Robert Anton Wilson popularized the words neophiles and neophobes to describe people who enjoy and can adapt to rapid changes and those who fear and oppose change respectively. Whenever neophiles create and adopt a technological advancement neophobes step in to try and retard it. Strong cryptography allows individuals to securely communicate between one another. Neophobes, who are fearful by nature, cannot accept the idea of people having conversations that cannot be spied on. Advancements in automation require less human labor to produce more goods and services. Neophobes fear automation because they cannot conceive of a world where laborers don’t have to work as much or can find meaningful employment after being displaced by machines. Genetically modified crops can dramatically increase our species food production and feed more people with less resource expenditure. Neophobes want to halt production of genetically modified crops because they fear tampering with nature will have frightening and currently unrealized consequences.
The biggest difference between neophiles and neophobes is the former understands risks are inherent in change and accepts those risks while the latter fears change because it involves unknown risks.
Would you enjoy living a much shorter and hard life as a hunter gatherer in a cave? Because that’s what we’d all being doing if everybody listened to the neophobes. Advancement is scary because we don’t know how they will change the world. But advancement is far less scary than stagnation. This is why I don’t give any weight to arguments against technological advancement.
Are there risks in widespread availability to strong cryptography? Yes. Are there risks in allowing machines to do more and more of our labor? Yes. Are there risks in creating and cultivating genetically modified crops? Again, yes. However there are risks in enabling widespread surveillance, relying on manual labor, and refusing to advance agriculture. Those risks are powerful police states, injuries and deaths on jobs, and starvation.
Since the industrial revolution we’ve enjoyed a world where neophilia has surpassed neophobia. Even though we’re enjoying a standard of living unheard of only a generation ago the neophobes are still pounding their drums and trying to scare people into returning to the caves. Do you want to live in a world where we’re relegated to subsistence agriculture or one where robots produce more food than our species can possibly consume? If you, like me, desire the latter then you should work to ensure technological advancement isn’t hindered by neophobes. That means not supporting any efforts to stop the advancement of technology. Don’t support attempts to control the exportation of strong cryptography. Don’t support attempts to stop the adoption of automation. Don’t support prohibitions against genetically modified crops. Try to help technological advancements to flourish so more people can enjoy their benefits. Refute the neophobic fear mongering by pointing out how not adopting new technologies is also risky and how the fears of neophobia have seldom, if ever, been realized. Don’t help those who would return us to the caves.
That may be all well and good yet it appears you make the grievous error that all risks associated of new endeavor is quantifiable, ie known. Quite clearly we know this is not the case. In fact, often it is not the case. How do you allow for unintended consequence begat of faulty logic or other?
Too, by presenting the argument as binary (either accepting of unfailing technology or else back to the caves) it is assumed that anything -I do mean anything- which does not fully embrace the advent of technology is injurious therefore to be dismissed or in the least to be isolated for the greater good.
Yes, tech breeds tech (each advance creates new opportunity) yet to ascribe infallibility to the creation of fallible men is folly. Further, in the very literal sense, we see that many (most?) advances are resultant of previous error. As we go merrily into the future what new imprudence will be even then intolerable? I know hardly a thing of encryption yet you have also mentioned GMO and other industries. I quite enjoy going yet already there is case law regarding even the ability for one to manage their own crop. That is a rabbet hole we should stridently avoid. Shall the same be applied to, say ammo reloading? Shall new technology warrant restriction and prohibition on the individual? Even of digital encryption, who decides when the policy makers rule that only a newly created agency is the only arbiter? If one is to speak of technology it is incumbent to speak of regulation and the law. We’ve already seen too much messiness thereof.
If nothing else, your essay is thought provoking.
There are unknown risks involved in the status quo as well but since we’ve been living with it we assume we know all of the risks involved and therefore feel as though we’ve addressed them.
I never said technology is unfailing. And there is a sizable difference between not embracing a new technology and actively trying to prevent its development. Not purchasing a 3D printer is different than lobbying for a law that requires a license and various inspections in order to acquire a 3D printer.
Here genetically modified crops aren’t the problem, the state is. It is the state that creates the concept of intellectual property and enforces it at the point of the gun and it is the state that decrees how crops will be managed. Don’t confuse the state’s purpose of transferring wealth from the people to the oligarchs with risks involved in technological advancement. Especially since the state generally stands as the biggest hindrance to technological advancement and widespread adoption.
Restrictions and prohibitions on individuals is the root of retarding technological advancement since it is individuals who advance technology.
I speak quite often about regulation and law on this blog. The solution here is not to argue over what regulations and laws should be put into place but to abolish the state entirely and let the market work its magic.
It’s true that correlation does not imply causality but it can certainly point out a trend. We’ve certainly hit bumps in the road along but the history of our species is the history of overcoming obstacles. Sometimes those obstacles are natural and sometimes they’re created by us (I would argue that’s still natural since we’re a part of nature but I use the phrase to differentiate human versus non-human created obstacles).
Then you are probably in the neophobe camp.
And many ancient ideas were discarded because they were unworkable at the time. Advancements in technology allow old discarded ideas to be reexamined as they are often made feasible.
CORRECTION:
“I quite enjoy growing my own various crops unfettered of patent applied by other yet already….”
You likewise may point to our history and say see, we have done fine all along to today as if to say past performance is indication of future yields. Yet because it seems you are promoting a new idea, by definition it does not have a history. I am generally quite wary of new ideas. Marx had a new idea. Freud had a new idea. Darwin had a new idea. Roman had a new idea. Tech is nothing but the manifestation of thought. Whether by necessity or by error, it begins with thought. The meat and potatoes is that the New Idea is typically a rehashing of an ancient yet discarded New Idea which didn’t work. That war is continually fought.
The hysterical fear of GMO floating about is probably second only to the hysterical fear of some horrible climate catastrophe (Warming? Cooling? Or even more likely, all the worst features of both plaguing the entire world) also floating about. I wish all the pampered souls who believe such nonsense would go on a two-week excursion to experience what life was like not very many generations ago. I doubt most of them would last two days (I’m not sure I would either, but at least I appreciate the technology that allows me so many luxuries).