John Michael Greer, the high priest of a bizarre pagan sect, made an interesting comparison in an article on Unherd. If someone fell asleep in 1825 and woke up in 1925, they would wake up to a completely different world. Not only in terms of social institutions (the unprecedented audacity of the young and the poor), but above all in terms of technology. They would wake up to a world of electricity, cars, aeroplanes, telephones, etc. But if they went to sleep in 1925 and woke up this year, there would be no drama. Cars are a little faster, phones are cordless, and movies are in colour, but these are not fundamental changes. The only disruptive innovation in 100 years is the personal computer.
According to Greer, this is because technology is subject to the law of diminishing returns. If you spend the same amount of money every year on technological change, the first few years bring huge changes, but later the same expensive technological changes bring less and less change in lifestyle.
But technological change has been going on in Europe since the Middle Ages. Why did utility start to decline in 1950 or 1650? Moreover, we do not see diminishing returns in China, for example. Breathtaking buildings, fantastic high-speed trains (can you imagine travelling from Prague to Paris in two hours?), driverless taxis, hospitals built in a week, or a vaccine developed in three weeks (which European scientists could also do, but it causes irrational fear in our country).
So what has changed in the West? There are many factors, but I would argue that the demise of the ethos of universal technological liberation has played a significant role. The enthusiasm that we would liberate all housewives by putting an automatic washing machine in every home. That every working class household would be able to afford its own car. Or that everyone would have electricity and central heating at home without going bankrupt. The moral conviction that improving the lives of the majority is a good thing has disappeared. Today, only special minorities deserve improvement. The majority is to be trampled underfoot. No investor is interested in an invention that improves the life of every housewife. There is much more interest in inventions that would force every housewife to pay ever higher bills.
One of the few areas where the old ethos of universal liberation through technology remains is neuroscience and some areas of psychology. There, researchers still hold on to the ideal that everyone will be able to manage their lives better, that everyone can be happier and have better relationships. This may well be true of some medical technology research. But it is not the norm.
Today’s inventors are not interested in users. They are interested in investors. So either toys are created or technologies that reduce the standard of living of the masses (or appropriate a larger share of their work). That is the problem. No diminishing returns.
