Don’t disagree, but I don’t think you really need new technology if you have good street and building design. And all the tech in the world can’t make up for bad urban design.
Weirdly shallow take Andy... I think you've misunderstood the way they are using the word "tech". Those writers are not talking about the concept of technology, but the tech industry... It's probably worth pointing out your OG-techbro Guttenberg effectively died bankrupt, having run a 'printing' business, not an 'intellectual property ownership' business.
Andy - methinks the bit of nuance here is to be a fan of technological progress that humans willingly adopt (which is a mark of human progress, and has given us nearly all of what we enjoy over the last 100+ years), vs. tech or progress that is essentially forced upon people from the top down. Whether public sector or corporate cronyism, the push to force new tech before we have worked out the kinks over time is what has caused a lot of our issues. For example, we massively destroyed our cities in favor of cars - not because of the car - but because policy and $$ forced that change quickly and decisively. We didn't allow human societies to gradually work out how to live best with cars. The tech itself (the car) is actually a wonderful and amazing advancement. The policy response is what has left us with all the negative consequences. I think from an "urbanist" standpoint, what I fear most is the dramatic policy response to emerging technologies.
The lack of nuance is why this has been on my mind. You can probably boil down any improvement to an idea or a technology. (Even the alphabet to write ideas is a technology.)
Criticism of leaders that choose to invest public $$ in expensive, unproven solutions (e.g. underground tunnels for cars in Las Vegas) at the expense of inexpensive, proven solutions (e.g. frequently running buses and trains), does not make me a Luddite, and I resent the implication. See also, Autonorama by Peter Norton (2021).
In Andy's defense, I don't feel he's suggesting that anyone who raises questions is automatically a Luddite any more than anyone who promotes new technologies is automatically a Tech Bro, either. Is Unproven Technology X a better solution than Proven Technology Y? The question is legitimate and needs to be explored and examined. Questions should absolutely be raised about new technologies and alternatives weighed at every turn. But they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either. Every new technology is by definition unproven until it is either proven or not.
When I read the article, it felt to me like he wrote it in response to the body of urbanists who have a deeply seated skepticism toward the unrealized promise of new technologies, whose "resistance to technological advancement" is unfounded (implied), and a barrier to progress. The straw man from the first paragraph: "technological advancement...cannot be our savior. For some, the resistance is a fear that technology will bring about catastrophic consequences, unleashing forces beyond our control." He doesn't attribute it to anyone in particular, although I admit it wouldn't be hard to find someone who has said this, or something similar. I suspect Andy was writing the article for folks like me, since this is very close to what I believe to be true, although I take issue with the absolutism of "cannot". I would modify it to something along the lines of "is highly unlike to be our savior." The reason for our skepticism is not dogmatic--it's based on a long history tech bros overselling the promise of their tech, and of leaders embracing "technological advancement" without fully understanding the consequences (many of which have indeed been catastrophic). The root cause of some of our most intractable urbanism problems are directly attributable to leaders leaping without looking when it comes to new technologies. Look no further than over-investment in the (false) promise of automobiles which undermines (and in many cases has killed) mass transit and critically enables suburban sprawl. The strategic decision that many urbanists face when tackling this (and other) problems: (1) do we acknowledge the mistakes of the past, and try to rewind/reclaim some of the investments/decisions that caused the problem in the first place? or (2) do we put those mistakes in the rear-view mirror, what's done is done, and seek new solutions through innovation and new technology? Although the simplistic answer -- do both ! -- is generally true, the more nuanced reality is that there are limited resources and competing priorities, and there is an opportunity cost to pursuing one over the other. It's not that I or others want to dismiss these technological solutions out of hand -- that's not fair -- it's that time and time again -- our collective bias has been for option (2) instead of option (1). (And Andy's article is a good manifestation of this bias, I think.) The "technology skepticism" camp is trying to say (apparently unsuccessfully): it's not that all technology is necessarily bad/evil/ineffective, it's that we honestly don't know the net effect of a lot of it, and a lot of them will inevitably have unintended consequences we were unable to anticipate (based on the historical record). In addition, option (2) is usually very expensive (especially when it misses)! There is an opportunity cost to every $$ and every hour spent on an unproven solution. Therefore, our problem-solving bias should be flipped from what it currently is. All things being equal, we ought to bias option (1) over option (2); the burden of proof for option (2) needs to be high; we should be mindful of the opportunity cost of pursuing option (2) (compare ROI vs investing in a proven solution); and when we do pursue option (2), we should do so incrementally over time. Moreover, this should *not* be the same standard for pursuing option (1) solutions, which usually have a track record of success, and for which we have a much better understanding of the consequences/costs.
