I’m
reading “Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think” by Peter
Diamandis and Steven Kotler, and it’s a good and highly encouraging
book. But I believe that their technological optimism, though justified,
also needs to be qualified.
Science and technology are wonderful, but there’s nothing in this world that politicians can’t manage to screw up if they get their hands on it. And given the particularly low quality of our politicians today, this is something for all of us to worry about.
Ironically, this point is made by the authors’ opening anecdote. As recounted by Pliny the Elder, a goldsmith proudly displayed to the Roman Emperor Tiberius a shiny plate he’d made from a new metal extracted from clay (aluminum) using a secret method only he understood.
The emperor was indeed impressed: He saw this new shiny metal as a possible threat to the value of his large gold and silver stockpiles, so instead of rewarding the goldsmith, he had him beheaded.
The authors’ point is that eventually, aluminum became dirt-cheap, thanks to advances in technology. That’s true enough — but it’s also true that because of Tiberius, that happened nearly 2,000 years later.
For many lifetimes, the secret of aluminum production was as dead as the goldsmith who invented it. Humanity as a whole was worse off, but Emperor Tiberius didn’t care, because he wasn’t so much interested in the well-being of humanity as in the security of his own wealth and power.
This, alas, is entirely typical of ruling classes in general. Today we see the motion picture and recording industries threatened by technology, and using lawsuits and legislation, rather than the headsman’s axe.
But the pattern is the same: Technology is a disruptive force, and the first instinct of a ruling class is to take control, because any such disruption, however good it might be for humanity at large, is a threat to their own power.
Over the past couple of centuries, things have gotten better because science and technology have advanced faster than the ruling classes have been able to respond.
In the past decade or two, in particular, the growth of computer and Internet technology has vastly outpaced regulators’ ability to respond. To use a military term, technology was inside the rulers’ decision loop.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the computers and the Internet have been a major source of economic growth over the same period.
We can hope — and I think that Diamandis and Kotler both hope and expect — that this state of affairs will persist into the indefinite future, but there are ominous signs that this will not be the case.
Already, a variety of increasingly intrusive laws and treaties are appearing in the Internet context — from the Stop Online Piracy Act recently defeated (for the moment) in the United States, to the international “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” that is currently facing new resistance in Europe — and there seems every reason to expect more such efforts in the future.
With governments throughout the West growing larger and more willing to regulate, the benefits to companies of swinging government regulations to their side are enormous.
And one of the most valuable ways of turning government regulation to one’s side is to use it to shut down competition. When that happens, innovation slows or stops and society as a whole suffers even if individual special interests benefit.
But, because the special interests do benefit and handsomely, while the burdens on society are diffuse and often not obvious, they often get away with their selfish manipulations.
Who looks after society as a whole? Our political leaders are supposed to, but things don’t always work out that way. As P.J. O’Rourke comments: “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
That’s right, and one finds members of both parties on the take. The more powerful the government, the more tempting it is to purchase influence — and, in fact, if your competitors are buying influence, you’ll have to respond in kind in self-defense.
And when everyone responds that way, the burdens on innovation, new business formation, and wealth generation keep growing.
Several decades ago, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein observed: “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances, which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all Right-thinking people.
Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’ ”
Will our “luck” turn good or bad over the next few years? A lot depends on what happens in November, and after. Especially after.
Examiner Sunday Reflection contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee law professor and founder of instapundit.com.
Science and technology are wonderful, but there’s nothing in this world that politicians can’t manage to screw up if they get their hands on it. And given the particularly low quality of our politicians today, this is something for all of us to worry about.
Ironically, this point is made by the authors’ opening anecdote. As recounted by Pliny the Elder, a goldsmith proudly displayed to the Roman Emperor Tiberius a shiny plate he’d made from a new metal extracted from clay (aluminum) using a secret method only he understood.
The emperor was indeed impressed: He saw this new shiny metal as a possible threat to the value of his large gold and silver stockpiles, so instead of rewarding the goldsmith, he had him beheaded.
The authors’ point is that eventually, aluminum became dirt-cheap, thanks to advances in technology. That’s true enough — but it’s also true that because of Tiberius, that happened nearly 2,000 years later.
For many lifetimes, the secret of aluminum production was as dead as the goldsmith who invented it. Humanity as a whole was worse off, but Emperor Tiberius didn’t care, because he wasn’t so much interested in the well-being of humanity as in the security of his own wealth and power.
This, alas, is entirely typical of ruling classes in general. Today we see the motion picture and recording industries threatened by technology, and using lawsuits and legislation, rather than the headsman’s axe.
But the pattern is the same: Technology is a disruptive force, and the first instinct of a ruling class is to take control, because any such disruption, however good it might be for humanity at large, is a threat to their own power.
Over the past couple of centuries, things have gotten better because science and technology have advanced faster than the ruling classes have been able to respond.
In the past decade or two, in particular, the growth of computer and Internet technology has vastly outpaced regulators’ ability to respond. To use a military term, technology was inside the rulers’ decision loop.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the computers and the Internet have been a major source of economic growth over the same period.
We can hope — and I think that Diamandis and Kotler both hope and expect — that this state of affairs will persist into the indefinite future, but there are ominous signs that this will not be the case.
Already, a variety of increasingly intrusive laws and treaties are appearing in the Internet context — from the Stop Online Piracy Act recently defeated (for the moment) in the United States, to the international “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” that is currently facing new resistance in Europe — and there seems every reason to expect more such efforts in the future.
With governments throughout the West growing larger and more willing to regulate, the benefits to companies of swinging government regulations to their side are enormous.
And one of the most valuable ways of turning government regulation to one’s side is to use it to shut down competition. When that happens, innovation slows or stops and society as a whole suffers even if individual special interests benefit.
But, because the special interests do benefit and handsomely, while the burdens on society are diffuse and often not obvious, they often get away with their selfish manipulations.
Who looks after society as a whole? Our political leaders are supposed to, but things don’t always work out that way. As P.J. O’Rourke comments: “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
That’s right, and one finds members of both parties on the take. The more powerful the government, the more tempting it is to purchase influence — and, in fact, if your competitors are buying influence, you’ll have to respond in kind in self-defense.
And when everyone responds that way, the burdens on innovation, new business formation, and wealth generation keep growing.
Several decades ago, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein observed: “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances, which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all Right-thinking people.
Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’ ”
Will our “luck” turn good or bad over the next few years? A lot depends on what happens in November, and after. Especially after.
Examiner Sunday Reflection contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a University of Tennessee law professor and founder of instapundit.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment