The Dark Side of the Technology Utopia
It’s time to figure out how to preserve the human element in industries that are being automated.
At Defrag 2009, a technology conference in
Denver, I am in a room full of people who hope that technology will play a big
role in helping the economy recover. As usual at technology conferences, people
tend towards a combination of idealism and hubris. People are ready to believe
that smart technological solutions exist for many of today’s ills, but they
also expect those solutions to raise the quality of life for most people.
It’s no surprise then that Andy
Kessler, a frequent Wall Street Journal contributor, struck a big
nerve yesterday with a keynote titled “Be Soylent–Eat People.” Kessler’s talk
certainly shared kinship with the usual technology idealist’s line–he
expressed an absolute faith in the ability of technologists to solve problems
and produce ever-increasing automation.
His celebration of technology, however, took on a dark note that
had many up in arms. His basic premise was that all business boils down to a
basic, cold equation: output per worker-hour. Some workers are creators, and
therefore productive. Everyone else’s jobs should be automated out of
existence. It is a testament, perhaps, to the extremity of his vision that he
suggested so much automation that even technology enthusiasts were offended.
This story is only available to subscribers.
Don’t settle for half the story.
Get paywall-free access to technology news for the here and now.
Subscribe now
Already a subscriber?
Sign in
You’ve read all your free stories.
MIT Technology Review provides an
intelligent and independent filter for the
flood of information about technology.
Subscribe now
Already a subscriber?
Sign in
Kessler’s ideas were presented with all the subtlety and
compassion of a sledgehammer. He classed teachers as “sloppers,” the category
of jobs that he characterized as “moving things from one side of the room to
another.” He also claimed that required entrance exams for professions are “bogus”,
and called doctors “sponges.”
These last provocative statements seem too based on ignorance to
be taken seriously. It’s a poor view of education, for example, that sees learning as
simply moving facts from some repository into students’ heads.
Analyst Stowe Boyd, in a later keynote, attacked
Kessler’s views as a “remorseless Taylorist vision.” Productivity, in Boyd’s
view, is not as easily quantifiable as Kessler seems to believe. Boyd pointed
out that when most people receive a request from a friend, they stop the
(productive) thing they’re doing and take a few moments to make an introduction
or write a recommendation. “People will continue to trade personal productivity
for connectedness,” he said, suggesting that connectedness could have its own
payoff.
Everyone I’ve talked to today has made some reference to Kessler, and thus when a negative reaction is so powerful and prevalent, it’s
worth examining why that is.
Technologists often promise that they will automate the tasks
that people find unpleasant, and Kessler seemed to suggest that vast swathes of
society’s tasks should be considered as such. His vision is rooted in the
automation that came to farming and factories.
Yet, today’s technology innovators don’t see themselves this
way. The obsession with information and social software is billed as a way to
stay connected with people, not as a way of automating them out of existence.
Kessler was disrespectful of many of the jobs he
suggested could be automated. And Boyd was right that productivity’s not so
easy to measure or understand. However, Kessler made people uncomfortable partly
because he pointed out and celebrated the dark side of the vision of
technological utopia as it still exists today. Industries are being automated out of existence–just ask
people in advertising or publishing.
At a press event I attended recently, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was
challenged about the mixed effect the search engine has had on the newspaper
industry. Schmidt responded by saying that technology companies such as Google
have a responsibility to help protect what’s valuable in the information
sources they depend on. He added, however, “We’ve not yet figured out how to
exercise that responsibility.”
There’s not much time to answer that question. Kessler
acknowledged the cold, uncomfortable equation by which machines replace people.
If that vision offends the people creating those technologies, now is the time
to think about how to avoid losing human value in the course of introducing new
technologies. Otherwise, that human value gets relegated to boutique movements
such as the organic food industry.