[EVDL] People fear the loss new-tech will bring: superEVSE ICEed, vandalized

brucedp5 via EV Sat, 26 Jan 2019 22:53:24 -0800


[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/Vandels-took-the-handle-tp4692705p4692707.html
]

[dated]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/21/humans-once-opposed-coffee-and-refrigeration-heres-why-we-often-hate-new-stuff/
Humans once opposed coffee and refrigeration. Here’s why we often hate new
stuff.
July 21, 2016 Steven Overly

Humans have a habit of stalling their own progress. From coffee to
mechanical refrigeration to genetically altered food, history is littered
with innovations that sparked resistance before becoming fixtures in
everyday life. The same theme is playing out today as some lawmakers and
consumers question the safety of driverless cars, the economic impact of
automation or the security of mobile banking

In hindsight, opposition to innovations such as mechanical farm equipment or
recorded music may seem ludicrous. But the past 600 years of human history
help explain why humans often oppose new technologies and why that pattern
of opposition continues to this day. Calestous Juma, a professor in Harvard
University’s Kennedy School of Government, explores this phenomenon in his
latest book, “Innovation and Its Enemies: Why People Resist New
Technologies.”

[image
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/files/2016/07/juma-200x300.jpg
Calestous Juma (Courtesy of Harvard University
]

Among Juma’s assertions is that people don’t fear innovation simply because
the technology is new, but because innovation often means losing a piece of
their identity or lifestyle. Innovation can also separate people from nature
or their sense of purpose — two things that Juma argues are fundamental to
the human experience. Innovations sat down with Juma to discuss his
findings, and what government and industry have historically gotten wrong
about innovation. What follows are eight key takeaways from that
conversation.

1) People sometimes oppose innovation even when it seems to be in their best
interest.

The impetus for Juma’s book came in the late 1990s when, as the executive
secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity ... There
are moments when new technologies that could be beneficial for humanity . .
. very often end up being opposed by the same groups that might benefit from
those technologies.” [
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/innovation-and-its-enemies-9780190467036?cc=us&lang=en&;
]

2) Technologies that are vastly superior to their predecessors, or don’t
have any predecessors, are more easily adopted.

There may be a coffee shop on every street corner today, but the caffeinated
beverage once caused much brouhaha. Juma writes that coffee first found
popularity among imams in the Middle East who needed to stay awake to call
prayers at the appropriate time. It simply did the job better than any other
stimulant at the time, Juma said. But coffee took much longer — centuries
longer — to catch on in Germany, France or England, where people were hooked
on beer, wine and tea, respectively. “Much of the resistance comes from
those who support or are supported by the incumbent product,” Juma said.
“The biggest lesson from the coffee story is if a new technology has
superior properties, overwhelmingly superior to its predecessors, chances
are that technology will get adopted no matter what.”

3) Resistance to new technologies comes from three key constituents,
including the average consumer.

Juma identified in his research three key sources of opposition to
innovation: those with commercial interests in existing products, those who
identify with existing products and those who might lose power as a result
of change. The first group is perhaps the most obvious. Many industries have
been disrupted, and even decimated, by innovation. Just take a look at the
futile efforts of music publishers to stop or slow the transition to digital
music, another topic Juma tackles in his book. Some consumers might oppose
an innovation because the existing product is deeply entrenched in their
identity, culture or customs. Britons preferred tea time at home to lounging
in a coffee shop, for example. Finally, the emergence of new technologies
can also result in a shift in economic and political power, redistributing
wealth and influence away from some groups and toward others. The expansion
of tractors and other mechanical equipment reduced the need for farm labor,
and the shift in population away from rural areas had significant political
implications, Juma writes.

4) Humans make decisions about new innovations with their gut rather than
evidence.

Opponents and enthusiasts of a new technology will often make bold claims to
bolster their argument, calling upon health, science, the environment,
psychology and any other number of disciplines for support. Sometimes these
assertions are rooted in fact, other times not. People once claimed coffee
could make you sterile or drive you into a state of hysteria. Juma said
beneath those arguments was typically an instinctive fear of new technology,
rather than a reasoned response.”People react intuitively, and they collect
the evidence to support what they’re doing,” Juma said. “They see a new
product and there is an emotional reaction to that product because it
challenges their outlook on the world. This has been the story with almost
every new product.”

5) People flock to technologies that make them more autonomous and mobile.

Cellular phones and digital music saw rapid adoption because they allowed
humans to be more autonomous and more mobile. You no longer need to be home
to make a phone call, or tethered to a boombox to hear music. Humans like to
move around and do so at their own convenience, a preference that some of
the most successful innovations have exploited to their advantage, Juma
said. “That’s one reason you see a lot of technology being integrated into
automobiles,” Juma said. Similarly, the human brain is attuned to “looking
for patterns, looking for novelty and thriving on feedback,” he said. “I
think those have become very fundamental aspects of our being human, and
that shapes how we select which technologies we get passionate about, and
which ones might just come along and just pass.”

6) People typically don’t fear new technology, they fear the loss it will
bring.

There is a convention that people are simply afraid of what they don’t
understand. That may not apply to technology, Juma said, at least not
exactly. “It’s the loss they are afraid of, not the newness,” he said. That
loss (perceived or real) can be a part of their identity, their way of life
or their economic security. People who live off food grown in their
community or who work the land for money were inclined to resist the advent
and adoption of mechanical farm equipment. Juma said understanding the
source of that fear can help companies and governments to mitigate
resistance to innovation by involving those who are likely to be effected in
the design of new technologies.

7) Technologists often don’t think about the impact their inventions have on
society.

Historically, technologists have been more concerned with the functionality
of the products they create, paying less attention to the implications it
may have on society at large, Juma contends. “I think they get very much
focused on the instrumental part of technology. Does it work or not work?
They don’t connect it with the social dimensions,” he said. That may be
starting to change as Silicon Valley faces scrutiny about the security and
privacy implications of new technologies. Juma points to artificial
intelligence as a present day example. Concerns about unruly robots running
amok has prompted serious discussions about adding a “kill button” to
artificial intelligence products, an idea that Google and others have been
working on.

8) Innovation is not slow, linear or incremental — but the government
doesn’t realize that.

Most governments don’t appreciate that “technologies advance in an
exponential way,” Juma said, resulting in policymakers who are constantly
surprised by new innovations and often fail to regulate them successfully.
Uber offers a prime case study. The ride-sharing service exploded in
popularity and rapidly expanded to cities around the world, sparking an
outcry from taxicab commissions the world over. In most cases, the
government’s response was slow and reactionary. “That’s because they think
about (innovation) in a slow and linear way. That’s how it’s been in the
past; that’s not the case anymore,” Juma said. To combat that mindset,
governments at the federal, state and local level need to lean on the
expertise of advisers with deep knowledge of science and technology, Juma
said.

[EVDL] People fear the loss new-tech will bring: superEVSE ICEed, vandalized

Reply via email to