Will Tech Save Us? Or Will We Save Ourselves?
We need to match our command of technology with an equal or greater command of ourselves. To the degree that it’s not happening, we’re becoming (or are already) slaves.
My previous career, in magazine publishing, began before the Internet was born. At the end of each day, we sent physical slides and photographs by courier to the repro house for scanning, and they returned the digitised images on a hard disc the next day. Once the pages were made up, we delivered the files on a CD and received back a set of four (CMYK) transparencies for each page. We physically inspected each set. Once satisfied, we sent the whole batch by overnight courier to the printers in Cape Town.
The point is, deadlines were hard. Hard to meet and hard as in fixed in stone. If your magazines didn’t make the trucks in time, they wouldn’t be on the supermarket shelves for payday. It was wise to be a day ahead of schedule to allow for the inevitable hitches.
Then one day the Internet was born. We were literally invited to a formal presentation and told: This is the Internet, and this is how it will work. This is email and this is how it will work. Suddenly, text could fly around the world in an instant, which made it quicker and easier for writers to file their stories. It took some time before line speeds became fast enough to send large digital files (images and made-up pages) and thereby save the aforementioned courier time.
What did we do with that extra time that the tech allowed us? Did we finish up early and go to the beach, or the movies? No, we did not. We filled it up instead.
Now here’s my point: what did we do with that extra time that the tech allowed us? Did we finish up early and go to the beach, or the movies? Did we accumulate it all and take a day off a week? No, we did not. We filled it up instead. With procrastination. With creative indulgences. With last-minute changes. With demands from our bosses. We let a lot of inefficient fat creep into the system and suddenly we were working longer and harder than ever.
Continue reading below, unless you’d like to…
…listen to the audio version:
…or watch the YouTube video:
I had long since left that field when Covid hit. I was coaching, and technology came to the rescue. I could deliver sessions and workshops online, and the people I coached could equally work remotely. And what did those people, my clients, do with the hour or two saved by not having to commute? Did they take long walks through the forest, or sit and meditate? Spend time with their children? No, they did not. They filled it up instead. With meetings. With work that didn’t get done while they were in back-to-back online meetings all day. With after-hours demands from their bosses. (Studies showed that most people worked on average two hours a day more during Covid.)
So, the question arises: do we use (or boss) technology; or do we let technology use (or boss) us? And if the latter, who do we have to blame?
So, the question arises: do we use (or boss) technology; or do we let technology use (or boss) us? And if the latter, who do we have to blame? The actual tech bosses who invented the tools? Our own bosses at work? Or ourselves? My response is yes, we do let it boss us, and we are doing it—or letting it happen—to ourselves.
Based on the above statement, there are three directions we could take this in: we could look at whether we need to rein in those tech bosses and not fall so easily for the promises they make. (We do.) We could look at whether we need to challenge our own bosses and our corporate cultures. (We do.) We could also look at whether we need to increase our ability to self-manage to keep pace with the increase in computing power and the reach of social media. (We most certainly do.)
Do we need to increase our ability to self-manage to keep pace with the increase in computing power and the reach of social media? (We most certainly do.)
Given the remit of this newsletter, we’ll focus on that last point, the individual response. And rather than quote studies, let’s look at something we can experience directly. We’ll return to an example I’ve used before. It’s a relatively innocuous one but for that very reason can be used to make the point: the use of video technology to assist referee decisions during sporting events. Sure, many decisions get cleared up, but even with endless replays, there is still plenty of grey. Was the handball deliberate? Was the try held up, or the foot on the line? Was that really a no-ball? Often, it’s still too close to tell, still open to interpretation—even after 20 time-consuming, energy-deflating replays.
Now let’s look at what’s really going on here.
Firstly, we’ve destroyed the experience that we came for, which was passionate excitement, the thrill of witnessing extraordinary skill—and a few sleights of hand—being executed at speed. Surely the referee decision should be part of that, even subject to that. So if somebody manages to make it look like they got it across the line, should we give them that?
With each replay, our tolerance muscle weakens, and we become emotionally, and ultimately morally, flabby. It’s the moral version of lying on a couch instead of exercising.
Second, and more importantly, we’ve become focused on the idea of a perfect right-or-wrong answer and thereby not only lost our appreciation for the wonder of the moment, but we’ve also lost our tolerance for the imperfections and sometimes unfairness of life. Sometimes, the decision just doesn’t go your way, and you have to live with that. Instead, with each replay, our tolerance muscle weakens, and we become emotionally, and ultimately morally, flabby. It’s the moral version of lying on a couch instead of exercising. For some, their tolerance muscle is so weak—their self-forgetfulness so high—that they spew hatred on social media to the point of threatening the referees’ lives.
Now think about how this plays out in the world of dating. Pre-instant messaging, you had to write notes to your love prospects, and pass them through various hands. Those of us who did that had no idea who would see them and gossip about them, no idea when or if they had arrived, and it was an interminable wait until the reply arrived, if it ever did. Letters while serving in the army were even worse. The torture! The upside, however, was the emotional tolerance we were required to develop. These days, if you don’t have two blue ticks within minutes, and a reply within seconds of that, you experience the whole gamut of emotions from anxious to exasperated to apoplectic.
Self-management is not supported by the way the tech is designed. On the contrary, most apps are designed to generate addictive behaviour.
We can see, then, that self-management is not supported by the way the tech is designed. On the contrary, we know that most apps are designed to increase interaction—or, less euphemistically, to generate addictive behaviour. To voluntarily self-manage in any of the situations mentioned requires an enormous amount of awareness and intention, much more than ever before, and most people won’t do that if they don’t have to. It takes enough willpower just to get through the day.
