Europe is at the forefront of regulating technologies it didn’t create. The prevailing approach assumes that constraining how, where, or by whom technology can be used, will mitigate negative outcomes. But that’s the wrong mental model for thinking about technology's complex impact on society.
This conventional view errs in two ways: it either reduces technology to a mere tool (don’t drive it to fast, or use it to harm), or portrays it as an autonomous force in the world (AI needs inbuilt guardrails). But these are at best low fidelity accounts of technology’s social impact. Instead, think of technology as affording possibilities, from which both beneficial and detrimental behaviours can emerge.
The Protestant reformation, and all the change it wrought, would not have been possible without movable type printing: It allowed information to diffuse at scale. Obviously it would be silly to say that movable type ‘caused’ the reformation. These aren’t billiard balls transferring kinetic energy.
The belief that technology has a direct, monocausal impact, is usually accompanied by the assumption that the desirable end-points of regulation are self-evident. Movable type put scribes out of work, mechanised looms did the same to weavers. Clearly these technologies were bad for the interests of some groups. But that didn’t make them a bad thing in general.
Aligning on a normative vision for technology is hard, because unlike empirical inquiry, there is no generally accepted method for answering questions about ‘correct’ norms or values: The correlation between alcohol consumption and enjoyable evenings, or between running marathons and physical discomfort, is generally accepted as evidence that drinking causes pleasure and running causes pain. However, these observations are not usually considered valid normative reasons to indulge in drinking or avoid running.
My book focuses on how technology shapes our social world and the implications this has for our normative vision. I am delighted that Routledge Taylor & Francis Group just released a paperback edition, of which I have a few author copies to give away (DM me if interested) and of course I’d be delighted if you request a copy for your library.
Special thanks for their support to Julie Uldam, Fabrizio Poltronieri, Robin Mansell, Lilie Chouliaraki, Amit Schejter, barbara pfetsch, Peter Dahlgren, Andreas Hepp, Christian Katzenbach, Gurvinder Aujla-Sidhu, Dr. Johanna Möller, Mike Bode, Juljan Krause, Jenny Wiik, Professor Shakuntala Banaji, Bengt Johansson, Richard Danbury, David Crouch, Altug Akin, Kate Coyer, Ulrika Hedman, Maria Edström, Tomas Odén, Roberto Orsi, Vassilis VPaipais, Jose Javier Olivas Osuna, Gamze Toylan, PhD, Nick Anstead, Afzal Siddiqui, Charlie Beckett, Sally Broughton Micova, Stefan Bauchowitz, Jess Baines
Recruiting für Engineering & Construction / Fach- & Führungskräfte / Bauwesen / Ingenieurwesen / Infrastruktur / Anlagenbau / Maschinenbau / erneuerbare Energien / Handwerk. Sprechen Sie mich an!
8moFirst of all, I find this kind of technology fascinating. Like many (or even all?) human inventions, there are great 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 (e.g. for increased efficiency and improved user experience in customer service, more convenient training and education, diverse options in the entertainment sector) and 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 (e.g. deep fake in the area of political opinion-forming, sabotage of interpersonal relationships). However, I think that such technologies will have two consequences, among others: 1. fake will become the new standard. The 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 will become a new field of business, both in communication and in journalism. 2. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 - "𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹" - 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 will (once again) become an extremely important and meaningful part of our lives.