Comments on: On Alan Kay’s Technological Determinism http://www.jonbeilin.net/2010/01/kays-technolog/ !!! Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:16:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jeff Lindsay http://www.jonbeilin.net/2010/01/kays-technolog/comment-page-1/#comment-413 Jeff Lindsay Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:41:09 +0000 http://www.jonbeilin.net/?p=75#comment-413 I think you're taking his use of "invention" too literally. He's talking about a worldview that the universe is not deterministic to the point that we are unable to define the future. It's akin to Ackoff's (Singer's?) teleological worldview. But ignoring that, there are many that believe in a sort of technological determinism. Moore's law shows certain long term trends tend towards inevitability. The invention of some major technologies (such as the computer) happen in parallel, suggesting a sort of innate redundancy of the meme. And I don't think you can claim technology drives society or society drives technology -- if society *did* drive technology, there *wouldn't* be the modern computer. People had to be sold on this new idea over a long period of time, only in the process did it prove sustainable enough to develop itself to something that even more of society accepted. If you look into Kevin Kelly's exploration of technology, he might even convince you that society is technology. In a free market, it's not that bad ideas can be successful. "Good enough" ideas *tend* to be successful. First to market usually gives you a huge head start in market share, but with success comes a lot of issues. Microsoft had to keep backwards compatibility to the point of insanity and instability in order to stay at the top... all the while, Apple was able to start over and try new things and now has a fairly competitive OS. Apple's whole story sort of follows that trend. Even though they were first to market with modern PC's, they didn't adapt to greater trends. If they weren't first to market, they certainly would have died, but instead they basically went underground. They stayed alive with niche markets while retooling and learning to eventually become what they are now -- again, fairly competitive, if not the leader, in a number of markets. Learning how to be pragmatic/holistic and include market trends and human behavior is part of designing the future. If you just invent technology, unless it's inevitable, it's most likely going to be a failure. So I feel like I understand some of your concerns, but that you're missing the point. If you want to see certain good ideas take root, figure out how to make them work or how to make them spread, then take that action. That's inventing the future. I think you’re taking his use of “invention” too literally. He’s talking about a worldview that the universe is not deterministic to the point that we are unable to define the future. It’s akin to Ackoff’s (Singer’s?) teleological worldview.

But ignoring that, there are many that believe in a sort of technological determinism. Moore’s law shows certain long term trends tend towards inevitability. The invention of some major technologies (such as the computer) happen in parallel, suggesting a sort of innate redundancy of the meme. And I don’t think you can claim technology drives society or society drives technology — if society *did* drive technology, there *wouldn’t* be the modern computer. People had to be sold on this new idea over a long period of time, only in the process did it prove sustainable enough to develop itself to something that even more of society accepted. If you look into Kevin Kelly’s exploration of technology, he might even convince you that society is technology.

In a free market, it’s not that bad ideas can be successful. “Good enough” ideas *tend* to be successful. First to market usually gives you a huge head start in market share, but with success comes a lot of issues. Microsoft had to keep backwards compatibility to the point of insanity and instability in order to stay at the top… all the while, Apple was able to start over and try new things and now has a fairly competitive OS. Apple’s whole story sort of follows that trend. Even though they were first to market with modern PC’s, they didn’t adapt to greater trends. If they weren’t first to market, they certainly would have died, but instead they basically went underground. They stayed alive with niche markets while retooling and learning to eventually become what they are now — again, fairly competitive, if not the leader, in a number of markets.

Learning how to be pragmatic/holistic and include market trends and human behavior is part of designing the future. If you just invent technology, unless it’s inevitable, it’s most likely going to be a failure.

So I feel like I understand some of your concerns, but that you’re missing the point. If you want to see certain good ideas take root, figure out how to make them work or how to make them spread, then take that action. That’s inventing the future.

]]>