Digital Transformation: Interview with David Edgerton, King’s College London

Summary

The speaker challenges the prevailing notion that digital technology is the sole driver of change in the modern world, arguing that this perspective is narrow and overlooks other significant developments. They critique the historical misrepresentation of technology's role, emphasizing the need for a more balanced and critical approach to understanding technological impact. The speaker advocates for a broader view that considers a variety of technologies and societal changes, rather than focusing solely on digital advancements.

Takeaways

• 🌐 The speaker emphasizes that technology today is often equated with digital, but there are many other developments happening globally that are not digital.
• 📚 The book 'The Shock of the Old' challenges the common narrative that technology's role in the 20th century is well understood, arguing for a more nuanced view.
• 🕰️ There is a bias in historical accounts of technology, focusing too much on early inventions rather than what was widely used, leading to a skewed perspective on technological impact.
• 🚀 The speaker points out that the biggest R&D spenders in the late 20th century were not tech companies but traditional industries like automotive, indicating a different technological landscape than commonly portrayed.
• 🤔 Quantifying the importance of technology is difficult, and we often lack critical analysis, instead accepting broad claims about digital transformation without scrutiny.
• 💡 The speaker suggests rethinking how we assess technology's role by comparing it to alternatives, not just assuming its indispensability.
• 📱 The ubiquity of digital technology doesn't necessarily mean it's the most significant; other technologies and societal changes could have similar or greater impacts.
• 🏭 The speaker critiques the concept of the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution' as overhyped, suggesting that it's not solely about digital but could encompass a range of industrial changes.
• 🚀 Tech entrepreneurs' big plans, like going to Mars, are often based on old technologies and ideas, not necessarily indicative of future trends or significant innovations.
• 🛠️ The speaker advocates for a more critical and less boosterish approach to discussing technology, encouraging skepticism towards hype and a deeper analysis of technological impacts.

Q & A

What does the author argue in 'The Shock of the Old'?

The author argues that our understanding of technology's role in the 20th century is flawed, as it often focuses on the early history of specific inventions rather than what was actually used by people, leading to a misrepresentation of the material world's history.

Why does the author believe that our accounts of the material world are biased?

The author believes our accounts are biased because they are usually focused on the wrong time period, too early, and often overlook the most important technologies of a particular era.

What is the author's view on the quantification of technology's importance?

The author suggests that we should begin to quantify the importance of technology, but acknowledges that it is more difficult than it seems, as we often take claims about technology's transformative power at face value without proper analysis.

How does the author propose we should evaluate the significance of computers?

The author proposes evaluating the significance of computers by comparing our society's performance with an alternative to computers, rather than assuming their indispensability.

What is the author's stance on the role of digital technology in societal change?

The author contends that while digital technology is pervasive, it is just one element among many driving societal change and argues against reducing all change to the digital.

Why does the author criticize the concept of the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution'?

The author criticizes the concept as it is often mistakenly attributed solely to digital advancements, while it could encompass a wide range of industrial changes, and the idea itself is not original, dating back to the 1940s.

What does the author suggest about the way we select and reject new technologies?

The author suggests that we should feel free to reject new technologies, as not every new invention is necessary or appropriate for our needs, and that rejection is a natural part of technological advancement.

How does the author view the predictions about the future impact of technology?

The author views many predictions about the future impact of technology as overly simplistic and often wrong, due to a lack of serious thought and analysis behind them.

What does the author think about the narrative that some technologies like driverless cars are inevitable?

The author believes that such narratives are implausible as they do not consider alternative solutions and are driven by certain interests rather than a comprehensive view of transportation needs.

Why does the author find it ironic that tech entrepreneurs promote old technologies as new?

The author finds it ironic because these entrepreneurs are seen as future-oriented, yet they are promoting technologies that have historical precedents, indicating a lack of originality in their vision.

What does the author suggest is the problem with the way we discuss the future of technology?

The author suggests that the problem lies in the use of vague and slippery terms that lead to moralizing and simplistic discussions, rather than empirical analysis of what is actually happening or likely to happen.

Outlines

00:00

📚 The Misrepresentation of Technology in History

The speaker begins by challenging the common assumption that all change in the modern world is digital. They argue that technology's role in history is often misunderstood, with a tendency to focus on early inventions rather than what was actually used. The speaker critiques the bias in historical accounts of technology, suggesting that we often focus on the wrong time periods and neglect the most significant technologies of an era. They also question the conventional understanding of invention, using the example of motor car companies being the biggest R&D spenders in the late 20th century, contrary to popular belief. The speaker emphasizes the need to quantify the importance of technology and to compare it with alternatives to understand its true impact.

