Why I am a Techno-Realist
And not a Techno-Optimist
As a member of the Progress Studies community, I regularly find myself surrounded by Techno-Optimists. In fact, it would not be too far off to label “ Techno-Optimism” as a defining characteristic of the Progress Studies community. Unfortunately, that always makes me the guy to say “Yes, but.”
While virtually every other writer in the Progress Studies community writes largely about technological innovation, I do not. That is a conscious decision.
It is partly because I largely agree with their views of the causes and importance of technological innovation, and partly because I know far more about the other factors that cause human material progress. Those other causes are sketched out in my two foundational articles, The Five Keys to Progress, and How Progress Works. From the principles listed in those two articles, most of my other beliefs follow.
Not surprisingly, while other members of the Progress Studies community stampeded to support Marc Andreessen’s Techno-Optimist Manifesto in 2023, I had some reservations about signing (not that I was invited to sign).
I explained why in the article linked above, and soon afterwards wrote my own Manifesto for the Progress-based Perspective. This manifesto sketches out my ideas on progress, but it was a little light on my views on the role of technological innovation.
So I thought that I would explain my thinking on technological innovation in this article. I hereby declare myself to be a “Techno-Realist.” Read on to find out what that means.
See also my other articles on Technology and Innovation:
Book review: "The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves" by W. Brian Arthur (podcast)
What we share with Techno-Optimists
Techno-Realists share with Techno-Optimists the following assumptions:
We both see technological innovation as transformative to the human material condition.
We both see the vast majority of technological innovations as good for humanity.
We both see technological innovation as a key cause of human material progress.
We are both concerned about the apparent slowdown in technological innovation over the last 50 years.
We both believe that accelerating future technological innovation as a moral good.
We both believe that technological innovation can cause rapid societal change.
We both see that technological innovation can make the apparently impossible possible.
Where we disagree with Techno-Optimists
Where Techno-Realists depart from Techno-Optimists are the following observations. In general, while Techno-Realists are enthusiastic about technological innovation in general, they are skeptical of the success and importance of any one new technology, because:
The vast majority of technological innovations fail, typically because they are no better than existing technologies at solving a specific problem. Even really good ideas typically fail.
Even if strictly better than the competition, the probability of success of a specific technological innovation is shaped by much more than the characteristics of the technology, including:
Availability of capital needed to fund the project
Poor strategic decisions by the entrepreneur or engineer
Availability of skills needed to design, implement, test, manufacture, troubleshoot, and repair the technology
Marketing
Attitudes of early adopters
Human biology
Human psychology
Existing technology that competes against the new technology
Ability to plug into existing networks of technologies
Ability to conform to the culture and workflows of existing organizations, particularly corporations
Regulatory environment
Timing
Geography
Culture
Social bandwagoning or social shunning, particularly by the upper classes who set trends.
Simple accidents of history, such as wars, recessions, or regime change.
Probably many more reasons that do not come immediately to mind.
It generally takes decades for a new technology:
To be turned from a “good idea” into a prototype
To be turned from a prototype to a product for the market
For people to learn the skills to design, implement, test, manufacture, troubleshoot, and repair the technology.
To be optimized for performance, reliability, and usability.
To identify the correct market.
To get useful feedback from customers
To gather all the above to identify the proper business model
For manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales chains to be established.
For the company to get the financing to scale up once its business model has been established.
For consumers and businesses to integrate the new technology into their practices.
For businesses to realize how they can reform their current workflows to best utilize the new technology.
For businesses to hire and train new workers with the skills to implement those new workflows.
For all the secondary effects to ripple through the rest of the economy.
When you think of all the things that a new company must do to become an established medium-sized company, it is a bloody miracle that any of them make it. And they could go bankrupt at any step in the process.
New technologies scale up the S-curve until they don’t.
New technologies increase in performance and reliability until they don’t.
New technologies get cheaper until they don’t. In other words, straight lines and exponential curves do not go on forever, and it is very difficult to know when they will end until they do.
All technologies have advantages and disadvantages. Neither is immediately apparent. It takes time to figure them out.
Small, incremental improvements of existing technologies have a bigger total impact on society than truly innovative technologies. These incremental improvements make a product cheaper, more reliable, more performant, or more usable.
Ironically, Techno-Optimists are so fixated on “the next big thing” that they miss all the little things that are going on around them.Obsolete technologies rarely disappear, even when superior technologies dramatically drive down their market share. Test my theory, by searching for a supposedly obsolete technology on Amazon or other websites.
Seemingly obsolete technologies can get a new life in the market when combined with new technologies or business practices. The invention of the railroad dramatically increased the demand for horses and wagons.
It is extremely difficult to predict which technological innovations:
Will fail (as most innovations do)
Will have a moderate impact (as the vast majority of successful innovations do)
Will have a transformative effect on society (at best this is maybe 0.01% of all technological innovations)
So while it is realistic to be optimistic about the future impacts of technological innovation in general, it is far better to be skeptical about the impact of any specific technological innovation.
