Subscribe
  • Home
  • /
  • IOT
  • /
  • The future of tech: it's time to ask the hard questions

The future of tech: it's time to ask the hard questions


Johannesburg, 24 Jan 2019
Leana Steyn, manager, Falcorp.
Leana Steyn, manager, Falcorp.

Our survival as a species has always depended on our strong instincts. When faced with the unknown or unexpected, we either explore it, and eventually adopt it as a way of life, or we run away as fast as possible.

Today, technology has the potential to bring about massive positive change in the world. Food technology and smart farming initiatives can end hunger. Mobile technology and connectivity can democratise access to education and healthcare for everyone, anywhere.

But there's a caveat. Solving these global challenges means questioning how we've always done things and, in some cases, going against our instincts and established value and belief systems.

Leana Steyn, manager at Falcorp, says: "We need to get comfortable with answering uncomfortable questions about new technology, especially if the trade-off is a better future for everyone. But, we also can't ignore our responsibility to create, well, responsible technology."

A steak by any other name

"Humans have a predisposition to be wary of new things. That's understandable, especially if we can't predict what impact a new technology will have," says Steyn.

But, instead of rejecting something because it makes us uneasy, she says we should change how we approach it. We need to adopt an attitude of education and reflection, and consider the long-term impacts of a solution's widespread adoption, rather than focusing on the temporary discomfort it might initially cause.

"For example, most people get uncomfortable at the thought of eating a steak that's been grown in a laboratory. It doesn't feel 'normal' to us and it makes us uneasy. But, what if we educated ourselves about the benefits of ending animal farming? It takes 1 900 litres of water to produce a single steak. That's enough drinking water for one person for two-and-a-half years. Cellular agriculture, on the other hand, uses 96% less water, produces up to 96% less greenhouses gases, and uses 99% less land than animal farming. We probably wouldn't notice the difference in the taste and texture of a lab-grown steak, but actually buying and eating one involves a massive mindset and behavioural shift."

Considered from this perspective, lab-grown meat and other food technology could solve the growing global hunger problem. We could feed the world's population, which is expected to reach 11.2 billion by 2100, from 7.6 billion today. Some would call it a no-brainer, but others would be more difficult to convince.

How far is too far?

Technology is manifesting a new reality that will force us to question our morals, ethics and values. These questions are going to get more difficult to answer, like:

* Would you give up your right to privacy in exchange for convenience (think the 'Uber of everything')?
* If you had to choose between a self-driving car killing its innocent passengers or killing innocent pedestrians, which would it be?
* Would you leave your children unattended with a robot nanny?

"Bright young minds are coming up with digital innovations that could solve our most pressing challenges. No new technology has ever been, or will ever be, perfect when it's first developed," says Steyn. "But we can't disregard them because of their shortcomings. Imagine if we'd disregarded the car centuries ago because a battery couldn't hold a charge for a single journey? Or if we'd shunned the cellphone because it was clunky and awkward?"

Now, we can't imagine life without, or before, cars and smartphones. Maybe one day we won't be able to imagine life without lab-grown meat, ocean-supplied drinking water or 3D-printed organs.

New normal

For Steyn, new technology might be scary for some, but technologists need to work together to solve their shortcomings, especially if the benefits are hard to deny. However, we also need to guard against the misuse of technology and consider the impacts of our actions in the digital world.

"When asking those uncomfortable questions about new technology, we also need to ask balancing questions, like: What are the implications? Does the good outweigh the bad? Have privacy and security been built into the design?"

She refers to the dispute between Apple and the FBI, over whether authorities can order manufacturers to give courts access to encrypted data on individuals' smartphones. "Granting this access seemed logical at first, but what are the future implications for our privacy? Will this set a precedent? Will other entities gain backdoor access to our sensitive information? It's never only a question of what benefits new technology will bring. We also have to ask what trade-offs we're willing to accept in exchange for those benefits."

Steyn says consumers, ie, everyone, should start analysing the perceived benefits and shortfalls of any new technology. "We need to drive a shift in our own attitudes. We must educate ourselves on unfamiliar topics before making a decision about whether to adopt or avoid a new digital innovation. This is going to be the new normal, whether we're comfortable with it or not."

Positive legacy

Those who work in technology are in the enviable position of being able to create a platform and environment in which future generations can thrive, says Steyn.

"Everything we create should leave a positive legacy. We need to always think about the future and the impact we can have. That means answering the hard questions. Should we be talking about colonising Mars, or should we be using our skills, energy, and resources to save our own planet? What happens if we build robots that become so intelligent that they develop personalities and feelings, with the capacity to love and hurt others? What rights do we assign to beings that could become more intelligent than us? The waters are muddy."

Artificial intelligence and the Internet of things is ushering in an uncertain future. There is as much potential to use these technologies to cause pain and damage as there is to transform millions of lives for the better. Perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all is, which one will we choose?

Share