05:01

🌐 The Overemphasis on the Digital in Modern Change

The speaker critiques the notion that the digital is the sole driver of change in the modern world, pointing out that many other factors contribute to industrial and societal transformations. They discuss the concept of the 'fourth Industrial Revolution' and suggest that it is not as original as it is portrayed, as it could encompass a wide range of changes beyond the digital. The speaker argues against the constant promotion of new machines as world transformers, a narrative that has been repeated for over a century. They advocate for a more critical and nuanced view of technology, one that is not swayed by the hype of tech promoters or the pessimism of critics, and instead encourages thoughtful consideration of technology's role in society.

10:04

🤔 The Need for Critical Analysis of Technological Trends

The speaker discusses the difficulty in finding solid, critical views on current tech trends, as both promoters and critics often fall into the trap of hype or inverted hype. They argue that the story of technology should not be moralized but analyzed and understood. The speaker questions the significance of digital technologies, such as AI and cloud computing, and points out that similar transformative claims have been made about past technologies like airplanes and television. They also challenge the idea of a dematerialized world, highlighting the continued importance of physical materials and industrial processes. The speaker suggests that we are not in a new era but rather experiencing a continuation of industrialization, and that the so-called fourth industrial revolution is not a novel concept.

15:07

🚀 The Paradox of Tech Entrepreneurs' Visions

The speaker finds it ironic that many tech entrepreneurs promote old technologies as new, such as electric cars and rockets, which have historical precedents. They suggest that these entrepreneurs are influenced by a futuristic mindset that is actually rooted in past visions of the future, rather than innovative thinking. The speaker criticizes the naivety of looking to science fiction and futurists for predictions about the future and argues for a more empirical approach to understanding current inventions and their potential impact. They also discuss the limitations in our understanding of what is being invented globally, as much research is conducted in secrecy or confidentiality, and the public is often presented with a selective view of technological advancements.

20:08

🔍 The Importance of Empirical Thinking in Future Innovation

In the final paragraph, the speaker emphasizes the need to move away from vague and slippery terms like 'digital', 'technology', 'science', and 'innovation', which can cloud our understanding of what is truly happening in the world of technology. They advocate for a more empirical approach to thinking about the future, focusing on concrete realities rather than broad and ambiguous concepts. The speaker points out the paradox that innovation policy, which should be a bastion of innovation, is often one of the least innovative areas of policy. They suggest that we should be clear about whether we are discussing the latest gadgets or the material foundations of our societies, as these are fundamentally different. The speaker concludes by encouraging a more mature and critical conversation about technology and its role in shaping our world.

Keywords

💡Digital

Digital refers to technology based on the representation of information using digits (usually binary). In the video, the speaker challenges the notion that digital technology is the sole driver of change in the modern world, arguing that it is just one aspect among many. The speaker uses the term to critique the overemphasis on digital advancements like computers and the internet, suggesting that society often overlooks other significant technological and social changes.

💡Technology

Technology encompasses the tools, systems, and methods used in the creation and application of goods and services. The video discusses how the term has become synonymous with 'digital,' but the speaker argues for a broader understanding that includes non-digital innovations. The speaker uses historical examples to show that technology's role in society has been misrepresented and is more complex than current narratives suggest.

💡Invention

Invention denotes the creation of something new, particularly a new device or process. The script questions the common assumption that we have a clear account of what has been invented and when. The speaker points out that the history of invention is often oversimplified, focusing on early stages of development rather than the technologies that are most impactful in a given era.

💡Material World

The material world refers to the physical environment and the tangible objects within it. The video discusses how our understanding of the material world is often biased towards early inventions and neglects the structures and machines that are most significant in a particular historical period. The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering the material aspects of technology in its historical context.

💡Quantify

To quantify means to measure or express the importance of something in numerical terms. The speaker argues that the significance of technologies is often assumed rather than quantified, leading to an incomplete understanding of their impact. The video suggests that a more rigorous approach to quantifying the importance of technologies like computers would provide a clearer picture of their role in society.