All solid points. As just one recent example, the amount of money that's been blown on hyperloops is staggering and clearly could have been better spent on technologies that weren't such a colossal leap. And don't get me started on automotive AVs where the meter is still running. Opportunity costs are real, and resources are finite.
I live in Columbus, Ohio, and the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) has leadership that is enamored with new tech -- tens of millions of dollars have been spent on high tech transit ideas/planning which never went anywhere (all that $$ gone, with nothing to show for it), and on an Uber-style call-and-pick-up service (high $/ride). All of this has been at the expense of running a bus network that is frequent, reliable, and convenient. The opportunity cost is insidious, and I believe it's directly attributable to COTA leadership perceiving themselves as "Tech Bros" (or Tech Bro adjacent).
My favourite tweet ever was Taras Grescoe's from 2012: "The real future of the city is 21st century communications (smartphone, apps, twitter, texts) and 19th century transport (subways, streetcars, bikes)" I still believe he is generally correct; we don't need or want autonomous cars or Elon's tunnels (or elon's twitter but that's another story)
It’s not so much an “even if a few people profit handsomely” but that profit seems to be the goal of emerging technologies of the present. Only those who can afforded them will benefit from them. The move fast break things spirit leaves folks behind then blames them for being left in the digital dust of technological advancement.
I think of the Bill Hicks bit from the first Iraq war in which he posits military technology could be used to feed hungry people around the world. The technology is not developed in vacuum and it would seem as the military industries complex has mutated in the new century it’s only after those maintaining their power have been served that the rest of the population might benefit.
All valid points. But as the same time, technologies can also be democratizing and lift up entire populations. Witness the role of Twitter in the Arab Spring in Egypt (I express reluctantly, I admit given Twitter lately) or the image of the protestor in Tiananmen Square that galvanized a movement. But wholeheartedly agree: we have to work to ensure there are no digital divides where people are left behind. What would have happened if there had been no rural electrification under FDR? And absolutely, all technologies can (and probably will be abused) from facial recognition to data analytics. Whether Gutenberg was a tech bro or not, the REACTION was the same as it's been for centuries: certain people are scared and threatened by anything new. Trivia: Saboteur is derived from the French word for shoe (sabot) because textile weavers used their shoes to destroy the first looms because they thought it threatened their jobs. Technology changes, but sadly, people's reactions do not.
These are great examples of how technology has benefited the masses however look at what tech bros have done since the Arab Spring to restrict that kind of dissemination of information. It’s very dangerous to defend tech bros without looking behind the buzzword at who they are, how they got to where they are, and how very often it is the creative use of the technology by the people that yields the benefits we so often laud as the result of said tech bro!
I consider myself a cyberfunkadelic in that I think technology is good and nothing is good if you don’t play with it. I also do not believe we should be so quick to divide it from nature because no matter how hard we try we cannot escape her.
On that note I feel your final point of “technology changes but sadly people’s reactions do not” is part of this tradition of reifying social phenomenon such that they come across as natural and part of human nature. Perhaps it is true we are a conservative sort, out of the fears that come with self preservation. Now more than ever it makes sense to feel threatened by a technology that will eradicate an already eroded way to try and make ends meet and fail. It’s hard to argue that as a whole technology is liberating the masses particularly when the richest barons among us are getting richer off the surveillance capitalism model that Google ushered in at the turn of the century.
We should be praising the folks that did the work, not the bros who are gazing into the abyss of their navels trying to muster up a future cobbles together from the last science fiction novel they read or watched probably in their youth.
The future does not belong to the tech bros it belongs to the people! Fortunately those among us are already staking their claim while the tech bros try and rally their right to something that isn’t theirs. May their cyber colonialism fall just like the kingdoms of the power hungry that came before them!
Hi Sean, not disagreeing at all. Twitter is perhaps the poster child of a technology that many feel has become corrupted from its ideals and instead now spreading moral bankruptcy. Technology advancement can be not just disruptive but painful with a mountain of both positive & negative consequences to be sorted through and dealt with.
