How technological wars of faith inhibit technological progress.

Time and again, it can be observed how downright religious wars break out around new technology and its use in products and services. This is both tedious and regrettable, but unfortunately unavoidable.

(Reading time 5 minutes)

Logical.

Actually, you might think, it would be very simple. People always use the technology that is cheaper, better and easier to use in the medium term. No matter where this technology comes from. No matter who invented it. Everyone should be interested in improvements that impact our lives as quickly as possible. Moreover, they are categorically great opportunities to create new business.

Religious war

However, if you look around the world, you will quickly realize that this is not the case at all. Instead, new technology is being fought against. There are actually always at least two camps. The camp of those who want to hold on to the old technologies and the camp of the innovators who want to see new technology implemented as quickly as possible.

In both camps, the discussions are generally largely detached from the facts. Nuclear technology is a particularly good example of this. On the one hand, supporters of nuclear power see this energy generation as being unfairly denounced and believe that the issues of future energy generation have been resolved. On the other side are the opponents of nuclear power. Meanwhile, especially after Fukushima, the leading camp with the conviction that nuclear technology should never be used again.

In such discussions, the two camps then gleefully throw all kinds of statistics, facts and, yes, half-truths at each other. It’s one big hopeless attempt to convince the other camp. Which, of course, never works.

Faith

Because in the vast majority of cases, it is a belief in a technology. This belief can be the result of many factors. Experiences, facts, socialization, tradition. They are basically the same elements as any other religious belief.

“Faith is the attempt to relate what is missing or cannot be explained by knowledge to one’s own perception”

People need faith to mentally cope with gaps in their knowledge. We all believe in something, even if it’s just that we don’t believe in anything. It is these thought complexes on which we base our directives for action.

I think that a belief that is conducive to progress and the further development of humanity is the belief in “knowing and knowing about not-knowing”. To come back to nuclear technology, for example: Fatally, neither camp is doing the use of this technology any favors.

Nuclear power plants are very safe. And they are fairly clean in terms of production output. The problem with today’s nuclear power plants is the cost. Because if a serious accident happens – and yes, it can happen anywhere and at any time – the damage and the associated costs are immense. One of the achievements of environmental policy is that 40 years ago people generally began to internalize external costs. In the case of nuclear power plants, these costs include the dismantling part at the end of the plant’s service life and, as we have not yet reached that stage, the insurance costs in the event of damage. If all costs were correctly taken into account, nuclear power would already be unaffordable today.

On the other hand, as a result of the accidents, people have become convinced far too quickly that nuclear technology should be banned for all time. As a result, investment in this area has been curtailed to the maximum. That is fatal. After all, there is much that is promising about nuclear technology. It has great technological potential. Instead of simply closing nuclear power plants and publicly demonizing them, it would have been better to call for more investment in this technology. The most obvious and easiest way would be to miniaturize the reactors. This would significantly reduce the probability of a super-GAU and thus the costs. Small municipal reactors can play an important role in a decentralized power supply system in which generation, storage and consumption are largely local.

So if you try to draw a logical conclusion, it is that nuclear power plants should not be pushed any further, but that massive investments should be made in the technology. It is a differentiated view. This is obviously difficult for many people today.

Know all variables of the equation

It is easy to explain why this is the case. The areas are rich in detail and difficult to penetrate. For example, it is very difficult to put an apple in front of two people and have them disagree on the design of the object. This is because the apple, its attributes, are lightning fast and easy to grasp. You can’t argue about it.

The less clear these attributes are or the more time has to be spent to grasp all the attributes, the more people are inclined to bridge the lack of knowledge with “faith”. That’s why people believe in technology. In reality, however, this is impossible. At best, the probability that a technology will prevail in our world can be considered higher than for other technologies.

We make technological decisions in society based on this belief and economic efficiency. In the end, the “next best economy in terms of time” always wins out. Belief no longer plays a role. And it is usually the case that the physically best solutions are also the most economical over time.

Both and

If we were to talk about technology and the resulting changes in a less dogmatic and ideologically driven way, if we were to cultivate more “both and” rather than “the winner takes it all”, we would arrive at better solutions faster, more effectively and with less stress. Unfortunately, the discussions don’t lead to anything except the realization that there are no “winner takes it all” scenarios. All major technology-driven upheavals have always been an interplay of different technologies. And that will continue to be the case.