So while Techno-Optimists cry: “Gee, wheeze, I gotta repost this news about the latest technological innovation”, the Techno-Realists says: “Let’s just wait for another 20 years to see how it all works out.”
So while the Techno-Optimist tends toward irrational exuberance, the Techno-Realist tends toward skepticism.
There is room for both views
Fortunately, there is room for both Techno-Realist and Techno-Optimists. While the Techno-Realist is usually correct, the Techno-Optimists create the exceptions to the rule.
Entrepreneurs need a certain amount of irrational optimism about their ideas to drive their efforts forward. Every successful entrepreneur has had legions of people tell them that their idea will never work. The enormous drive to work ungodly hours for years or even decades on something that will likely fail is simply not rational. Such work efforts, however, are very useful for society so it should be encouraged.
But for the rest of us, I think a strong dose of Techno-Realism is in order.
After having worked for 20 years in the Digital Technology field (and a few others), I have been on many projects ordered by an overly optimistic executive who thought that he had a great idea. After many months or even years of pushing his team to keep working hard, only to end up in failure or at best tepid success that did not justify the effort.
When you are in such a project, it feels like a Death March. Whether you are a Venture Capitalist, engineer, manager, journalist, scientist, or just an observer of technology, it is best to stay skeptical about any one idea but always hold out the possibility of great success.
So while Techno-Optimism is probably best for your own technology project, Techno-Skepticism is probably best for other people’s technology projects. While every entrepreneur wants to throw in endless resources on their idea, those resources are finite and must be allocated by people who are less emotionally attached to the idea.
An example
I think a concrete example of the difference between Techno-Realism and Techno-Optimism is my recent article on the limitations of solar energy and a subsequent article on the limitations of wind energy.
Techno-Realists and Techno-Optimists agree on the importance of energy and our long-term ability to keep increasing energy usage. Doing so creates a solid foundation to solve other problems with technology.
This type of Techno-Optimists has faith that a specific energy technology will do so (in this case, solar) at the expense of a tested technology (those related to the production and distribution of fossil fuels).
What about Technophobes or Techno-Haters?
So, what do Techno-Realists share with Technophobes or Techno-Haters?
Not a whole lot.
Don’t take my definitions too seriously, but as I see it, Technophobes tend not to like to learn new technology because they are perfectly fine with what they have. They tend to be older people who are not impressed with something just because it is new. Technophobes really don’t care whether other people adopt new technology, they just want to be left alone.
Techno-Haters, however, see technology as destroying the human spirit, enslaving us, or leading to some sort of an apocalypse. They see accelerating material progress and technological innovation as morally bad because we are losing something more important. They are opposed to anyone adopting new technology, although they are conveniently willing to make exceptions for themselves.
Techno-Haters believe that we would all be better off if we just got off the train that is accelerating out of control. Technically, they are not opposed to all technology because they invariably use technology in their own daily lives.
Techno-Haters typically have a very hard time separating “good technology” from “bad technology” in a coherent way, except on the extremes, such as nuclear weapons. They see these examples of “bad technologies” as reason enough to constrain all technological innovation. Nor can they explain how we can predict the effects of a technology before it has been deployed in the real world.
Some Techno-Haters believe society would be better off with technology that existed at some unknown date in the past (which they rarely make clear). Techno-Haters are, in a word, Reactionary, at least as it relates to technology.
Technophobes and Techno-Haters have a negative view of technology and technological innovation and tend to focus excessively on what might go wrong. They are typically not so worried about the failure of an individual technology (which they often root against) as the negative effect that they think success will have on society or themselves.
Now, of course, many Technophobes and Techno-Haters think of themselves as realists, but the history of humanity undermines that conviction. Material progress is a fact, and technological innovation is a key driving force in that progress. Indeed, it is hard to imagine material progress without technological innovation.
So, while I think there are some substantive differences between Techno-Realists and Techno-Optimists, we share far more in common with each other than with Technophobes or Techno-Haters.
How I see the four rival attitudes towards technology
So if we were to display the four world views on technology on a Left-Right spectrum, it might look like this:
Techno-Optimists Techno-Realists Technophobes Techno-Haters
To a true Techno-Optimist, however, we look like Technophobes and Techno-Hater because we are always second-guessing their optimism. And to true Technophobes and Techno-Haters, we look like Techno-Optimists because we think technological Innovation is cool, interesting, and good for humanity.
So, basically, everyone hates us.
Which is just where I like to be!
: )
See also my other articles on Technology and Innovation:
Book review: "The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves" by W. Brian Arthur (podcast)
Good comments. Techno-realism is the only way, as someone with lots of engineering experience in electric power and aerospace, I can say with confidence there is no other successful approach. You can be forward thinking without falling prey to magical thinking.
A lot of people dislike technological progress because they don't trust their ability to adapt as fast and efficiently as their peers,even at a subconscious level.