Technology as Risk and At Risk

“An’ now the ugly bullets come peckin’ through the dust,
An’ no one wants to face ’em, but every beggar must;
So, like a man in irons, which isn’t glad to go,
They moves ’em off by companies uncommon stiff an’ slow.”

What do you want to avoid? And what do you want to achieve? And what might threaten that?

Risk is pervasive. And it’s growing. The structures which we develop to respond to it- love, companionship, education, common experience- are all fading in their ability to handle it.

And this is- in part- because of the magnifying effects of Western technology. The model of technology we use is about expanding and extending human ability through the use of tools.. These range from the flint scraper found in the Olduvai to the equally pervasive smartphone.

But new technologies- behaviours and contexts bring new risks. Some of them existential.

But- apparently- we fail to respond to these until- to use Kipling’s- poem — the bullets start to hit. And for those of you who have never seen a bullet wound, it’s not like it is on the telly.

So, instead of AI ethics and ignorance of consequence, should we maybe have a tax and insurance/legal system on innovation.

Should we- as the device and app builders pay for the risks we bring?

We can see suggestions from the OECD, as long ago as 2010, which suggested that solving the worlds environmental problems could take a significant toll on economic growth without ‘new’ ‘cleaner’ technologies.

But does technology- as an entity- actually create more risks and disasters than it reduces, eliminates or alleviates?

In the same way, has technology helped alleviate, reduce or eliminate the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic? Or has it worsened that impact?

But let’s not argue about the data. Everybody knows it’s the new oil. With the same polluting effects and costs.

So does innovation in the form of the creation and adoption of new cleaner, faster, richer technologies and know-how provide a means to reach individual, local and global environmental goals?

Because innovation is also a major driver of economic growth which is seen as critical in maintaining social cohesion. And while national governments and international confederations increasingly use environmentally related taxes because they are typically one of the most effective policy tools available. But do they go far enough?

Exploring the relationship between risk, taxation, innovation and general effectiveness is critical to understanding the full impacts of such policy instruments.

By putting a price on pollution, do environmentally related taxes spur innovation? And if we put a price on data pollution, through both mainstream and social media, will that reduce the cost of Twitter democracy and Slack distraction management?

So, should we be taxing innovation in both development and use?

To protect us from the risk explosion?

Sadly, “real” innovation is rare. You can’t socialise people through education and expect them to think differently. The ‘masses’ are only controllable if they are bots- cloneable entities . And bots are easier and cheaper to control. ‘Protecting’ innovation is critical at one level.

But what do we do when our solutions create bigger problems than we can handle socially, environmentally and individually?

And is there -maybe- a deadly struggle taking place between those who can invent the future and those who can only copy the present?

And what does that mean for your hopes and fears?

Or is it just another trade off you don’t want to make?