The Treadmill of Progress

In what ways does technology outpace society? The text and lecture investigate a number of possibilities, stretching from the far reaching implications of new ethical issues to the simple gut reactions of a society that feels overwhelmed by the new gadgets of the week. Over 50% of the participants in the survey we studied in lecture feel technology is moving too quickly, yet appear to resign themselves to the inevitable grind of progress. Is this the "treadmill" effect we are seeing; a society constantly running to keep up with the very progress that their actions are inspiring?

 This feels intuitively difficult to believe. Nature and society tend to find steady state solutions to imbalances. A treadmill effect, with people constantly moving towards new technology that they are creating is unstable. Sooner or later, the rate of innovation creation would exceed our ability to follow, or we would have to give up our attempts to do so. This manifests itself economically as well. If society truly disliked the introduction of technology, it would result in less adoption or support of new innovation. It would quickly become unprofitable to produce such innovations, which would reduce incentive to continue the process. What if this process of natural pace regulation was hampered by some other effect? Perhaps there are many individuals unhappy with the rate of scientific and technological development, but the seemingly universal stigma associated with slowing progress prevents them from speaking out and communicating with one another. Certainly there are a number of smaller communities of people who publicly disapprove of the state and pace of technology. Perhaps if society was more universally aware of the opinions of each other, a truer opinion of the masses could be developed. This too, however, seems suspect. The survey we reviewed indicates that no small proportion of the population feels this way. If there were a truly strong opposition, it would be impossible for such sentiment to remain unnoticed. The corporate world directly reflects the interests and desires of the consumers. Huge amounts of money is invested annually to find the new products and developments that will be the most successful. Society produces exactly the demand for innovations that it supports, and this feedback controls the true rate of research and development. As the saying goes: "the customer is always right!"

So why does a population who's actions support innovation simultaneously verbalize discomfort with it? No one would argue that the introduction of new technology does not require society to adapt. Flexibility is mandatory in the debut and integration of any new development, and humanity has repeatedly shown its capacity to adapt to a changing world around it. This process, however, can take a lot of effort. Learning to deal with the new challenges and obligations of technology is not trivial. At the less serious end of the scale, who among us has not felt confusion or frustration at the introduction of a new operating system or the operation of a complex new device for the first time? Humans often crave normality, to be able to use our existing knowledge without the risk of unforeseen consequences or challenge of new obstacles. Despite the fact that technology is often a result of legacy thinking, cannot the opposite also be true? Other effects of the introduction of new science and technology are more serious. Ethical issues, like the development of cloning science place a great burden on society. We are forced to analyze our own long term assumptions, reexamine the reasoning of our beliefs, and push ourselves to reach consensus on issues that we could previously ignore. It is hard to definitively argue whether addressing these issues is to the benefit or detriment of society, but if nothing else, it allows us to make more informed decisions in the future.

The trial-and-error approach was another concept explored in the text that examines the underlying tendencies behind how humans learn and adapt. It is simple in theory, explaining that humans learn through mistakes, allowing them to make better decisions when presented with the same decision again. It is also a valid argument against the speed of development, for how can we iterate through the process of mistakes and corrections if we move too fast to respond? Rather than evidence of society's lack of control over the pace of innovation though, trial and error is much more a reflection of society's inexperience in analyzing new technologies. For instance, the example of nuclear reactors being developed faster than waste disposal or operating procedures outlined in the book clearly represented a failure to wait adequate time for signs of error before entering production. While the imperfect decisions of humans may never be completely resolved, continued experience with the trial and error process will hopefully yield a pace of innovation appropriate to minimize these unforeseen consequences.