💡Transformation

Transformation implies a profound or dramatic change in form or appearance. The video critiques the idea that digital technologies are inherently transformative, suggesting that such claims are often based on hype rather than evidence. The speaker uses the example of the computer to illustrate the need for a more nuanced assessment of how alternative technologies might perform in comparison.

💡Industrial Revolution

The term refers to periods of major industrial activity and change that have marked shifts in economic and social development. The video challenges the notion of a 'Fourth Industrial Revolution' being driven solely by digital technologies, arguing that such a revolution could encompass a wide range of industrial and organizational changes, not just digital ones.

💡Luddite

A Luddite is someone who opposes technological change, often associated with resistance to new technologies that might replace jobs. The speaker corrects this misconception by explaining that the original Luddites were protesting against societal changes that affected their employment, not machines themselves. The video encourages a critical stance towards new technologies, suggesting that rejection of certain technologies is a normal and necessary part of technological development.

💡Propaganda

Propaganda is information, often biased or misleading, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view. The video describes how the impact of technologies like driverless cars is often presented as inevitable and beneficial, which the speaker views as propaganda. The speaker advocates for a more critical and less blindly optimistic approach to assessing technological advancements.

💡Innovation

Innovation refers to the introduction of new ideas, devices, or methods. The video discusses how innovation is often oversimplified and associated with a few high-profile technologies or companies, rather than a broader range of developments. The speaker argues for a more diverse and critical view of innovation, recognizing that not all new technologies will be adopted or prove beneficial.

💡Dematerialized World

The concept of a dematerialized world suggests a shift away from physical goods and processes towards digital or intangible ones. The video disputes this notion, pointing out that the current era is marked by significant material production and consumption, such as the widespread manufacturing of iPhones. The speaker uses this term to critique the overly optimistic and unrealistic portrayal of digital technologies as the primary drivers of societal change.

Highlights

The digital is often mistakenly attributed as the sole driver of change in the modern world, overlooking other significant developments.

The history of technology in the 20th century is misrepresented, focusing too much on early inventions rather than what was actually used.

The importance of technology is often overestimated without proper quantification of its impact on society.

The concept of invention is flawed; for instance, car companies were the biggest R&D spenders, not tech giants like Microsoft or Google.

Assessing the importance of technology should compare societal performance with and without that technology.

The assumption that digital technologies are inherently transformative is a bias that needs to be questioned.

The fourth Industrial Revolution is not a new concept and could apply to various industrial changes, not just digital.

The digital is just one element among many driving change, and its significance is often overstated.

The narrative that new machines will transform the world is a recurring theme that lacks originality.

Critics of technology are often mislabeled as Luddites, but they may simply be advocating for a different form of society.

The rejection of new technologies is a necessary part of adopting the most beneficial ones for society.

Consumers have the freedom to choose technologies that best suit their needs, including older versions or alternatives.

Future projections about technology's impact are often wrong due to a lack of serious analysis.

The term 'digital' has become the master concept for studying our world, overshadowing a broader understanding of technology.

The claims about digital's impact are not new and have a long history of being propagandistic with little basis in analysis.

The idea of a dematerialized world is fanciful, as the material world is more active than ever, contradicting digital utopianism.

The concept of inevitable technological progress, like driverless cars, is not as plausible as it seems and ignores alternative solutions.

Tech entrepreneurs' big plans, such as tunneling under cities or going to Mars, often reflect old technologies and ideas.

The future should not be dictated by the propaganda of tech gurus but should be open to a variety of scenarios and critical thinking.

Innovation policy is paradoxically one of the least innovative areas, despite its need for originality to succeed.

The language used to discuss the future is slippery and unhelpful; we should focus on empirical evidence of what is happening.

Transcripts

Whenever we talk about changes in the in the modern world we are very quick to

talk about the digital. In fact the word 'technology' today means 'digital'.

A digital gizmo, that's all it means. But of course we have lots of

developments going on in the world today. In fact, there is hardly anything that's

not changing. It's absurd to ascribe every change in the world today tp the digital.

About 10 years ago I published a book called "The Shock of the Old"

which is a global history of 20th century technology, which argued

essentially that we don't really have a good account of the place of technology

in the history of the 20th century either in rich countries or in poor

countries. In fact, we systematically misrepresent the history of the material

world in our accounts of the past, present and future of human society.

I've been teaching scientists and engineers the history of science and

technology for many years, and I was constantly looking for a way

to think about the place of technology in history.

I increasingly found that I was dissatisfied with what has been said.

