Change

I recently came across this provocative quote by Mary Shelley:

Nothing is so painful to the human mind as a great and sudden change.

The word “sudden” tells me that Ms. Shelley was probably thinking of an immediate blow, like divorce, financial ruin, or the death of a loved one. These are terribly painful, of course, but a change doesn’t have to be sudden to cause great anguish. One that plays out over decades, gradually disrupting behavioral norms and eroding social institutions, is painful in a more subtle way, in an unrelentingly stressful way.

A little more than two centuries ago, a novel kind of change—slow-acting and stressful—began to draw notice. Unlike the misfortunes that had befallen people for millennia, it wasn’t periodic. It didn’t come and go; it simply lingered and grew in strength. More and more, it became the fabric of our experience. I’m thinking of technology, the umbrella term that now encompasses aeronautics, nuclear energy, renewable energy, computing, computer networking, microelectronics, wireless communication, digital photography, space travel, biotechnology, genetic engineering, life extension, smart homes, robotics, and many other applied sciences that don’t come to mind just now.

To be clear, I’m not saying that technology is unwelcome or inherently harmful. For one thing, it may one day completely eliminate drudgery. It already extends lives and will extend them further. It ensures billions are fed who would otherwise starve. It lets us communicate around the world in seconds, with sound, video, and text.  It daily widens our knowledge base. It keeps us entertained. It opens dazzling insights into our existence that surpass anything ever imagined by religious zealots.

But… technology is disruptive. It creates social upheaval; it puts our lives on a low boil. For example, enhancements in communication and transportation have made it feasible to globalize manufacturing and business services, at the cost of millions of jobs. Robotics will cost tens of millions more, and no monetary policy or fiscal stimulus will make the least difference.

Our population is overweighted toward seniors, with an ever-sparser population of workers supporting an ever-denser population of retirees. As longevity increases, the tension between the young and old will turn into outright belligerence.

The rich have far better access to medical care than those of modest means. Imagine the outrage when “miracle” therapies become the exclusive property of people with deep pockets.

People are dividing into hostile political factions as social media erode journalistic standards. Our understanding of what is fact will soon be anchored to nothing.

Every breakthrough in technology is weaponized. New WMDs are always on the horizon. Warfare has to be redefined with each passing decade. “Containment” is now an essential branch of foreign policy, and preemptive strikes look more and more attractive.

People respond to change in one of two ways. Some, whom I’ll call “reactors,” look to authority for guidance. In religion, they are fundamentalists: a holy book shows them the right path, now and forever. In American politics, they are strict constructionists: the Constitution, if interpreted narrowly, shows politicians and jurists the right path, now and forever. Never mind that the roots of Judeo-Christian scripture go back 3,000 years. Never mind that the vision of our founders was codified in the early years of the Industrial Revolution. Reactors are, well… reactionary. Their model of society is based on something in the past that they imagine to be forever durable and true. “America First” and “Make America Great Again” are slogans that speak to their hearts.

Other people, whom I’ll call “pragmatists,” respond to change by looking for ways to manage it. They are willing to bend in the direction the wind is blowing and reshape institutions to accommodate new realities. For example, with the workforce growing smaller and smaller, they might favor a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. It would be an affordable solution because the productivity of automated labor would be exceptionally high. Income would have no bearing on the access to leading-edge medical therapies because universal medical care would finally be recognized as a right. Fact-checking would no longer be a sometimes thing but become an actual profession; funding could come from the media being policed. Existential threats wouldn’t be answered by calls to patriotism but by a consensus among peoples that collective security is a greater, more rational imperative than love of country.

Which of these responses will predominate? I think neither. Rather, I see them as alternating waves, one waxing and then waning as the other becomes popular. Currently, the reactors are in charge, but in the foreseeable future, the pragmatists will have their time, and so on. Of course, this oscillation can’t go on indefinitely. In effect, it’s just running in place. Our problem solving will be absurdly inefficient. Sooner or later, a breaking point will come. Technological change will simply move beyond our ability to cope.