Don’t disagree, but I don’t think you really need new technology if you have good street and building design. And all the tech in the world can’t make up for bad urban design.
Weirdly shallow take Andy... I think you've misunderstood the way they are using the word "tech". Those writers are not talking about the concept of technology, but the tech industry... It's probably worth pointing out your OG-techbro Guttenberg effectively died bankrupt, having run a 'printing' business, not an 'intellectual property ownership' business.
Andy - methinks the bit of nuance here is to be a fan of technological progress that humans willingly adopt (which is a mark of human progress, and has given us nearly all of what we enjoy over the last 100+ years), vs. tech or progress that is essentially forced upon people from the top down. Whether public sector or corporate cronyism, the push to force new tech before we have worked out the kinks over time is what has caused a lot of our issues. For example, we massively destroyed our cities in favor of cars - not because of the car - but because policy and $$ forced that change quickly and decisively. We didn't allow human societies to gradually work out how to live best with cars. The tech itself (the car) is actually a wonderful and amazing advancement. The policy response is what has left us with all the negative consequences. I think from an "urbanist" standpoint, what I fear most is the dramatic policy response to emerging technologies.
The lack of nuance is why this has been on my mind. You can probably boil down any improvement to an idea or a technology. (Even the alphabet to write ideas is a technology.)
Criticism of leaders that choose to invest public $$ in expensive, unproven solutions (e.g. underground tunnels for cars in Las Vegas) at the expense of inexpensive, proven solutions (e.g. frequently running buses and trains), does not make me a Luddite, and I resent the implication. See also, Autonorama by Peter Norton (2021).
In Andy's defense, I don't feel he's suggesting that anyone who raises questions is automatically a Luddite any more than anyone who promotes new technologies is automatically a Tech Bro, either. Is Unproven Technology X a better solution than Proven Technology Y? The question is legitimate and needs to be explored and examined. Questions should absolutely be raised about new technologies and alternatives weighed at every turn. But they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either. Every new technology is by definition unproven until it is either proven or not.
When I read the article, it felt to me like he wrote it in response to the body of urbanists who have a deeply seated skepticism toward the unrealized promise of new technologies, whose "resistance to technological advancement" is unfounded (implied), and a barrier to progress. The straw man from the first paragraph: "technological advancement...cannot be our savior. For some, the resistance is a fear that technology will bring about catastrophic consequences, unleashing forces beyond our control." He doesn't attribute it to anyone in particular, although I admit it wouldn't be hard to find someone who has said this, or something similar. I suspect Andy was writing the article for folks like me, since this is very close to what I believe to be true, although I take issue with the absolutism of "cannot". I would modify it to something along the lines of "is highly unlike to be our savior." The reason for our skepticism is not dogmatic--it's based on a long history tech bros overselling the promise of their tech, and of leaders embracing "technological advancement" without fully understanding the consequences (many of which have indeed been catastrophic). The root cause of some of our most intractable urbanism problems are directly attributable to leaders leaping without looking when it comes to new technologies. Look no further than over-investment in the (false) promise of automobiles which undermines (and in many cases has killed) mass transit and critically enables suburban sprawl. The strategic decision that many urbanists face when tackling this (and other) problems: (1) do we acknowledge the mistakes of the past, and try to rewind/reclaim some of the investments/decisions that caused the problem in the first place? or (2) do we put those mistakes in the rear-view mirror, what's done is done, and seek new solutions through innovation and new technology? Although the simplistic answer -- do both ! -- is generally true, the more nuanced reality is that there are limited resources and competing priorities, and there is an opportunity cost to pursuing one over the other. It's not that I or others want to dismiss these technological solutions out of hand -- that's not fair -- it's that time and time again -- our collective bias has been for option (2) instead of option (1). (And Andy's article is a good manifestation of this bias, I think.) The "technology skepticism" camp is trying to say (apparently unsuccessfully): it's not that all technology is necessarily bad/evil/ineffective, it's that we honestly don't know the net effect of a lot of it, and a lot of them will inevitably have unintended consequences we were unable to anticipate (based on the historical record). In addition, option (2) is usually very expensive (especially when it misses)! There is an opportunity cost to every $$ and every hour spent on an unproven solution. Therefore, our problem-solving bias should be flipped from what it currently is. All things being equal, we ought to bias option (1) over option (2); the burden of proof for option (2) needs to be high; we should be mindful of the opportunity cost of pursuing option (2) (compare ROI vs investing in a proven solution); and when we do pursue option (2), we should do so incrementally over time. Moreover, this should *not* be the same standard for pursuing option (1) solutions, which usually have a track record of success, and for which we have a much better understanding of the consequences/costs.