Too much work is focused on the early history of some very particular

inventions rather than looking at what human beings actually used. So I argued

that our accounts of the material world were biased in time. They were usually

focused on the wrong time, far too early a period and were usually

biased away from the most important technologies or things or structures or

machines of a particular historical era. On top of that, we didn't have a

proper account of invention. We assume that we have an account of invention

that tells us about what was invented in any particular year but I discovered

that we don't. For example it comes as a surprise to know that in the late

20th century, the biggest R&D spenders in the world were motor car companies

like the Ford Motor Company, not the Microsofts and Googles of this world.

How can one quantify the importance of a particular technology?

One of the great problems with our understanding of the world of

technology is the fact that we don't quantify. We just take on trust

assertions that this or that technology is transforming our world. We should in

fact begin to quantify but it's actually much more difficult than you might think.

Take the question 'How important is the computer?' One answer would be 'What

would happen if all the computers stopped suddenly?' The answer then

would be 'Very important, because our world would come to a crashing halt.'

But that's not the right way of formulating the question. The question needs to be

formulated as follows: 'If instead of computers we had some alternative, what

is the difference in the performance of our society with that alternative and

with the computer?' That's to say we could do lots of things without

computers that we today do with computers. We could type a letter with

a typewriter, not a word processor. We could take a photograph with a wet

photography and indeed, we could do many things, from broadcasting

to fighting wars to all sorts of magical entertainment without the digital.

That has to be our comparison. But it's very difficult

because young people will not be aware of predecessors to the digital.

I remember a very funny occasion when on

the television program, in the early days of the Internet, the presenter of the program was

trying to communicate with an Internet guru in San Francisco from London.

They discovered that it was difficult to make this

video connection to this guru and they made mild fun of this poor chap

because the future hadn't quite arrived. But the real joke

was that actually, they could have picked up the phone to San Francisco and

spoken to him perfectly well.

We need to think not just about the one thing which everyone is talking about but

actually ask 'Why is the world changing as it is?' We should not assume that we

know the explanation, i.e., the digital. We should ask 'Why is it that things are

happening as they as they are?' Once we ask that question it becomes

very obvious that the digital is just one element of many.

It's very striking, the extent to which all change today is reduced to the digital.

People talk about the fourth Industrial Revolution actually a concept from the

1940s that people pretend is original. They think the fourth industrial revolution

is about the digital. Well, it could be about whatever is happening in

industry, so it could be about changes in chemical processes, it could be

changes in work organization, it could be about changes in any number of things, but

we essentially make ourselves ignorant of what is really going on by just

saying digital, digital, digital, digital. It might be the case the digital is

indeed the most important, but that has not as far as I'm concerned been established.

All I know is that digital is what you hear all the time. I don't see

much evidence that it's specifically the digital that accounts for 50 or 80

percent of the change.

The promoters of technology for many decades, over 100 years

actually, have argued that we absolutely need this one, two or three new machines

and that they will transform our world. That is a very familiar story.

In fact, there is hardly anything original about it.

All that changes is the particular machine. So once the radio would bring the world

together, later it was television and now it's the Internet.

Wars will be abolished by new explosives, by airplanes, and by atomic bombs.

It's a very familiar kind of story that's told. It's extraordinary really that people still

still get away with giving the impression that this is an original story.

Now one difficulty of being critical of these stories is that people

assume that that one is against change. But actually, I am all in favor of change.

I want more change, and I think one way that we will get more change is if we stop

thinking about the material constitution of the past, present, and the future in

this terribly passe way. We really need to find a refreshed, more interesting and

more grown-up way of thinking about our world and how we might change it

or how it might be changed by others.

People who are opposed to a particular argument about a new technology are

often called Luddites or conservative backward-looking people that want to

keep the world as it is. Actually that's not right. The original Luddites

were complaining not about machines but about a new form of society

that was depriving them of work. Similarly today, we should feel

free to reject the blandishments of the promoters of new technologies.

One thing that's very important to remember in this context is that there

are lots and lots of new technologies to choose from. In fact, we have to reject

most new technologies, because we're not going to live in a world with ten

different types of telephone or fourteen different kinds of transport machine.

We need a reduced number, and that implies rejection. Indeed rejection of

novelty has been central to our adoption of appropriate or sometimes

inappropriate machines in the 20th century. Rejecting machines is something

that scientists and engineers and investors do all the time and have to do.

