Call Me A Luddite

I’ve been involved with educational technology for over 2 decades. I’ve spoken at conferences around the world on the topic. Over those years, I’ve gone from a rabid cheerleader, a prophet of a beautiful technological paradise and future awaiting mankind TO a man much more a Luddite and of the view that technology should only be used if it truly provides a benefit in the fullest sense of that word.

I’ve just landed in South Korea. Technology is everywhere. I’m figuring it out. I landed, and with one swipe of the card, was whisked by bullet train 400kms away. I don’t have keys to my apartment or car. Just push a button or enter a code. I’m still looking for an ATM to pull out some cash - I think many Koreans have forgotten what cash looks like!

Technology is great when it benefits society when it “fits” and makes life more fulfilling, meaningful, and efficient. However, I see so many uses of technology that are only done “just because” and there isn’t much thought given to the ramifications of its use, in wider society. The only measure is, “cost-effectiveness”. The $ sign is our new god and driver of all decisions.

“We have devalued the singular human capacity to see things whole in all their psychic, emotional and moral dimensions, and we have replaced this with faith in the powers of technical calculation. Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that.”
― Neil postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

We recently went to our local pizzeria. No cash. No waiter, waitress, or server. Just punch in your order and pay at your table and the robot brings your things. Great! Right?

Wrong. Again, call me a Luddite but this isn’t how technology should be used. Not only because it takes away jobs but mostly because it is just cosmetic, not thought through. It ruins the social experience and culture of dining, a very ancient, nurturing thing. Tables are spaced widely apart so the robot can get about. There isn’t anything “human” in the experience. No chatter, no ambiance, no beautiful smile, and no surliness from the server. Just a beep, beep, beep.

I reject this kind of technology entering our human spaces. It’s a horrible use of tech. I do think we need a new default. I call it choice. Otherwise, we’ll have two levels of a society divided by technology. Those at the bottom who get the robots and those at the top, paying more, who get the full, human experience.

I think all restaurants like this should be forced to offer a “human” choice. What’s wrong with that? You can go for a table that has a robot or you can get a table with a person.

It’s the same with cash. I think all stores, restaurants, and commercial enterprises should by law be made to accept cash. No exceptions. Choice. Tech or paper. So what if someone has to count those bills and they aren’t beeps and squiggles on a screen? And then there is the matter of tech tracking everything we do (and probably a much bigger reason why technology becomes the default “go-to”. ). I’ll leave that subject for another day.

So what I’m saying is that we need to take control over our use of technology. As in my field of education - we need to learn that technology doesn’t automatically mean “best”. Issac Asimov, writing in the 1950s had some rules for robots;

First Law

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law

A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

But often not discussed or noted is his Zeroth law.

Zeroth Law

A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

And that' law is why I’m calling for choice in many situations where we institute/implement technology. Give the people a choice. Also, note that the use of technology is in our hands, it’s our choice - reject the use of technology if it harms humanity. And the “harm” I’m talking about is mostly cultural - destroying the cultural norms we’ve lived with for millennia.

What do you think? Are we throwing technology at everything, as a solution, without really thinking of the wider benefits/harm (also, think mRNA vaccines, our newest tech, pushed willy-nilly, thinking “it must be good, it’s cutting edge tech!)?

Over to you. You might also be interested in Niven’s Laws and Arthur C. Clarke’s Laws - related to this subject.