Web 3: Should we fight it or embrace it?
While we have just had more than 150 years of unbridled innovations that have profoundly transformed our uses and consumption patterns, it seems that we are reaching a stage where technological progress is debating its benefits. As web 3 arrives with glitter and promises of all kinds, how do you position yourself?
Towards the end of progress through technology?
Since the Renaissance, and even more since the Industrial Revolution, our civilization has developed according to the following paradigm: technical progress brings security, comfort and happiness. Thus, for a long time, the leaders of the Western world have advocated for growth through this form of progress, in order to reduce poverty and inequalities of all kinds, and to move forward together towards a bright and ambitious future. And it is clear that few of us would want to live in the sanitary conditions of the Western Middle Ages (and I am being specific about Western).
But in 2022, after the covid, the first trillionaire in history, the heat waves, the crossing of most planetary barriers, the rapid precariousness of the masses, the oppositions are becoming more and more numerous. We’ve let technology seep into every aspect of our daily lives, and yet we don’t seem any happier, and inequalities even seem to be growing in many ways.
Above all, by creating ever more superficial needs, we have created a way of life that requires far more resources than the planet can supply and regenerate. Like a mad and unstoppable machine, we pick up more and more speed to crash into the wall. The signals are nevertheless clear, but perhaps still too little perceptible in our daily lives, as technical progress seems to still be able to protect us from them.
For how long ? As Jared Diamond reminds us in his theory of the collapse, the decline of a civilization is generally done by successive stalls, which oblige people to deprive themselves of their freedoms and acquired by blows, until disappearing. Mind you, I’m worried about many choices our civilization makes, and even some it doesn’t. But I haven’t given up far from it, and I remain convinced that technology used wisely remains a major driver of sustainable socio-economic progress.
Do we have to stop everything to avoid collapse?
Do you remember wearing the mask? Water restrictions? Food stamps? Birth control? Limiting international travel? Electricity and internet rationing? Of the abandonment of the furnace towns? From the terrible year of the mass suicides of hundreds of millions of people? Some of these memories still belong to the future, but for how long?
So should we stop everything now and adopt an ancestral way of life, respectful of planetary limits and basic human needs? Of course, this would mean giving up on many advances, both superfluous and essential. Indeed, an economy as advanced as that of our civilization is quite simply systemic, and changing several parameters in a very short time would create major upheavals.
I am an advocate of positive change, but not of revolution, which throughout history has always served the interests of those capable of carrying it out. Admittedly, the current system is far from optimal and efficient, but it is the one we live in, and changing it will take time. Probably a lot of time!
Our system is geared towards more and more, and it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between what is progress, and what only increases the influence, control and wealth of a handful of families, at detriment of today and tomorrow for many. I like technology and progress, but only when it represents real progress for everyone and at all levels, and which does not call into question the ability of future generations to benefit from this same progress.
It is therefore natural and understandable to question the relevance of 5G, the metaverse, the blockchain, and ever more technologies. While 6G, the metaverse V2 or the colonization of Mars are already on the agenda of major economic decision-makers, our civilization demonstrates a little more every day that technical progress is not the one and only key to bringing security, comfort and happiness. . What if we put society back at the service of the individual and the collective, and not the other way around?
Should we embrace web 3 technologies or fight them hard?
As a reminder, when we talk about web 3, we can divide it into three major technological bricks: virtual reality (and augmented reality, etc.), blockchain, and the spatial web (AI, data viz, etc.). To properly reposition the concepts, it is important to remember that web 3 represents more a way of using the Internet than technologies, so it is important to make the difference.
Blockchain
Web 3 represents this evolution of uses towards a more intuitive, decentralized, learning and immersive Internet. In describing these elements, it is not a question of knowing whether this evolution is progress per se, but simply of describing everything first. In this great sorting out of what can be real progress, I deeply believe in the potential of blockchain technologies.
They can enable a more decentralized world, where value and governance are better distributed. I tend to believe that if the wealth and the decisions belong to the greatest number, we will be better able to think further and together. Importantly, these technologies are advancing rapidly to become increasingly energy-efficient. There are still a lot of iterations to do before pushing for mass use, but with a lot of supervision and willpower, it is possible to bring out a citizen counter-power against the technological behemoths.
Virtual reality
Concerning virtual reality, I am still mixed, because I consider that the progress is not yet sufficient in view of the economic, social and environmental cost that this technology implies. It is for this same reason that I consider the Metaverse not ready or acceptable at this time. Investments continue, and if the social pressure remains strong, then it may be that in a few years the metaverse will be a real socio-economic progress.
I’m not saying no, but I’m not saying yes yet. We must explore the use cases now to fully understand and choose, but in no case rush into mass adoption which would be disastrous. We are not mature enough as a society to live in two realities.
Spatial web and AI
I won’t dwell too much on the spatial web, which is undoubtedly the most important technological family of web 3, but also the most complex and the least accessible. In principle, instant analytics allows more fluid and complex uses in a shorter time. But we still lack perspective and a framework on the ethics of artificial intelligence.
Until algorithms are systematically auditable and accessible, we will be at the mercy of black boxes. It is essential to define criteria of ethics as well as performance for this technology before placing it in all aspects of the life of organizations. Especially when it comes to HR processes.
In all three cases, we understand that these emerging technologies need to be refined before really bringing value to the greatest number of people in a sustainable way. I keep saying it, but we are only at the emergence of web 3 in 2022, and talking about it does not mean adopting it without thinking.
Rather, it’s about educating, testing and learning, to be ready when these technologies really come in handy sometime this decade. It may seem like a long time ago, but remember 2010 was yesterday! And ‘tomorrow is only a day away’, to use the slogan of Tomorrow Theory.
Finding the right balance in our relationship to technology
I know that my complex positioning can destabilize some. How can I promote the uses of technology when I am so fiercely critical of the real benefits and dangers of these same technologies? To put it simply, I am grateful to have electricity, antibiotics, reconstructive surgery, the Internet, books, audio players, cell phones, rapid transportation, video games, and even Nutella.
Without technique, technology and mass consumption, all these advances could not exist or last. However, I recognize that too often we misuse our ability to innovate, and too often we do so to the detriment of other species and our descendants. There has to be a fine balance to be struck between the Stone Age and cyberpunk transhumanism, otherwise… we’ve already gone too far.
In my new entrepreneurial adventure, Tomorrow Theory, I seek to find this balance between science, human systems and technology. Work shapes our society and its citizens in many ways. If organizations have a healthier and more conscious relationship with technology, then I’m sure it will trickle down to the rest of society, because workers are also consumers and voters.
It is possible to rethink the codes of recruitment, training, collaboration and even work engagement, by placing the cursor in the right place. To achieve this successfully, it is first a question of understanding the human functioning, then of executing the scientific process to identify sustainable and feasible solutions, and finally of using technology to effectively scale up when it is. is necessary. Kind of common sense.
Conclusion
Because our society has a past, its failings, and economic decision-makers with their own agenda, it is only by postponing the method that it will be possible to rectify the situation. No obscurantism and no unconscious technophilia.
Finally, I would like to do a most singular crossover. On the one hand, Rabelais said in his time that science without conscience is only ruin of the soul, and this quote has always followed me in my use of science and technology. On the other hand, Spiderman was forged by the belief that with great power comes great responsibility.
The ability to think and act consciously is ultimately our civilization’s greatest superpower, and everything that comes after that is just an amplifier of that power. Without it, is it human stupidity that we are amplifying?
— —
If you are interested in the combination of web 3 with HR, I invite you to subscribe to the dedicated newsletter that I keep writing on the subject, and to read the articles that I have written on the topic:
