Humans once opposed
coffee and refrigeration. Here’s why we often hate new stuff.
Humans have a habit of stalling their own progress.
From coffee to mechanical refrigeration to genetically altered food,
history is littered with innovations that sparked resistance before
becoming fixtures in everyday life. The same theme is
playing out today as some lawmakers and consumers question the safety of
driverless cars, the economic impact of automation or
the security of mobile banking
In hindsight, opposition to innovations such as mechanical
farm equipment or recorded music may seem ludicrous. But the past 600
years of human history help explain why humans often oppose new
technologies and why that pattern of opposition continues
to this day. Calestous Juma, a professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy
School of Government, explores this phenomenon in his latest book, “Innovation and
Its Enemies: Why People Resist New Technologies.”
Among Juma’s assertions is that people
don’t fear innovation simply because the technology is new, but
because innovation often means losing a piece of their identity or
lifestyle. Innovation can also separate people from nature or
their sense of purpose — two things that Juma argues are fundamental to the
human experience. Innovations sat down with Juma to discuss his findings, and what
government and industry have historically gotten wrong about innovation.
What follows are eight key takeaways from that conversation.
1)
People sometimes oppose innovation even when it seems to be in their
best interest.
The
impetus for Juma’s book came in the late 1990s when, as the executive secretary
of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, he oversaw
international negotiations related to the regulation of genetically modified
crops. Groups both for and against the expanded use of
genetically modified crops were vocal and dogged, even when Juma noticed
they seemed to have a common goal. Those in favor of the technology said
it could reduce the use of pesticides, which environmentalists who opposed the
technology had long lambasted as harmful to the environment. “What struck
me at that time was [the] two contradictory positions,” Juma said. “That ended
up framing this issue in a larger context. There are moments when new
technologies that could be beneficial for humanity . . . very often end up
being opposed by the same groups that might benefit from those technologies.”
2)
Technologies that are vastly superior to their predecessors, or don’t have any
predecessors, are more easily adopted.
There
may be a coffee shop on every street corner today, but the caffeinated
beverage once caused much brouhaha. Juma writes that coffee first
found popularity among imams in the Middle East who needed to stay awake to
call prayers at the appropriate time. It simply did the job better than any
other stimulant at the time, Juma said. But coffee took much longer — centuries
longer — to catch on in Germany, France or England, where people were
hooked on beer, wine and tea, respectively. “Much of the resistance comes
from those who support or are supported by the incumbent product,” Juma
said. “The biggest lesson from the coffee story is if a new technology has
superior properties, overwhelmingly superior to its predecessors, chances are
that technology will get adopted no matter what.”
3)
Resistance to new technologies comes from three key constituents, including the
average consumer.
Juma
identified in his research three key sources of opposition to innovation: those
with commercial interests in existing products, those who identify with
existing products and those who might lose power as a result of change. The
first group is perhaps the most obvious. Many industries have been disrupted,
and even decimated, by innovation. Just take a look at the futile efforts of
music publishers to stop or slow the transition to digital music, another topic
Juma tackles in his book. Some consumers might oppose an innovation because the
existing product is deeply entrenched in their identity, culture or customs.
Britons preferred tea time at home to lounging in a coffee shop, for example.
Finally, the emergence of new technologies can also result in a shift in
economic and political power, redistributing wealth and influence away from
some groups and toward others. The expansion of tractors and other
mechanical equipment reduced the need for farm labor, and the shift in
population away from rural areas had significant political implications, Juma
writes.
4)
Humans make decisions about new innovations with their gut rather than
evidence.
Opponents
and enthusiasts of a new technology will often make bold claims to
bolster their argument, calling upon health, science, the environment,
psychology and any other number of disciplines for support. Sometimes these
assertions are rooted in fact, other times not. People once claimed coffee
could make you sterile or drive you into a state of hysteria. Juma said
beneath those arguments was typically an instinctive fear of new
technology, rather than a reasoned response.”People react intuitively, and they
collect the evidence to support what they’re doing,” Juma said. “They see a new
product and there is an emotional reaction to that product because it
challenges their outlook on the world. This has been the story with almost
every new product.”
5)
People flock to technologies that make them more autonomous and
mobile.
Cellular phones
and digital music saw rapid adoption because they allowed humans to be
more autonomous and more mobile. You no longer need to be home to make a phone
call, or tethered to a boombox to hear music. Humans like to move around
and do so at their own convenience, a preference that some of the most
successful innovations have exploited to their advantage, Juma said. “That’s
one reason you see a lot of technology being integrated into automobiles,” Juma
said. Similarly, the human brain is attuned to “looking for patterns, looking
for novelty and thriving on feedback,” he said. “I think those have
become very fundamental aspects of our being human, and that shapes how we
select which technologies we get passionate about, and which ones might just
come along and just pass.”
6) People
typically don’t fear new technology, they fear the loss it will bring.
There
is a convention that people are simply afraid of what they don’t understand.
That may not apply to technology, Juma said, at least not exactly. “It’s the
loss they are afraid of, not the newness,” he said. That loss (perceived or
real) can be a part of their identity, their way of life or their economic
security. People who live off food grown in their community or who work
the land for money were inclined to resist the advent and adoption of
mechanical farm equipment. Juma said understanding the source of that fear can
help companies and governments to mitigate resistance to innovation by
involving those who are likely to be effected in the design of new
technologies.
7)
Technologists often don’t think about the impact their inventions have on
society.
Historically, technologists have been more concerned with the
functionality of the products they create, paying less attention to the
implications it may have on society at large, Juma contends. “I think they
get very much focused on the instrumental part of technology. Does it work or
not work? They don’t connect it with the social dimensions,” he said. That
may be starting to change as Silicon Valley faces scrutiny about the
security and privacy implications of new technologies. Juma points to
artificial intelligence as a present day example. Concerns about unruly robots running
amok has prompted serious discussions about adding a “kill button” to
artificial intelligence products, an idea that Google and
others have been working on.
8)
Innovation is not slow, linear or incremental — but
the government doesn’t realize that.
Most
governments don’t appreciate that “technologies advance in an exponential way,”
Juma said, resulting in policymakers who are constantly surprised by new
innovations and often fail to regulate them successfully. Uber offers
a prime case study. The ride-sharing service exploded in popularity and rapidly
expanded to cities around the world, sparking an outcry from taxicab
commissions the world over. In most cases, the government’s response was slow
and reactionary. “That’s because they think about [innovation] in a slow
and linear way. That’s how it’s been in the past; that’s not the case anymore,”
Juma said. To combat that mindset, governments at the federal, state and local
level need to lean on the expertise of advisers with deep knowledge of science
and technology, Juma said.
By Steven Overly
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/21/humans-once-opposed-coffee-and-refrigeration-heres-why-we-often-hate-new-stuff/?wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1
No comments:
Post a Comment