Why we humans often hate new stuff
History helps explain why human beings often oppose new technologies and why that pattern of opposition continues to this day
umans have a habit of stalling their own progress. From coffee to mechanical refrigeration to genetically altered food, history is littered with innovations that sparked resistance before becoming fixtures in everyday life. The same theme is playing out today as some lawmakers and consumers question the safety of driverless cars, the economic impact of automation or the security of mobile banking.
Calestous Juma, a professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, explores this phenomenon in his latest book, Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies. The Washington Post sat down with Juma to discuss his findings. What follows are eight key takeaways from that conversation.
People sometimes oppose innovation even when it seems to be in their best interest. The impetus for Juma’s book came in the late 1990s when, as the executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, he oversaw international negotiations related to the regulation of genetically modified crops. Groups both for and against the expanded use of genetically modified crops were vocal and dogged, even when Juma noticed they seemed to have a common goal. Those in favour of the technology said it could reduce the use of pesticides, which environmentalists who opposed the technology had long lambasted as harmful to the environment.
Technologies that are vastly superior to their predecessors are more easily adopted. There may be a coffee shop on every street corner today, but the caffeinated beverage once caused much brouhaha. Juma writes that coffee first found popularity among imam sin the Middle East who needed to stay awake to call prayers at the appropriate time. It simply did the job better than any other stimulant at the time, Juma said.
Resistance to new technologies comes from three key constituents, including the average consumer. Juma identified in his research three key sources of opposition to innovation: Those with commercial interests in existing products, those who identify with existing products and those who might lose power as a result of change. The first group is perhaps the most obvious. Many industries have been disrupted, and even decimated, by innovation. Some consumers may oppose an innovation because the existing product is deeply entrenched in their identity, culture or customs. Finally, the emergence of new technologies can also result in a shift in economic and political power, redistributing wealth
1) 2) 3)
and influence away from some groups and towards others.
Humans make decisions about new innovations with their gut rather than evidence.
Opponents and enthusiasts of a new technology will often make bold claims to bolster their argument, calling upon health, science, the environment, psychology and any other number of disciplines for support. Sometimes these assertions are rooted in fact, other times not.
5)
People flock to technologies that make them more autonomous and mobile. Cellular phones and digital music saw rapid adoption because they allowed humans to be more autonomous and more mobile. You no longer need to be home to make a phone call, or tethered to a boombox to listen to music. Humans like to move around and do so at their own convenience, a preference that some of the most successful innovations have exploited to their advantage, Juma said.
People typically don’t fear new technology, they fear the loss it will bring. There is a convention that people are simply afraid of what they don’t understand. That may not apply to technology, Juma said, at least not exactly. “It’s the loss they are afraid of, not the newness,” he said. That loss (perceived or real) can be a part of their identity, their way of life or their economic security. People who live off food grown in their community or who work the land for money were inclined to resist the advent and adoption of mechanical farm equipment.
Technologists often don’t think about the impact their inventions have on society.
6) 7)
Historically, technologists have been more concerned with the functionality of the products they create, paying less attention to the implications it may have on society at large, Juma contends. Juma points to artificial intelligence as a present-day example. Concerns about unruly robots running amok has prompted serious discussions about adding a “kill button” to artificial intelligence products.
8)
Innovation is not slow, linear or incremental — but the government doesn’t realise that. Most governments don’t appreciate that “technologies advance in an exponential way”, Juma said, resulting in policymakers who are constantly surprised by new innovations and often fail to regulate them successfully. Uber offers a prime case study. The ridesharing service exploded in popularity and rapidly expanded to cities around the world, sparking an outcry from taxicab commissions the world over. In most cases, the government’s response was slow and reactionary.
To combat that mindset, governments at the federal, state and local level need to lean on the expertise of advisers with deep knowledge of science and technology, Juma said. Steven Overly anchors and edits the Washington Post’s Innovations blog.