In Kevin Kelly’s book What Technology Wants, Kelly raises the interesting point of the power balance we face between technologies. This is something that I had never thought about, the “enormity and cleverness of our creation [to overwhelm our] ability to control or guide [the technium]” (239). From his descriptions of this potential future world, as humans we are capable of creating a technology that will then takes its own course posing the question if “the human mind [will be able to] master what the human mind has made?” (239). This idea that technology can take a mind of itself bares a very strong resemblance to the world that was described in E.M Forester’s The Machine Stops. Interestingly, technology will take on its own course regardless of human interaction especially “in [our] deeply connected world, [with] the accelerated pace of technological succession” (243). Due to this quicker pace of technological advancement, Kelly’s question of whether or not humans will be able to comprehend what technology will turn into is almost impossible to answer as “projecting what harm may come from technology before it ‘is’ is almost impossible” (244). The idea of creating a piece of technology, giving it to the public and watching it advance and develop into a piece more advanced than ever imagined is frightening but also holds many excitements for the future. These advancements in technology may not always be for the worst and just as technology evolves, humans evolve slowly as well. A problematic point I found with Kelly’s writings was his inclusion of The Precautionary Principle. I was questioning his choice of elaborating on this principle as it seemed counter to his previous points and it did not seem to be the most reliable principle. The principle states that “a technology must be shown to do no harm before it is embraced” however with Kelly’s theories on inevitability and his previous description of how technology is advancing at a rapid pace this seems to be an impossible feat (246). In addition, Kelly adds that “the predictivity of most things, [technology], is exceedingly low” therefor making it even more difficult to prove a piece of technology can do no harm before it is embraced. Kelly explains how many inventions were created without the intention of what its primary use would be today, such as the inventor of gunpowder not predicting the gun or its presence in our society today (245). This principle seems to contradict all of Kelly’s latter theories and explanations of technology and its life force.
My question for discussion is, to what extent can inventors of a product foresee its use in the future and how would an inventor foresee what the future use of his/her product will be?
Inventors, in my opinion, cannot accurately predict to any extent how their products will be affected in the future. There are too many factors involved in the prediction of the future. Technology’s usefulness is affected by historical context and technological succession. The setting plays a role by determining what is taboo in the future and to what extent will people of the future need it. Perhaps people of the future will be locked in a serious of disasters that leave them in need of more practical technologies than luxurious ones. Politics and trade can keep an item landlocked never to be seen by foreign eyes. The other side of the coin is that technology can be built upon that same product making the last one obsolete. Perhaps its influence will stay its course, but it may lose its identity as it is incorporated into larger projects such as spell-check into WordPress. Predicting future events is only just as effective as making assumptions with a crystal ball.
I agree that predicting technologies’ future is difficult, however I don’t believe it to be impossible especially in today’s world. It is definitely practical to research potential consequences to the environment and to society if a technology is to be produced and introduced to consumers. I don’t think it should be an excuse for inventors to abuse resources and people’s sanity just because they didn’t take the time to think about potential negative effects. Focus groups and scientific data collection can be done to inform those creating new media and technology. Perhaps, this adds an extra layer of difficulty to creating things, but I believe it should be a mandatory measure. However, new innovative endeavors may be so revolutionary that this is impossible just like gunpowder couldn’t be predicted to have such a detrimental impact. Yet, an effort should be made because it isn’t impossible to extrapolate. The real question is, if it is able to be foreseen should it still be made? Should precautions be taken? If the possible effect is very negative should the invention be stopped from being executed and who would be doing this? Is it ethical to create something that’s bad for society and the planet?
I think that inventors can only foresee the immediate use of their invention because it is rooted in the historical and social setting. Inventions are mostly an answer to society’s immediate and apparent problems. However, I don’t believe that inventors can predict the usefulness of their product in the distant future. For example, the popular mouthwash Listerine, was invented 133 years ago as a surgical antiseptic and a treatment for gonorrhea. It was only in the 1920s that it was finally marketed as a powerful germ-killing mouthwash. Therefore, inventors can only see the immediate uses of their products, which were reasons for the invention. It is the constantly changing society and market that dictates the potential utility of a product.
In most cases of modern day innovation, it’s impossible for inventors to predict what might happen with their works, especially now that the scope of what Kelly considers the technium has become so broad that it encompasses almost every human creation. I believe there are times when things are created for very specific purposes, such as a new engine for a car model, or an updated version of anything really. Most often these additions to already outdated products don’t come very surprisingly and aren’t truly that invented, but they are still necessary for progress nonetheless. Original inventions that break all bounds are most of the time the least predictable because they are what allow humans to step just a little further into the unknown, the unthinkable, yet this is where the most spontaneous progress occurs.