We as consumers do the same, and we should feel free to do that.

Of course the advertisers of a particular product have to insist that

we take their product, but we don't have to. We can say, 'no thank you, I prefer this

other one,' or 'I prefer for the moment to buy nothing at all,' or indeed

'I preferred the old version. I'll have 1990's Nokia, thank you very much, not an iPhone 7.'

We're perfectly free to do that. There's no shame in it it.

It doesn't imply backwardness or a desire to make us all poorer.

Not anything like that. We should be free to choose.

The assessment of the impact of significance of a particular techniques

is extremely difficult, and of course, most projections into the future of what

the impact will be are wrong and often risibly wrong. Often they're

wrong because no serious thought has gone into the impacts.

We have propagandistic positive stories and equally propagandistic negative stories.

We really do need to start thinking in a more grown-up way about how we

might change our world and what the place of technology will be in that world.

But alas we don't live in that world. We live in a world of

tech boosterism and tech negativity. We moralize like teenagers

about new technology. Really, we ought to up our

game and upping our game means being very critical, I think, of most of

what's written and said about this magical thing 'technology'.

Where would one go to get solid critical views of today's tech trends?

It's rather difficult because there are many people that are critical of

technology but they often really invert the hype. 'So technology X is going to

have positive effects,' say the promoters. 'No, it's going to have negative effects,'

say the critics. I think usually the promoters and the critics are both wrong.

The story of tech is a story that's not told.

In any case, it's not a story we should moralize about. It's a story that we need

to analyze, need to understand, need to investigate as we don't have much sense

really of what's going on. The critics and the promoters are

made for each other, so we mustn't confuse criticism of the

hype with criticism of the technological world.

What's your view on some of these so-called transformative digital

technologies, like AI, Big Data, cloud computing, etc?

I find it very interesting that the term 'digital' is now the master concept for

studying our world. Technology in a broader sense was the

master concept for studying our world until recently.

I just find it very difficult to think about this. I think it's self-evidently a bit strange

that people attribute so much importance, so much change, to this

particular narrow set of techniques. Now I'm the first to recognize that the

digital is everywhere, but I have more difficulty in seeing just how

significant it might be. I'm also very familiar as any historian of

technology has to be with very similar stories told in the past about airplanes

about atomic power, about rockets, about radio, about television... So the claims

aren't in themselves novel. They have a long pedigree, and I think it's true

to say that most of the claims made in the past were essentially propagandistic

claims with little basis in their analysis and these claims that are made

today reek of exactly the same problem. I'm not saying that

one couldn't have a serious assessment of the digital and its impact and what

it might be in in future, but that's not what one gets.

One gets all sorts of extraordinarily crude stories about knowledge societies

the de-materialized world, the Fourth Industrial Revolution

and they clearly cannot be right.

We do not live in a dematerialized world. There is more material whizzing around the world today than ever before.

We haven't reached peak coal, we haven't reached peak concrete, we haven't reached

peak oil, we haven't reached peak motorcar or peak electricity.

The idea that we have left all these things behind and are now just

a bunch of near weightless electrons seems to me utterly fanciful.

Yet, that is the kind of story that is told. Stories of knowledge societies

stories of the post-industrial age. Actually, we live in the most

industrial age ever, and never before in human history has a single product

let us say, the iPhone, been made in such numbers.

Never before in world history have we had factories as large the factories

that put together iPhones. So my response is that in many ways we've been here before.

In many ways what we see is the playing out of a very long process

of industrialization of the world rather than a radical transition

between one kind of world and the next. But as I say, it's been a feature of

that modern industrial world that some gurus, boosters, have claimed again and again

that the latest machine is going to transform the world, it's already

transforming the world, indeed. So that is why we already had four

industrial revolutions by 1940. It's a shame the promoters of the fourth industrial revolution today

don't know that that they've been anticipated by many

decades in their rather silly notion.

I hear a lot that some of these technologies are inevitable

like for example driverless cars. What's your view on that?

Well, it could happen, but you only have to think about the particular arguments

that people typically make to see that they are implausible.

One reason they're implausible is that they don't admit of any alternatives.

For example, people talk about driverless cars.

There are alternative ways of organizing transport in the city.

For example we could get rid of private cars tomorrow and insist that everybody

travels by bus. This would free up the roads for a lot more buses. We could get anywhere, not with

driverless buses but with buses with drivers but we would not have to drive

around in our own vehicles. But that's not on the agenda.

