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.