Old Innovations, Ironies, and Crimes against Reason

Abstract

Much as we appreciate the bounties technological innovation has brought us, we seek not to succumb to technological enthusiasm. We seek to assess technological innovation pragmatically. Technology is neither good nor bad; neither helpful nor harmful. Technology is nuanced, and each technological innovation comes with its costs and benefits. The innovator’s utopian vision of the future, in which the innovation would receive universal accolades, rarely occurs. It is, however, this vision, frequently a single-minded vision, that urges the innovator forward, and we respect that. All innovation brings about disequilibrium of the status quo. In sum, innovation disrupts. Innovators see problems where others may not, and their innovations are intended solutions to these problems. Since the introduction of an innovation would disrupt the way we make sense of the world, it would induce any of us to adjust our relationship with the world. Often such adjustment takes time. Some of us may resist an innovation. Some of us may reject it, use it inefficiently, or differently than expected or proposed. Some of us will modify tinker with, disassemble, or reassemble the innovator’s technology.¹ Once a technology is released into the markets, the innovator, like any other creator, loses control over the creation. This loss of control implies that it is necessary to think not just about the unintended consequences of technological innovation, but also about the complex factors that influence innovation before, during, and after its conception.