy independence, or self-development, is technology the way to get there?

Tech companies often come with ground-breaking inventions that promise to change the world. We should ask ourselves if the change they promise is the change we need. There are many examples of technologies whose benefits have come with strings-attached problems, usually because companies are profit-driven by nature.

Tristan Harris, former Google design ethicist and co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology, first exposed the hidden costs of social media in the 2020 documentary The Social Dilemma. Today he warns of the “AI dilemma” and the carelessness and speed with which he claims we are building and deploying the “most powerful and uncontrollable technology ever invented”. 

Historian and writer, Yuval Noah Harari, points out a widening gap between the few who control advanced technologies—including biotechnology with the potential to create “superhumans”—and the rest of society, for whom such an idea is unaffordable and far from reach. This dystopic vision imagines a future of polarization and displacement with power and longevity concentrated in the hands of a small elite.

With more thoughtfully implemented regulation, this could change and we could see more universally beneficial effects—we could use technologies to liberate rather than oppress. There is great concern about the automation of work that humans have traditionally done, displacing workers and leaving many without jobs. But if the robots or systems that displace the workers earned salaries and those salaries were redistributed to those displaced by automation, these technologies could help people create time for more meaningful pursuits. It requires a mindset shift that some may not be ready to imagine. 

Recently, Mo Gawdat, former Chief Business Officer at Google X, has speculated on an eventual, more promising future (after a period of hardship) in which supremely intelligent AIs, trained to operate in humanity’s best interest, create an environment of abundance and equality. He has said that a global AI leader focused on prosperity could relieve us from the burden of menial work and give people space for the pursuit of higher levels of purpose and growth, such as exploring creativity, building deeper connections with people and nature, and becoming spiritually aware. 

But even this future cannot promise utopia. In The Selfish Gene (1976), Richard Dawkins explains that evolutionary strategies exist to ensure harmony never lasts because disrupting stability is necessary for growth. The opening chapter of Allen Wheelis’ 1973 book, How People Change, begins by discussing human suffering. Wheelis points out that suffering is an inescapable aspect of human existence. A person who lives with luxuries but in social isolation may still suffer deeply, even if the suffering takes a different form than the person who suffers from starvation or homelessness. These arguments suggest that we are hardwired against lasting satisfaction, that we constantly desire improvement, and that innovation is a natural part of being human. The direction in which we innovate is still a choice we can make.

The promise of technology is complex. At its best, it is used to facilitate positive change. The reason for that change—not profit and not the technology itself—should drive its development. This could require a different approach to education, one that starts with “the why” and focuses on emotional intelligence, awareness, and the ability to realign and self-correct. Artificial intelligence could even support this approach, if consciously trained, and if that is what we want and really need. At least for now, we shape the form our technologies take, and we still have a voice in what kind of future we want.

Concept contributors: Mila Chorbadzhieva, Maron Galama, Jessica Smarsch, Koen Snoeckx, and Raymond van Ee

Writing & Illustration: Jessica Smarsch