Luddite view of technology is no solution
In recent years, the evolution and development of technology, including the internet, big data and artificial intelligence (AI), have helped promote economic prosperity and social progress. On the other hand, the potential downsides of advanced technology have raised concerns. While some concerns are rational, others are entirely unnecessary.
One concern is centered on the idea that machines will rule over humans. Ray Kurzweil, Google’s director of engineering and a respected futurist, said, “I have set the date 2045 for ‘Singularity’ which is when humans will multiply our effective intelligence a billion-fold by merging with the intelligence we have created.”
Many have advocated the idea that machines will eventually take the place of mankind. Late English physicist Stephen Hawking and Tesla co-founder and CEO Elon Musk have both claimed AI posses a potential threat to humanity. They expressed concern that society should take action as soon as possible to change the fate of being dominated by machines.
And there are more who believe such a prediction is too optimistic. Technology evolves continuously, but its development has not been smooth sailing. It is easy to forget human beings are not a destiny-driven species. The inexplicable panic generated by technological advances has been present since Frankenstein was published at the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
Frankenstein is a fictional character from English author Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel of the same name. In the book, Frankenstein creates a monster that tries to fit into human society but fails and then seeks revenge on his
creator. This type of panic is a reflection of technological progress in nature.
If the concerns that machines will take the place of humans are imaginary, powerful change as a result of technology is a real problem that we must face. Innovation that strengthens technology can bring about a sudden change in productivity, which then impacts the status quo. When technology rewards some, it is bound to cause pain to others. In severe cases, a crisis can occur.
Among all the side effects of technological advances, inequality has drawn the most attention. The latest round of technological internet breakthroughs and the coming breakthroughs in AI have shown that global inequality is more severe. Wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few.
Among the top 10 billionaires in the world, the majority are in the technology industry. In the meantime, jobs in traditional industries are dissolving. Automation is replacing the sweatshop. Inequality also leads to severe personal debt.
While the super-rich in the technology sector are wealthy, many young people are saddled with mortgages, education debt and consumer loans.
Uneven access to technology results in not only a wider income gap, but also comprehensive and lasting inequality. In education, unbalanced mastery of education technology may widen the gap in educational levels, so the next generation cannot start at the same level.
What is even scarier is that if new biotechnology, like gene editing, turns ripe, the physiological differences among people may be established before birth.
Inequality is not a modern phenomenon. From a certain standpoint, a reasonable amount of disparity is beneficial as it motivates people to compete. Pursuing absolute equality is vain and unwise. During the Industrial Revolution, Luddites, a group of English workmen, attempted to secure jobs by destroying laborsaving machines. History has shown that this strategy is ineffective. However, severe inequality goes against securing social stability and inspiring personal innovation. Governments are responsible for dealing with this inequality.
There are diverse methods to ease inequality. For example, raising taxes on the rich is one strategy. Although this approach is controversial, tax revenue is the most powerful way to reassign wealth. As long as the gain is sufficient, the government can increase investment in education and social welfare and reduce inequality.
The government should consider investigating technomonopolies and taking the appropriate measures, such as forcing them to split if necessary.
Moreover, to the group whose technology falls behind or has been replaced by machines, the government should mobilize people or organizations to train employees on related skills, so they are capable of working or finding employment elsewhere.
Whether it is increasing taxes, splitting firms, or offering advanced training, before introducing any measure, it must be discussed and evaluated and then implemented once it is approved.
The negative effects must be mitigated, but what we need is sustainable supervision, rather than a group of new Luddites who would be detrimental to technological development and impaired groups.