The Post-Tragic Framework: Society’s Three Responses To Rapid Technological Change
Why I’d probably fall for an ideology if I was desperate
Rapid social and technological change inevitably brings suffering and desperation. People who would never have thought of taking social action, protesting, risking career and even life, suddenly take to the streets. Leaders make executive decisions to enable their countries to catch up to the progress of rivals, meanwhile the common man is set adrift on economic waves, hoping to avoid a tragic end.
Our time now, the first decades of the 21st century, is the third great technological upheaval. It is the third part in a trilogy that began with the Agricultural Revolution and continued with the Industrial Revolution.
The Neolithic or Agricultural Revolution was the first enormous socio-technological transformation in human history. This was when agriculture gradually enabled sedentary lifestyles, the first cities, empires and organised religions. (The only question mark I have here is around Gobeklitepe, the religious pilgrimage site in modern-day southern Turkey, which shows no signs of permanent sedentary living).
I’ve been thinking about the Industrial Revolution a lot recently, and wondering: just how do times of rapid change lead to mass cultural shifts and new ideologies? How do people wax and wane in their hope for the future?
Essentially, if I was a worker seeking to improve my lot in a smoke-ridden city, would I have the guts to protest my situation? Would I turn to a revolutionary ideology like Communism, which would later go on to have such a lasting impact on the next 200 years?
The Luddites
Let’s go back to the late 18th century. The Napoleonic Wars are raging on the Continent. Britain is throwing money into the Coalition armies fighting against Napoleon. Times are desperate for many people, not all.
Britain is in the throes of the Industrial Revolution. Swanky new machines are coming out that allow the textile factories of Manchester to perform their work with greater efficiency and speed, rendering the textile workers, who had honed their craft over decades to get, well, pissed off. These people will become known as the Luddites.
So, what do you do when your jobs are threatened? Go to the union? Petition the Government? Spoiler: don’t pick “Petition the Government”; they’re the guys who are literally going to bring out the guns soon.
And there weren’t unions in those days. So any action you take, which could really piss people off, is really going balls to the wall.
Correct answer: smash the machines for all they’re worth. And keep smashing them when the British Government doesn’t come to the party and legislate for more deliberate adoption of these technologies.
Instead, the Government legislates for capital punishment if people destroy such factory property. Protests are dispersed with bullets. The Luddite movement dies down.
Wow. That seemed to escalate quickly. Let’s go into a few things.
While a Luddite is a term used these days to describe someone with an aversion to technology, in fact, the Luddites themselves were not opposed to their new machinery per se. Instead, they were threatened by the possibility that the job of overseeing the technology would go to the unskilled workers flooding into the cities. This would mean jobs for the unskilled classes, less cost to the factory owners, and job insecurity for the Luddites.
In the end, the Luddites lost out. The social and technological change brought suffering through the stress of protests unsupported by unions, let alone the brutality of the suppression of the movement. Society then adapted.
It couldn’t happen now, could it?
But governments wouldn’t turn weapons against their own citizens today…would they? Well, it depends where we’re talking about. In 1989 the Chinese Communist Party cracked down on the swathes of student demonstrators making their way to Tiananmen Square in Beijing, killing hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. The protesters weren’t tightly organised, but were calling for better welfare, more freedom of speech, more democracy, among other things.
I know 1989 seems a way off from the 2020s, but it’s still much closer to us than the late 1700s.
But in an age where anything can be filmed, shared, exposed, would governments risk using such displays of force? They may accidentally paint themselves as oppressive, thereby inviting consequences from the international community such as economic sanctions or souring diplomatic relations.
But perhaps they would risk it. Governments can still exercise a great deal of control over the media produced and disseminated in their own countries, which influences their own citizenry. They can also distort and amplify information to suit their agenda abroad.
Consider the Russian Federation’s deliberate use of social media to spread disinformation about the Ukraine War. The following two findings, from the OECD report “Disinformation and Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine: Threats and governance responses”, are illuminating.