Is there any wonder, then, that we’re facing a mounting mental health problem?
Only this morning, I read about day-care apps for parents that track children’s movements and even their heart rate throughout the day. God help the mothers who get fed that data! Who even thinks of these things, and who thinks they’ll be a good idea for the advancement of humanity? Who calls this progress? “The constant, daily effect of these technologies is narcotic and neurotic,” says Siva Vaidhyanathan, in his excellent book Antisocial Media.
He further points out the wonders of what we can do with our tech—to communicate instantly over vast distances, entertain ourselves with VR goggles, or to achieve incredible physical feats like whole archaeological digs—but how we’ve been unable to harness it to improve social and political outcomes like alignment on a pandemic or climate response, or resisting the rise of populist nationalism in so many countries. To achieve any of those things, in my view, would require greater self-management across a broader range of the population. However, it’s not happening. Says Vaidhyanathan: “We display unlimited talents but no mastery. We process infinite data but display no wisdom.”
We’ve been here before. We gained nuclear technology and before it was used for anything constructive, it was used for a bomb.
We’ve been here before. Every age has been defined by the dominant material that arose during that age. We’ve gone from the Stone Age through Bronze, Iron, Industrial, Machine, and Nuclear, to this, the Information Age. In each instance, that material has been used to wage war on a bigger and grander scale. What was World War I other than the Industrial Revolution having inevitably turned its focus to killing? No sooner had we invented machines that could mass produce clothing and all sorts of wonderful things than we turned them to mass producing machines that could kill on a mass scale—machine guns and the like. We gained nuclear technology and before it was used for anything constructive, it was used for a bomb. Now, as we see, we are letting our mastery of information be used against us. To quote Vaidhyanathan one last time: “Not for the first time, market and political forces have turned products of the Enlightenment against enlightenment.”
The eminent tech journalist Kara Swisher, who has recently published a memoir of her years as a journalist in the tech business—it's called Burn Book—seems to have experienced something similar. In a recent interview in the Guardian, she said, "I saw the possibilities of tech being the saviour of humanity. Instead, it's like they promised us jet packs, and this is what we got. Are you kidding me?" And to my other point, she said, “The problem isn't tech, it's people.”
In my work, I’m often amazed at young people who show up for coaching, seeking a way that they can “change the world” or “make a difference”. (It’s become fashionable now, instead of wanting to “make a billion dollars”, to “influence a billion people”—ambition all the same, but with a prettier face.) And usually their proposed solution is some form of tech. My question, which I don’t usually ask, is, What problem exactly are you looking to solve? Exactly how is this tech going to do that? And, most importantly, what of ourselves will we be leaving behind?
The unquestioned worship of tech as the answer to everything—and the unconscious self-image of the tech bros as prophets and therefore saviours—is astounding.
The unquestioned worship of tech as the answer to everything is astounding, and probably best evidenced by this story. Following the media’s move online, I skilled up in Internet technologies to the point where I managed an Internet services company in Cape Town for a couple of years. I also co-founded a start-up, which we hawked to the venture capitalists in the area. At the time, the Western Cape was promoting itself as “Silicon Cape” (the Silicon Valley of Africa) and for a number of years (2010-2016) a giant tech conference was staged at which local visionaries and luminaries would speak. Here’s the interesting bit: the conference called itself Net Prophet. It was a play on the word “profit” for sure, and pointed to the profits that every tech bro dreamed of, but the unconscious self-image of the tech bros as prophets (and therefore saviours) was there for all to see.
OK, let’s pause, step back, and check where we are.
We welcome new technology, for the benefits promised. Those benefits are never quite as singular as we were led to believe. There’s always a downside, which we inevitably fall victim to. And here’s the kicker: we fall victim to it because we don’t match the advance in technology with an advance in emotional maturity or the ability to self-manage. We end up giving away those two hours a day instead of claiming them. Then we look to more tech, and the tech bosses, to set us free.
So, what can we do? We can become more aware and carve out a space where we learn to manage ourselves relative to the demands of the tech.
Individually, we may feel helpless to stop this train. So, what can we do? We can become more aware and carve out a space where we learn to manage ourselves relative to what the tech—and the world enslaved by the tech—seems to be demanding. Specifically, we can:
Be more self-aware. Recognise the ways in which you are or can be a slave to technology, when you’re letting technology use you or invade your space, rather than using it in a way that truly benefits you.
Learn to self-manage. Recognise when you’re getting lost in the details of the situation (whether the goal was scored or not, why your love interest has unrequited blue ticks, the reason for your child’s elevated heart rate). Pull back instead; imagine if there was no tech, and focus on your own reaction to the situation.
Bank the time. Think about the time the tech has saved you, for example from having to stand in a banking or shopping queue; bank that time, and use it wisely.
Live in the real world. Notice that even with the best tech, we still live in a world of limitation, imperfection, and that life is full of grey areas and irony and paradox. Try coming to terms with that rather than looking for the perfect solution or trying to save the world.
Adjust your expectations. Remind yourself that technology is just a tool that can help improve some things; it’s not a silver bullet that can provide every answer, and each solution certainly has a downside.
Start a conversation. Inspire and encourage people to take back their lives instead of being in blind slavery to tech, to treat it as a tool and not as a panacea. Challenge your boss and your organizational culture to do the same. The blind subservience to innovation needs to be challenged.
Start a movement. Advocate for new laws and social structures that develop incentives for tech bosses to serve society by making tech truly useful instead of serving themselves by making tech addictive.
All this and we haven’t even mentioned AI. Perhaps the only thing to say is all the above, on steroids. The principle is the same: the more leverage we gain through our command of technology, the more internal muscle we need for self-awareness and self-management.