We analyze whether technological advancement will significantly slow down due to various factors or if technology transcends human limits, advancing independently of our actions. Specifically, we examine whether the erosion of democracy and the rise of autocracies could impact technological progress in the coming decades by limiting freedom, and whether the influence, capital, and power of large tech companies signify the end of major transformations, due to their ability to acquire new technologies and business models before they lead to the "creative destruction" concept coined by Joseph Schumpeter.
Many dystopian futures imagine a society completely controlled. In these societies, deviating from the norm in any way guarantees trouble.
We can think of Orwell and his famous "1984". Less known, but in the realm of science fiction cinema, is "Equilibrium", a film by Kurt Wimmer starring Christian Bale. It concludes that human emotions are responsible for all the world's evils. To inhibit them, citizens take pills daily. The result is that they end up acting like robots. Literally, as Professor Zamora Bonilla addresses in "Drawing Consequences", as if they lacked a subjective point of view (Zamora, 2017). Naturally, there are rebels who cling to what they understand as their humanity, that is, to feel emotions. Obviously, any matter that gives rise to emotion is completely forbidden. Think of a poem or any book.
Philip K. Dick, for his part, portrays in his short story "Stability" a society where progress has stalled in favor of stability. Unsurprisingly, this gives rise to control bodies, to which any invention must be reported. This was the first time we thought of a future where humanity has ceased to progress, beyond dystopias.
The definitive catalyst for us to lean towards this theme, after much deliberation, was encountering a reflection on this topic again. This time in "Against Apocalyptics", also by Professor Zamora Bonilla. His idea about a future end to scientific, technological, and social progress fueled our interest in what we understand by progress, technology, or creativity.
Now, what motivates us to think about a scenario of reduced technological progress in the coming decades? What signs lead us to believe that the trend might change? Why do we associate this possibility with totalitarian societies?
As we will see later, humans are an extremely dynamic species. We seek to know and have evolved to learn from our mistakes and progress through collective effort and knowledge. However, although we have been progressing for thousands of years, sustained progress with real changes in people's lives requires certain conditions. According to the authors studied, the main requirement is individual freedom.
Starting from this premise and scanning the horizon, we observe different trends that threaten our freedom and, therefore, could lead us to a scenario of stagnation in the coming decades. These are:
Rise of Autocracies and Democratic Deterioration in the West: In recent years, and predictably in the coming ones, the world's balance shifts towards the East. The population growth and economic rise of powers like China or India lead us, at least in the medium term, to a less democratic world. In any case, both Europe and the United States have made their own merits in terms of democratic deterioration. Observing "The Economist's" 2022 Democracy Index, the West has worsened its rating compared to previous years.
Negative Consequences of the Information Society: Fake news and constant surveillance are just some examples. The impact on freedom is evident.
Big Tech and the End of "Creative Destruction": The infinite cash reserves of large tech companies open the possibility of acquiring any company that threatens their business models. The lack of competition only motivates these monopolies to perpetuate their questionable practices.
At this point, it is necessary to delve into the concept of "progress." Certainly, it is no easy task. According to the authoritative dictionary of the Spanish language (the original language of this essay) "progress" is defined as "the action of moving forward" or "advance, improvement, perfection."
What about "technology"? Does it deserve its own focus or is it simply the embodiment of progress? Authors like Marshall McLuhan or Kevin Kelly argue that technology and humans are intimately linked, evolving together (Kelly, 2011).
Jeff Bezos, in his 2007 investor letter, defended a similar idea. In that letter, he mentions how writing or books have profoundly changed us. He also highlighted how smartphones are changing us, turning us into information scanners, in contrast to deep and leisurely reading (Bezos, 2007). Professors Isabel F. Peñuelas and Francisco J. Jariego reflect similarly in their essay "Studying the Future," clearly breaking down how, as Jim Dator would say, "technological change is the basis of social change" (Dator, 2019). Kevin Kelly goes further. The American author defends the inevitability of technological progress and invites us to consider its impact from a long-term perspective (Kelly, 2011).
Today, it is imperative to ask what we have become after the establishment of social networks in our lives and what we will become after the arrival of artificial intelligence and its impact on the Internet as we know it. We can respond with another question that encourages reflection: Has the end of the useful Internet arrived? (Horning, 2023).
This leads us to think of an undesirable future, where the inequality gap continues to widen due to an excess of low-quality information. Content curators will not be accessible to everyone. If this is the future that awaits us, we believe that society must work to ensure access to quality information, just as it has done with other fundamental rights, such as education. Although the idea of a public body overseeing this generates mixed feelings, we believe it will be as necessary as other institutions and regulators normalized in today's society. This reflection could undoubtedly extend to the current debate around social networks and their status as public spaces, even though they are privately owned.
