Photo by Smithore, Unslpash

“You can’t stop progress” surely ranks as one of the most dangerous myths of our time. So deeply ingrained is this reflexive passivity that we rarely stop to question it. The result: we give new technology a pass. Otherwise rational, skeptical people wholly embrace new technologies in ways they would never embrace, say, a new religion or philosophy or political party.

This is no harmless blind spot. By automatically assuming any new technology is good because it is new (and because it is technology) we voluntarily surrender our agency, and diminish our humanity.

I am no Luddite. I am not suggesting we return to the cave or dial-up modems. Being against technology is like being against food. Silly. But we don’t eat just anything. We know that what we eat, and how much, matters. We read the labels, and sometimes we put that box of fudge-covered Oreos back on the shelf.

Likewise, we need to treat new technologies, and the frothy claims accompanying them, with the same rigor we’d treat any other human assertion. We need to ask questions. Here are five.

1. What is the problem to which this technology is the solution?

Mesmerized by the bells and whistles of a new technology, we often ignore this crucial question. What exactly is the problem this innovation solves, and is it worth solving? In the case of, say, antibiotics, the answer is clear: These wonder drugs solve the problem of serious, sometimes fatal, bacterial infections. In the case of, say, supersonic air travel the answer is less clear. Is it truly a problem that it takes six hours instead of three to fly from New York to London? Or is this technology merely supplying, “improved means to unimproved ends,” as Thoreau said?

“Because we can” is not an adequate reason to pursue a new technology. Nor is “because it is new.” Western cultures equate creativity with novelty; for us to consider something, anything, creative it must represent a radical break from tradition. Not so in Confucian countries such as China. The Chinese are less concerned with the novelty of an invention or idea and much more concerned with its utility. Not “Is this innovation new and surprising?” but “Is it useful?”

2. Is there another, non-technological way to solve the same problem?

Think of any problem, large or small, facing humanity and, most likely, the possible solutions that jump to mind are all technological. Worried about climate change? Here’s an app that calculates your carbon footprint or a shiny new electric car or “carbon capture” technology that redirects carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to offshore storage sites beneath the sea.

We assume that problems can only be solved through technology, but sometimes the best solutions are low- or even no- tech: driving fewer miles, for instance, or using old-fashioned paper ballots rather than complex and hack-prone electronic ones. Sometimes, yes, technology does offer the best solution — I’m all in favor of cardio defibrillators — but not always. Rather than spending billions to develop supersonic airliners, we could teach people how to cultivate traits like patience.

How often is there a better low-tech solution? We don’t know because we don’t stop to ask.

3. What is the technology’s bias?

No technology is neutral. They all contain a certain bias. I’m not speaking of a political bias but a teleological one. Aristotle believed that every organism has a telos, or an end purpose. For instance, an acorn’s telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. Objects have extrinsic teloses. A straw’s purpose is to transport liquids for drinking. Sure, you could use a straw for other purposes, but that is contrary to its telos, or its bias.

Likewise, television is biased toward the visual and the superficial, while print is biased toward the cerebral and contemplative. That is not to say you can’t produce thoughtful television or a vapid book. Clearly, you can, but you can only do so by swimming upstream, against the technology’s bias. These biases are not morally neutral, either. The defibrillator is biased toward saving lives, the assault weapon toward ending them.

Nowhere is this technology-is-neutral myth more apparent than when it comes to social media. Executives at Facebook and other social-media platforms insist their services are agnostic; they can be used for either good or bad. Yet this claim conveniently ignores the way their algorithms amplify certain human weaknesses, such as fear, and discourage others, such as empathy.

Again, no technology is neutral. When choosing whether or not to adopt a certain technology (and it is a choice) ask yourself: What is its bias? Which human tendencies does it encourage and which does it discourage? On balance, do I need this in my life?

4. What are the intended consequences of the technology?

There is no such thing as consequence-free technology. All gadgets have tails, some longer than others. And sooner or later, they all bite back. The over-use of antibiotics, for instance, has led to hardier strains of bacteria, impervious to these drugs. The widespread use of air conditioning in cities has increased outdoor temperatures by as much as ten degrees. Not all of these consequences can be foreseen, but many can.

Here is one small example. My Keurig coffee machine is incredibly convenient, but I should have foreseen that this convenience would lead me to drink more coffee and grow jittery by 2 p.m., or that the plastic capsules would harm the environment.

Sometimes the consequences are, on balance, acceptable — I wouldn’t want my doctor to stop prescribing antibiotics entirely — but sometimes the side effects are worse than the disease. We can’t foresee all of these side effects, but we can do a much better job of anticipating them.

5. Who stands to benefit if this new technology becomes widely available?

Technologies, even the most state-of-the-art, are not democratic. They benefit one social group more than another. Again, to use supersonic air travel as an example, it clearly benefits the busy business traveler more than the retired couple taking a leisurely vacation. Relatively expensive and perishable mRNA vaccines benefit the developed world more than poorer nations. That doesn't mean we shouldn’t build the next Concorde or develop the next mRNA vaccine, but we should do so with our eyes wide open about who stands to gain and who stands to lose.

Mesmerized by all things new and digital, we rarely stop to ask any of these questions. We simply assume that all new technology is good, until proven otherwise. Why?

Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where every new technology is blindly accepted, and slavishly deployed. Yes, we can we stop progress. To which I say: thank goodness.