All solid points. As just one recent example, the amount of money that's been blown on hyperloops is staggering and clearly could have been better spent on technologies that weren't such a colossal leap. And don't get me started on automotive AVs where the meter is still running. Opportunity costs are real, and resources are finite.
I live in Columbus, Ohio, and the Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) has leadership that is enamored with new tech -- tens of millions of dollars have been spent on high tech transit ideas/planning which never went anywhere (all that $$ gone, with nothing to show for it), and on an Uber-style call-and-pick-up service (high $/ride). All of this has been at the expense of running a bus network that is frequent, reliable, and convenient. The opportunity cost is insidious, and I believe it's directly attributable to COTA leadership perceiving themselves as "Tech Bros" (or Tech Bro adjacent).
My favourite tweet ever was Taras Grescoe's from 2012: "The real future of the city is 21st century communications (smartphone, apps, twitter, texts) and 19th century transport (subways, streetcars, bikes)" I still believe he is generally correct; we don't need or want autonomous cars or Elon's tunnels (or elon's twitter but that's another story)
It’s not so much an “even if a few people profit handsomely” but that profit seems to be the goal of emerging technologies of the present. Only those who can afforded them will benefit from them. The move fast break things spirit leaves folks behind then blames them for being left in the digital dust of technological advancement.
I think of the Bill Hicks bit from the first Iraq war in which he posits military technology could be used to feed hungry people around the world. The technology is not developed in vacuum and it would seem as the military industries complex has mutated in the new century it’s only after those maintaining their power have been served that the rest of the population might benefit.
Ps. I don’t think Gutenberg as a tech bro
All valid points. But as the same time, technologies can also be democratizing and lift up entire populations. Witness the role of Twitter in the Arab Spring in Egypt (I express reluctantly, I admit given Twitter lately) or the image of the protestor in Tiananmen Square that galvanized a movement. But wholeheartedly agree: we have to work to ensure there are no digital divides where people are left behind. What would have happened if there had been no rural electrification under FDR? And absolutely, all technologies can (and probably will be abused) from facial recognition to data analytics. Whether Gutenberg was a tech bro or not, the REACTION was the same as it's been for centuries: certain people are scared and threatened by anything new. Trivia: Saboteur is derived from the French word for shoe (sabot) because textile weavers used their shoes to destroy the first looms because they thought it threatened their jobs. Technology changes, but sadly, people's reactions do not.
These are great examples of how technology has benefited the masses however look at what tech bros have done since the Arab Spring to restrict that kind of dissemination of information. It’s very dangerous to defend tech bros without looking behind the buzzword at who they are, how they got to where they are, and how very often it is the creative use of the technology by the people that yields the benefits we so often laud as the result of said tech bro!
I consider myself a cyberfunkadelic in that I think technology is good and nothing is good if you don’t play with it. I also do not believe we should be so quick to divide it from nature because no matter how hard we try we cannot escape her.
On that note I feel your final point of “technology changes but sadly people’s reactions do not” is part of this tradition of reifying social phenomenon such that they come across as natural and part of human nature. Perhaps it is true we are a conservative sort, out of the fears that come with self preservation. Now more than ever it makes sense to feel threatened by a technology that will eradicate an already eroded way to try and make ends meet and fail. It’s hard to argue that as a whole technology is liberating the masses particularly when the richest barons among us are getting richer off the surveillance capitalism model that Google ushered in at the turn of the century.
We should be praising the folks that did the work, not the bros who are gazing into the abyss of their navels trying to muster up a future cobbles together from the last science fiction novel they read or watched probably in their youth.
The future does not belong to the tech bros it belongs to the people! Fortunately those among us are already staking their claim while the tech bros try and rally their right to something that isn’t theirs. May their cyber colonialism fall just like the kingdoms of the power hungry that came before them!
Hi Sean, not disagreeing at all. Twitter is perhaps the poster child of a technology that many feel has become corrupted from its ideals and instead now spreading moral bankruptcy. Technology advancement can be not just disruptive but painful with a mountain of both positive & negative consequences to be sorted through and dealt with.