Technological Progress is Slowly Killing the Social Contract
The relentless pace of change is accelerating, but have everyday people had enough?
I saw a recent news story that encapsulated everything wrong with technology today. On the surface it was funny, but beneath the headlines lies an inconvenient truth about technological progress.
In an Atlanta neighborhood that could be mistaken for anywhere in suburban America, residents encountered something quite unfamiliar: a constant stream of empty driver-less Waymo vehicles. At first there was a stray car here and there, but eventually upwards of 50 would appear per hour, ensnarling themselves around the cul-de-sac, unable to figure a way out.
Needless to say, the residents weren’t happy:
“We’re families, we have small animals and pets, got kids getting on the bus in the morning and it just doesn’t feel safe to have that traffic,” one resident told WSB-TV.
Another resident told WSB-TV, “We would like to just see them stay on main traffic roads. I don’t think there’s any reason for them to be on small residential cul-de-sacs if they’re not picking up somebody.”
What does the average person do in a situation like this? If these cars were driven by humans, you could at least attempt to reason with them. If that doesn’t work you could yell and express your rage, cathartic even if ineffective. But with a car driven by a computer, the person in this scenario is completely powerless. One resident attempted to put up one of those bright children signs only to cause a bigger traffic jam because the cars became too confused.
These worrisome developments in technological design, those that have ceded any power we might have in what used to be social situations, remind me of the famous line from Hemingway from a character who finds themselves broke: it happened gradually, then suddenly. What was envisioned as the ultimate expression of freedom has turned into a machine capable of trapping people within their homes.
Gradually the car was stuffed with new features, at first many of them important, like structural cages, seat belts and airbags. Most recently computers have arrived, importing streaming music and digital GPS. While not all of these were intended to directly save lives, most were aimed at making the experience better for the people in the car.
But the driver-less car is something entirely different. Instead of improving the experience of the driver, its purpose is to entirely replace them. Though it is only possible through the slow drip of technological improvements, designers have claimed to achieve the ostensible goal of safer cars, but with the real effect of controlling the entire process of driving. And with no way to hold these companies accountable in everyday life, an important part of the social contract has frayed.
Not all technological changes of the past decade have been this dramatic, but they are having the same effect of eroding societal norms. This incremental but rapid rate of change is everywhere. Recently, Google updated their graphic design, yet again. This is much less consequential than the Waymo example, but it’s a subtle shift that destabilizes our experience with the company and its platforms.
Most apps and website are doing the same thing, never announcing the changes but constantly tinkering with the UX design. Humans are used to relative permanence, as the built environment is much slower to change. Even there we are seeing a stylistic turnover nearing the speed of fast fashion. But the constant rapid change found in the digital environment is having profound impacts on our brains.
Where does this impulse come from though? “Copy and Paste” thinking has a lot to do with it. One of the most profound forces that the computer released was the ability to do and undo anything with rapid speed. Whether they acknowledge it or not, designers work with this power subconsciously embedded in their thinking. How many times do they hit Ctrl+Z on any given day?
A mark with a pencil implied permanence: while it could be erased, it would always leave an indent in the paper, a faint reminder of its author’s original intent. Then the computer replicated this ability, the marks made by the author identical to any other. Now we’re seeing the computer do the designing itself, the author relegated to the position of manager. No doubt that role will be eliminated. As those who write code know, it’s already being tried.
Now our brains are both hardwired to design with the possibility of rapid change and are conditioned to accept it through our increasingly digital environment. We seem to be barreling towards a cliff where we’re not only ready, but willing to cede control of many parts of our daily life. This all would be much less concerning if the folks who controlled the levers weren’t egotistical billionaires intent on leaving the planet, but they’ve shown time and again they have no interest in improving things for those of us who are stuck here. And it’s this combination - that between the profound abilities of the computer and the concentration of wealth/power - that has increased the rate of change to a point we might not be able to walk back.
Movements against this force are gaining steam, and it’s not hard to see why. When there’s not another human to interact with in the car that’s menacing your life, your options suddenly appear very limited. I used to say things like “I’m not a Luddite, but..” But maybe gradually, then suddenly, I might become one.