vinegarFlip digital capitalists over and you find technological determinists: people who believe technology drives history. These individuals view themselves as agents of what Joseph Schumpeter famously called “creative destruction.” They take pleasure in “moving fast and breaking things,” a phrase once used by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, until their representatives convince them that this approach is not ideal, not only because it means taxpayers will bear the consequences.
Technological determinism is, in fact, an ideology that influences your thoughts even when you’re not consciously aware of it. It thrives on a narrative that argues: Technical necessity Whether we agree or not, this narrative suggests that new innovations will continue to emerge. LM Sacasas explains “Every claim of inevitability serves a purpose, and narratives of technological inevitability serve as a convenient shield for tech companies to achieve their desired outcomes, minimize opposition, and persuade consumers that they are embracing a future that may not be desirable but is deemed necessary.”
However, for this narrative of inevitability to resonate with the general public and result in widespread adoption of the technology, politicians must eventually endorse it as well. This scenario is currently observable with AI, although the long-term implications remain unclear. Yet, some indications are troubling, like the cringe-worthy video incidents involving Rishi Sunak’s fawning over the world’s wealthiest individual, Elon Musk, and Tony Blair’s recent heartfelt conversation aired on TV with Demis Hassabis, the well-known co-founder of Google DeepMind.
It’s refreshing to encounter an article that explores the clash between deterministic myths and democratic realities, as seen in “Resisting Technological Inevitability: Google Wing Delivery Drones and the Battle for Our Skies.” Noteworthy academic papers soon to be published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, a reputable journal. Written by Anna Zenz from the University of Western Australia’s School of Law and Julia Powles from the Technology & Policy Lab, the paper recounts the narrative of how major tech firms attempted to dominate a new market with a promising technology – delivery drones – without considering the societal repercussions. It reflects how a proactive, resourceful, and determined public successfully thwarted this corporate agenda.
The company in question is Wing, a subsidiary of Google’s parent company Alphabet. Their objective is to develop delivery drones to facilitate the transportation of various goods, including emergency medical aid, creating a new commercial industry that enables broad access to the skies. This is evident in Australia, which hosts Google’s largest drone operation in terms of deliveries and customer outreach. It is endorsed by both state and federal governments, with the federal government taking the lead.
Zenz and Powles argue that by persuading Australian politicians to allow the testing of an Aerial Deliveroo-like service (under the guise of an “experimental” initiative), Google heavily relied on the myth of inevitability. Officials who already believed in the inevitability of delivery drones saw the potential benefits of embracing this trend and offered their support, either passively or actively. The company then leveraged the perception of inevitability to obtain “community acceptance,” manipulating the public into silence or passive tolerance by claiming that delivery drones were an inevitable progression.
One of the test sites for this project was Bonython, a Canberra suburb where the trial commenced in July 2018. However, the project faced immediate challenges. Numerous residents were perturbed and bewildered by the sudden appearance of drones in their neighborhood. They expressed outrage over the drones’ impact on their community, local wildlife, and the environment, citing issues like unplanned landings, dropped cargo, drones flying near traffic, and birds attacking and disrupting the drones.
While many communities might have simply grumbled and overlooked these issues, Bonython took a different approach. A group of proactive residents, including a retired aviation law expert, established a dedicated online presence, distributed newsletters, conducted door-to-door outreach, engaged with politicians, contacted media outlets, and submitted information requests to local authorities.
Their efforts paid off eventually. In August 2023, Wing quietly announced the termination of operations in the Canberra region. This decision not only marked the end of the project but also triggered a congressional inquiry into drone delivery systems, scrutinizing various aspects such as pilot training, economic implications, regulatory oversight, and environmental impacts of drone delivery. This investigation shed light on the blind acceptance of the myth of inevitability among public officials, prompting critical questions that regulators and governments should consistently pose when tech companies champion “innovation” and “progress.”
Echoing Marshall McLuhan’s sentiments in a different context, it’s crucial to acknowledge that “there is absolutely no inevitability if there is a willingness to reflect on unfolding events.” Public resistance against the myth of inevitability should always be encouraged.
After newsletter promotion
What I’m Reading
The Thinker’s Work
There are fascinating essays in New Statesman about John Gray’s exploration of Friedrich Hayek, one of the 20th century’s most enigmatic thinkers.
Turn the page
Feeling pessimistic? Check out what Henry Oliver has to say in this insightful essay.
A whole new world
Science fiction writer Karl Schroeder shares some provocative blog posts contemplating the future.
Source: www.theguardian.com