The story is being driven by the Googles of this world not by public transit auhorities.

The point is we do need to think not just about the digital but

about what we need for example in the area of of transport. There are many

more ways of organizing the future of urban transportation than driverless cars.

Is this optimism dangerous?

Well, I wouldn't call it optimism, I would call it propaganda.

I think we should be optimistic

and I'm optimistic that we could achieve a consensus that we need a more

grown-up way of thinking about our options for the future, but that does

mean rejecting the propaganda of these gurus. There are many ways

of thinking about the future. There many possible futures to think about.

I think the great tragedy is that we we have let ourselves be conned into thinking the

future has to be of the sort that the propagandists for particular techniques

tell us it is. We either react by applauding that or by condemning that.

We shouldn't do that. We should remember there are other scenarios.

What's your view on some of these bold plans of some tech entrepreneurs, like

tunneling under cities or going to Mars.

I think it's fascinating actually

that's so many of the Internet entrepreneurs have as sidelines the

promotion of very old technologies. Elon Musk - electric cars.

Electric cars to me say 1900. I think Sergey Brin is building an airship.

Now airships are for me 1920s, 1930s. And then a whole bunch of people are

building gigantic airplanes bigger than this Spruce Goose of the 1940s

and rockets! What could be more 1950s or 1960s and then space rockets.

And of course, going to Mars... Well, that is such an old-fashioned idea.

I mean, it's a staple of science fiction. They're going into the 19th century.

Perfectly illustrates the point that the supposedly

future-oriented people are actually stuck in the past.

The trouble is, they don't know it.

Why do you think some tech entrepreneurs have these big plan to change the world?

Well, I think that they are brought up in a frame of mind

that sees the future in this way. I mean you only have to read

about the future to know that this is what the future is going to be.

We have lived with a literature telling us what the future is going to be for a very

very long time. If you read it, this is what you come up with.

But it's the wrong place to look for the future. We should look at the actual history

of the 19th and 20th century and that would tell us

very different things from sci-fi, from the projections of the futurists.

But it really is a very naive way of looking at

the world and actually a very naive way of looking at what's being invented.

We don't actually know what is in fact being invented across the world today.

It's clearly not the case that a significant proportion of our resources

are going to finding new ways to get to to Mars. It is a highly publicized activity

but not significant in the in the bigger run of things.

Which do you think are the really significant inventions of our time?

I don't know, and I don't think anybody does.

Most innovations or most research of course is being done if not in secret

at least in confidence, and its results aren't shared with wider public.

In that sense we can't have a global view of what is being invented now and

what will be significant. All we get is very selected, propagandistic images.

I don't know what the future that is being made

in the laboratories of governments and corporations is. Interestingly, when I

go to conferences to hear about the future, I am never told that either.

I'm just told about some very particular stories, usually ones I've been hearing for

20, 30, 40 years. But if we are serious about knowing about future we

have that's what we have to know about. What actually is being planned

and not just in Silicon Valley, but around the world.

One problem is is that research agencies around the world feel forced to research in

areas everybody else is researching in. Research managers never lost their job

by doing what was being done in the United States, France, and Germany

but there's a severe risk they would lose their job if they did something that was

actually original and which indeed might have a greater chance of success.

It's a great paradox that innovation policy is one of the least innovative

areas of policy in the world but one that ought to be innovative has to be innovative, indeed

if it's going to succeed. Not everybody can be top dog

in innovation in any particular area. It is a winner-takes-all

or winner-takes-a-lot game, so you want to make sure that you're in a game that

you have a chance of winning.

One way to sum up the problem is that we use very slippery words

when we're thinking about the future. We use words like 'digital', words like 'technology'

words like 'science', words like 'innovation', that could mean many

different things. I think we should stop using all of these words and think much

more empirically about what's actually going on or what's likely to be going on.

What is technology? For example at one moment it is nothing but the latest

digital gizmo. At another it is the material basis of our societies.

We can't have those two concepts working at the same time. We need to be clear

whether we're talking about one kind of latest gizmo, or we're talking

about the material constitution of our world. They're clearly very different things.

Let's get rid of these these brain-macerating terms

these terms that force us it seems to moralize in a childish way and

think seriously about what we're trying to invent, who's trying to invent it

for what reason, how we'd like to change our world. And then we could have an

interesting chat and people like me would have to spend

their time appearing to be Luddites.