Do Not Fear Progress and Technology; Fear Capitalism
Do Not Fear Progress and Technology; Fear Capitalism
Technologies, much like corporations, are not inherently ‘evil.’ Rather, they are shaped by cultural and ideological circumstances.
‘Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.’
— Stephen Hawking
The belief that technological advances will save us was once a cornerstone of public debate. Poverty, hunger, disease, and, later, climate change were thought to be powerless in the face of human curiosity and ingenuity. After all, technological advancements have enabled the Western world to live in unprecedented abundance and luxury (the Global South and its merciless exploitation are a different story altogether, of course).
As our lives grew longer and longer, our caloric intake ever increasing; and as our cities conquered the world and every last corner of this planet, leaving no ecosystem unaffected; as we defeated countless diseases and made constant progress toward eliminating others, one came to wonder: where will it all end?
Why does it feel like technology is turning against us now?
From making our lives easier and more comfortable to ever-increasing anxieties, stress, and the near-constant threat of economic and societal collapse — to the continued exploitation of our planet, its resources, and everything that walks, crawls, flies, or swims on it. Is it technological progress itself that is turning against us? Is it time to stop progress, perhaps?
The best way to support Beneath the Pavement is by becoming a paid subscriber. Your contribution of $5 a month helps me put out more and higher-quality content.
The paperclip maximizer
To illustrate how progress and cultural ideology, i.e. capitalism, cannot be regarded separately, let us consider the thought experiment of the paperclip maximizer, first described by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003.
A paperclip maximizer is a hypothetical artificial intelligence (AI) programmed to produce as many paperclips as possible. That is its sole purpose. What would be the consequences?
To increase its output of paperclips, the AI would constantly improve its own design and manufacturing process. In theory, the AI would become so efficient at producing paperclips that it would begin using all of our planet’s resources to do so, including, eventually, humans (whose bodies contain a lot of metal that could be used for making paperclips).
Is the AI in this case evil? Is the technology on which it’s based evil? The AI’s only way of interacting with the world is by making more paperclips (or not). It lacks any other frame of reference or set of (programmed) beliefs. It merely acts according to its underlying set of instructions, which it cannot alter by itself. Maybe its creators, who just wanted to make more paperclips, didn’t think it all through?
Modern corporations and, to some extent, governments are similar to the paperclip AI. They, too, follow a very specific set of instructions dictated by capitalism. Profit, shareholder value, stock prices, extraction, (GDP-) growth and expansion, artificial scarcity, and the elimination of the commons — these are the beliefs we have instilled in our institutions. Every piece of technology and private research effort will be aimed at fulfilling these objectives. Progress will be defined by increases in these metrics of success. It’s what the economist Jason Hickel calls ‘growthism.’
So corporations and governments, much like the paperclip AI, operate within a very narrow frame of reference. They are not evil in and of themselves; they simply carry out their instructions. What we have programmed them to do.
You wouldn’t expect the paperclip AI to care about environmental destruction or human lives — why would it? Its sole function is to manufacture paperclips. To achieve this goal, it will do everything in its ever-increasing powers. If unchecked, it will eventually destroy human civilization. Why should businesses and governments behave any differently? Why should they be concerned about ecosystems and climate change? About poverty, human suffering, destruction, and resource depletion?
Modern corporations, according to science fiction author Charlie Stross, are ‘slow AIs.’ And, much like Bostrom’s paper clip maximizer, these AIs — corporations — are following a set of instructions that compels them to optimize for the wrong goals and to regard human values as impediments.
Helping is not profitable; exploitation is.
The endless machine
One could argue that corporations are not entirely free to do whatever they want (contrary to the AI in the paperclip thought experiment). If they cause too much harm, humans — we as a society — would step in. Well, that is precisely where we find ourselves right now. Some may argue that we are already too late.
In the name of growth and neoliberalism, we have, indeed, allowed corporations to do whatever they want. I write about this in more detail here:
Corporations have effectively been free to exploit resources and people at will. In the West, strong civil structures such as labor unions and environmental protection groups have helped mitigate some of the worst consequences (although they, too, have been significantly weakened in recent decades), yet capitalism has not stopped exploiting; it has merely shifted to greener pastures.
Like every time it’s been confronted with limits, the capitalist system has found a ‘fix.’ Neocolonialism, in the form of structural adjustment programs by the IMF, World Bank, and the WTO, and the debt trap, for example, have served capitalism magnificently. These tools have also kept the Global South impoverished and hopeless.
Corporations are, in fact, actively murdering people to produce paperclips. They just aren’t doing it in our backyards. They do it in Nigeria, where BP and other Western companies fund violent militias and gangs to advance their interests, and they do it in the cobalt and lithium mines of the Congo, Zimbabwe, or Namibia, where unsafe working conditions and child labor kill an untold (and mostly undocumented) number of miners. But, first and foremost, they do it indirectly. By maintaining the status quo, by exploiting and impoverishing, by policies aimed at capitalizing on freely available resources, by influencing and corrupting politics, and by fueling climate change.
There is still insufficient incentive to put a stop to this, it seems. By the time we have realized what we allowed to happen, it will be too late. Welcome to capitalist dystopia.
What we truly fear
Most fears of technological progress are better understood as fears of capitalism. As concerns about how capitalists will exploit new technologies and use them against us.
How much would we fear progress, the future, and new technologies if we lived in a more equitable world? In a system whose foundations are not shaped by competition, individualism, egoism, never-ending growth, extraction, and the desire to put a price tag on everything? What if we lived in a more just system; one in which resources and the fruits of progress were distributed equally amongst all of us?
Are baby boomers the most egotistic, self-centered generation in history? Perhaps:
What we perceive as a fear of progress is rather a fear of how capitalism will make use of this progress. Of how it will make people’s lives even harder; of how it will increase inequality, enriching a few while further exploiting the many. Every innovation that improved efficiency has been used to increase profits and intensify exploitation, rather than improve lives (for example, by allowing people to work less or by sharing profits with the general public). A phenomenon called the Jevons paradox.
It’s critical to remember that this behavior is not intrinsic to technological advancement and innovation. Rather, it refers to how progress is perceived and applied in our society. It’s capitalism, with its doctrine of infinite growth on finite resources. Instead of welcoming technologies with the potential to improve our lives (for example, the recent advances in AI), we must constantly wonder how capitalism will exploit these advancements. We have to constantly look over our shoulders. Is this the behavior of a healthy society?
Technology is not impartial or neutral. It is constructed with a specific purpose in mind, outlined by its socio-historic context. This context defines and constrains the technology’s scope of potential applications.
We are limited in our ability to use technology beyond that scope because capitalism restricts our imaginations. Under the current system, it’s far easier to imagine a game-changing new technology making our lives more difficult, rather than allowing us to work fewer hours and enjoy more leisure time. One of the most destructive things capitalism does is limit people’s imaginations, preventing them from envisioning and working towards a better world.
It’s another symptom of capitalist realism.
I’m author, writer, and activist Antonio Melonio, the creator of Beneath the Pavement. If you enjoyed this piece, please consider becoming a paid subscriber here on Substack or over on Patreon. It’s the best way to support Beneath the Pavement and help me put out more and higher-quality content.
If monthly contributions are not your thing (I understand), you can also leave me a tip or some coffee money over on PayPal. Thank you.
To end this on a positive note, despite inevitable collapse, read this:
Sources and further reading
Fisher, M. (2010). Capitalist realism: Is There No Alternative? Zero Books.
Ted Chiang: Fears of Technology Are Fears of Capitalism | kottke.org
Ted Chiang: Silicon Valley Is Turning Into Its Own Worst Fear | buzzfeednews.com