When talking about progress, it is very common to hear criticisms of human insatiability, the characteristic that drives us to advance at all costs. Is this a bad thing? Is it even an option? Or is it necessary? Sometimes we forget that these reflections come from the West, a part of the world that has reached high levels of well-being. We can afford to reflect on the negative aspects of these advances and the second-order consequences that our progress has brought. No doubt, this critical view is necessary. However, we cannot forget that most of the world's population does not live "here" and that their raison d'être is to live better. In other words, their reality forces them to progress.
Beyond the inevitability of advancing (at least in today's world) and the drive that so many individuals feel worldwide, regardless of motivation, there is the reflection on the necessity of progress. Can we live in a democratic society that does not advance? Can a non-democratic society progress? Can technology be what leads us to stop progressing?
There are many references to the need for democracy to achieve individual freedom and, therefore, to develop matters such as creativity, giving rise to science and progress. Emilio Lamo de Espinosa, for example, asserts that democracy, market, and science are three sides of the same triangle, whose center is individual freedom (Lamo de Espinosa, 2023).
What about progress in non-democratic societies? We could argue that, as Aristotle stated in his Metaphysics, humans naturally desire to know, so we will progress even in an autocratic context. The desire to know would lead to rebellion, giving rise to democracy.
This evokes what David Deutsch defends in "The Beginning of Infinity." In his book, Deutsch mentions the concept of "rebellion" when discussing how the Enlightenment and the progress it brought consisted of learning to reject established knowledge. Until then, knowledge was riddled with dogmas and falsehoods. In any case, as Deutsch himself continues, it is not enough to constantly rebel; we need a certain "stability," that is, we need this scenario of freedom (and critique) to be sustained over time (Deutsch, 2012).
Once we have mapped the present, we only have to continue reflecting to work on alternative futures. The stagnation of progress, as a result of a less free world, is undoubtedly a plausible future and an undesirable scenario.
If the world is not capable of purging, through progress, the evils that progress itself generates, we will inevitably head towards a scenario of collapse. The mentioned factors are major challenges. Addressing them globally makes them even greater challenges. And now, how do we work towards a preferable future? This is undoubtedly our next challenge.
Previously published in Foro de Foros, this essay was prepared for the postgraduate course "Futures Studies" at the Faculty of Philosophy, National University of Distance Education (Spain).
Bezos, J. (2007). A Team of Missionaries. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312508084145/dex991.htm
Dator, J. (2019). What Futures Studies Is, and Is Not.
Deutsch, D. (2011). The Beginning of Infinity. Penguin Books.
Dick, P. K. (2011). Cuentos completos I. Minotauro.
Ederer, F., Kwok, R. (2023). A Wave of Acquisitions May Have Shielded Big Tech from Competition. Yale Yale School of Management. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/wave-of-acquisitions-may-have-shielded-big-tech-from-competition
Ederer, F., Song, M. (2018). Do Companies Buy Competitors in Order to Shut Them Down? Yale Insights. Yale School of Management. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/do-companies-buy-competitors-in-order-to-shut-them-down
Federal Trade Commission of the United States (2021). FTC Alleges Facebook Resorted to Illegal Buy-or-Bury Scheme to Crush Competition After String of Failed Attempts to Innovate. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-alleges-facebook-resorted-illegal-buy-or-bury-scheme-crush-competition-after-string-failed
Horning, R. (2023). Probable Events Poison Reality. Internal Exile. https://robhorning.substack.com/p/probable-events-poison-reality
Jariego, Francisco J., Peñuelas, Isabel F. (2020). Estudiar y crear el futuro. Filosofía&Co. https://filco.es/disenos-de-futuros/
Jariego, Francisco J., Peñuelas, Isabel F. (2023). Spain: A Country for The Future. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4441432 o http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4441432
Kelly, K. (2011). What Technology Wants. Penguin Books.
Lamo de Espinosa, E. (2023). ¿Decadencia, hundimiento o consumación? Pasando revista a Occidente. Revista de Occidente, nº 505 C.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2023). Democracy Index 2022. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/
Véliz, (2023). What Socrates Can Teach Us About AI. Time. https://time.com/6299631/what-socrates-can-teach-us-about-ai/
Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight.
Wimmer, K. (Director). (2002). Equilibrium [Película]. Dimension Films.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2017). Sacando Consecuencias. Tecnos.
Zamora Bonilla, J. (2021). Contra apocalípticos: Ecologismo, Animalismo, Posthumanismo. Shackleton Books.