The idea that a technology is inevitable so we might as well accept it and adapt to is an unquestioned norm our our current society. When a new invention comes along--the desktop PC, the smartphone, social media, and now artificial intelligence--we are told that it is inevitable; that it is fruitless to resist. We should just acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to that technology-machine. To not do so is to be a Luddite. To not accept and adapt will somehow put you "behind." But is this the case? What if we question this so-called "doctrine of technological inevitability" used to promote these gadgets?
The idea of "technological inevitability" is largely unquestioned in our tech-worshipping world. As new gadgets come and go, consumers race in circles to keep up. But is this idea of inevitability reality, or is it a tactic of manipulative-marketing? Nichols Fox, in her book, Against the Machine, poses a question that gets to the heart of this inevitability doctrine:
"People must, in other words, adapt to the machine. The idea that it should be the other way around--that machines should adapt to humans--seems not to have occurred to anyone. And yet it would seem obvious. Who, after all, is in control here?"
This a clear statement that pierces through the inevitability doctrine of tech integration. We were told when PCs, social media, smartphones, (you insert whatever tech gadget you wish here)..."you have no choice but to use and adapt your lives around these devices." Now, AI is the latest and the inevitability doctrine of tech integration is again being invoked. But, Fox's question reminds us that I-you-we are still in control here.
The notion and question of who is in control at the advent of a new technology is immediately hijacked bu a promo-marketing assemblage of tech-inventors, entrepreneurs, consultants, salespersons, all who stand to gain a bundle and even establish their professional identities on getting more and more people to acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to this new technology. Their doctrine of technological inevitability immediately says, "You can't control this...you can't resist, so you might as well let this technology into your life as it is." These tech-promo-optimists frame the entire argument around the "get-on-board-or-be-behind-or-be-irrelevant" argument. It is their old promo-rhetorical tactic used over and over again. But it is wrong and manipulative. I-you-we are still in control. We can still choose which technologies we allow into our lives; we can choose how we use those technologies, and if they do not work for us, we can choose not to use them. We must see through the manipulative application of the inevitability doctrine of tech integration and adoption.
Our lives will certainly not end, and we will not be destined to a life of inefficiency and unproductivity if we choose not to adopt or adapt to the latest offering by Tech. The opposite could also be true that the adoption and adaption of our Tech will help us be more efficient and productive. The point, however, is, we can and should choose for ourselves if, how, and when we allow the shining baubles of tech to enter our lives. We need to take control of these instead of being controlled by these machines.
We also need to see through the manipulative marketing of tech-peddlers, consultants, and prophets of prosperity and discover for ourselves the role technologies play in our lives and work.
I-you-we still have the power of choice. We can demand that the technologies adapt to us, and if they do not, it is not a sin to say "No thanks."
No comments:
Post a Comment