I, former technochauvinist [1/2]
The world had never witnessed a technologic and scientific development as fast as the one occurred between the old and the new millennium. But even before, from the second half of the XIX century, inventions and scientific discoveries began to be employed for commercial and military reasons, as far as making science and technology objects of worship. Even the supporters and the geniuses behind such a global, technological growth began to be idolised, up to laying the foundations of new cinematographic canons with the character of the “misunderstood genius” (socially unstable, though genius in his conclusions).
There is a word for this belief: technochauvinism. Namely, the idea that technology is always the best solution, a complete, blind trust in the machines’ calculations in place of the human behaviour. For a technochauvinist it is not improbable to think that a computer, an algorithm, or a programme could replace and improve the human work, which is imperfect if compared to a precise mathematical calculus. Scandals as the Facebook data breach by Cambridge Analytica (probably revealed just because it involved serious political interests) or, still, the Twitter managers’ vision to have a computer administer and rule society, are clear examples of technochauvinism. Particularly, the first one shows how craving for progress (in this case, an algorithm which could demopsychologically study the social medium’s target market) could get to the point of breaking the law for its techno-supremacist dreams.
Me too, I have supported the technological growth with no limits nor measures, being enthusiastic for the innovative and original development of the means available today. Deep down, it is not incomprehensible why those more educated in the IT environment rely so much on technology. The support technology provides to our everyday, social life in banking, healthcare, or dating, keeps attracting users who see their life simplified. The computer, its recent developments (as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, among the many), and its employments positioned themselves as a miracle in the human mind, given their fast and precise performance. For instance, the assistance I receive from my smartphone is way superior than the one provided by other humans: simply opening a map on my device I discover a surrounding world I could have not discovered otherwise.
However, as the time went by, I noticed how this trend overlooks many negative sides. I realised that although the enthusiasm and passion for technology, there’s a certain necessity to go back to what is the main focus of the technoscientific development. Why, and for whom, we run forward towards the swift progress that characterises our modern society? In this way, I started realising that the target of such development, the keystone of the breakthroughs, it’s the human being. Technochauvinism forgot that behind every innovative machinery, behind every new invention, there’s the human hand of a programmer, as well as human is the final user.
Computers back the human actions up. They function as a support to improve one’s life in a community which is global nowadays, though still regulated by what a computer is not able to calculate: common sense. Relying on the algorithmic management of a computer would mean losing a most important evaluative measure for humankind, that is the innate sense of what should be done, although not mathematically perfect.
The absence of the human and social component can also be seen in the leading figures of the technochauvinist movement. The major inventors of remarkable breakthroughs, as Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, became idolised role models in pop culture. Many times, however, we utterly ignore the dark sides behind the mathematical brilliance. The case of the former CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, is crystal-clear: although he’s a cleverest man, he believed he could overlook the law and the sensitivity of his employees with his behaviour, both as a boss and as a man.
In my long experience in ICT and, later, in the start-up environment, I never stumbled upon companies which considered first the analysis of the human experience and of potential side effects. I attended celebrations when meeting deadlines, for a successful fundraising, or for outstanding economic outcomes. But I never attended a celebration for the social return or the sustainability of a product.
Some months ago, I met the founders of Sloweb. Having had the chance to discuss with them, I considered some of the side effects in the use of smartphones I did not realise before. Arguing about the enormous possibilities of the Artificial Intelligence applications, we decided to associate Alan Advantage and Sloweb. Together, we are working on a project to promote a more responsible usage of the AI.
Today I claim to be a former technochauvinist since I understood the limits of the technosupremacist philosophy. It often twists what new technologies should be of use to, and trades what is necessary to the human progress for the mere will to branch business out. Humankind should use technologies for its benefit, but should never be dominated by them. Very often, the infallibility we rely upon hides side effects the human mind would not have caused. Me too, I was among those who sustained technologic solutions in place of a less technical approach. My attitude was: “The computer does not mistake in this task, while the human does. Thus, why don’t we leave it to the computer?”. I was overlooking, however, the fact that the machines’ design is in the hands of the men. Or better, in the hands of an élite of men.