- “The UK Government… found that TikTok influencers were being paid to amplify pro-Russian narratives. Disinformation activities also amplified authentic messages by social media users that were consistent with Russia’s viewpoint in an effort to increase the spread of such narratives, giving an artificial sense of support while evading platforms’ measures to combat disinformation (The Guardian, 2022[15]).”
- In the first weeks of the Ukraine War, roughly 75% of 75 government accounts “covered Ukraine and many furthered disinformation narratives questioning Ukraine’s status as a sovereign state, drawing attention to alleged war crimes by other countries, and spreading conspiracy theories (Thompson and Graham, 2022[16]).”
This is not to directly equate the governments of China and Russia with the brutal treatment of protesters against social and technological change of the past. Nor am I predicting this is what these countries specifically would do, as other countries could also exercise coercion or force, if not in this particular manner. I’m simply pointing out that it would be unwise to presume that governments in our age, basking in technological prowess and narratives of progress, are beyond exploiting their own citizens.
The Tragic Framework
Now, my big question has been: what kind of consequences will technological upheaval bring for people’s ideologies and outlook on life? From the past we’ve seen resistance to change, collective action and campaigning for rights and justice, even despite violence from ruling classes.
Let’s turn to Daniel Schmachtenberger, social philosopher and co-ordinator of research on global catastrophic risks at The Consilience Project. He outlines a three-part explanation for how people respond to the increased risks brought about by our hyper connectedness and technological capabilities. I find this rings true for the way I’ve encountered people’s attitudes so far and the examples I’ve researched.
As Jared Diamond notes in Upheaval, there are often correlations between how individuals and societies face crises. The same holds true here.
Pre-Tragic:
The pre-tragic phase refers to a state where problems and risks are either not widely recognized or are not yet at a critical level. In this phase, there is a general sense of optimism and confidence in our ability to address challenges effectively. It is a period of relative stability and confidence in the prevailing systems and paradigms. Think for example of the world’s response to climate change – roughly 30 years ago.
Tragic:
The tragic phase represents a critical state where the challenges and risks have escalated to a point where they can no longer be ignored or easily resolved. This phase is characterized by the realization of the severity and complexity of the problems we face, often accompanied by a sense of despair and potential catastrophe. In the tragic phase, existing systems and solutions may prove inadequate or even exacerbate the problems.
An example may be the people who believe that humans are a “cancer” on the planet as we “only” seem to destroy its resources without responsible stewardship.
In response to this moment, an individual or group of people may “bounce back” to the pre-tragic outlook, preferring to turn a blind eye to the complexity of the issues. Or, one could pursue the post-tragic path.
Post-Tragic:
The post-tragic phase refers to a potential future state where humanity has collectively acknowledged and confronted the tragic challenges we face. It represents a transition towards a more mature and resilient way of addressing complex problems. In the post-tragic phase, there is a greater emphasis on long-term thinking, collective intelligence, and global cooperation to navigate existential risks and create sustainable solutions. It involves developing new systems, technologies, and governance structures that prioritize the well-being of both present and future generations.
Now, this phase isn’t fully realised yet, but some signs of it include: the United States Congress’ rapid hosting of Congressional hearings on the capacities of AI, including Sam Altman’s Open AI.
I imagine some individuals also operate with a post-tragic mentality. They may be involved in the work directly, for example, through diplomacy, multilateral organisations or governance research.
Or perhaps a person can have a post-tragic outlook as an attitude that manifests in their life in general, not necessarily in their career. For instance, someone may hope for the future, and consume or create media in this space, or volunteer for a cause like advocacy or sustainability that ties in to the post-tragic.
Individuals can bounce back to the tragic phase. If the problems prove thorny and stressful enough for a particular person, their hope can wither. My belief is that this is all part of the difficult work in this complex future, this complex present. It’s natural to oscillate in optimism. I only hope that it happens less and less in the future, as opposed to growing to a critical mass when most people are tragic and despondent.
In conclusion: Three keys to a brighter, post-tragic future
- Appraise crises with realism, so as to minimise despair and promote clear thinking.
- Grow in fortitude and persistence, even when the work is difficult. Believe in the future; without conviction the best work cannot be done.
- Collaborate and build community. We are at our best when sharing ideas, and community also provides moral support.
