A person born on the day Apple introduced the first iPhone can vote today. Eighteen years later, we might expect the latest version - released last month - to be unrecognizable from the original. Despite all the improvements over time, it's not. But a car made that year wouldn't look out of place on today's roads either. See also photos of Nicolas Sarkozy the moment he was elected president of France, and then pictures of him going to prison this week. Aside from the man's gray hair, can you tell the two eras apart at a glance? I bet not as quickly as you could tell 1989 from 2007, which is the same time gap.
Now, let’s try the same comparison, but this time we’re tracking political rather than technological change. When the iPhone debuted, the world was relatively quiet; in almost all Western democracies there was a strong political center, the United States and China were closely aligned, and a consensus on free trade prevailed. Today, however, a land war of unprecedented brutality is raging in Europe, the hard right is in power or close to it across the West, relations between the United States and China fluctuate between tension and outright hostility, and David Ricardo (an economist who championed the principle of free trade and economic globalization) has ended up on the pillory. The public sphere, not private innovation, has provided the drama of our time.
You wouldn't always say that if you were to judge by "discourse." Maybe I've been to too many conferences and dinners this year, but I get the impression that people - even, or especially, smart people - are starting to think too much about technology and too little about politics. The constant debates about artificial intelligence are one thing, but the story doesn't end there.
Jeff Bezos envisions “millions of people living in space” in “the next twenty years or so.”
Well, Earthlings, here are some very realistic scenarios from the political realm, in a shorter time frame. France elects a hard-right president who, without leaving the European Union, disrupts its work from within until it ceases to function.
Technological trends are less scary to think about than political ones. It's better to talk about "deepfakes" than about a general European war. It's a way to be serious - without, in fact, being fundamentally serious.
Russia is taking action against a NATO member that could be considered an “armed attack” under Articles 5 and 6 of the Treaty.
The Sahel — a region that now accounts for more than half of all terrorism-related deaths on the planet, up from almost none in 2007 — is becoming a base for attacks on the West. (Think of Afghanistan in the late 1990s, only much closer to Europe and America.)
Britain or France, or both, are experiencing a sovereign bond crisis that is causing, at best, a necessary change in economic policy, and at worst, social unrest.
These topics are discussed, of course, but the attention they receive compared to technology stories is completely disproportionate. The instinctive rule is to be skeptical of any “futurist” who is not primarily concerned with politics. The grandest visions of artificial intelligence - a huge gain for consumers, but also a huge loss of jobs - may be coming true.
But the departures of Xi Jinping (72) and Vladimir Putin (73) are certain to happen, with repercussions that will be felt far beyond their countries. The range of possible outcomes is wide: from a easing of tensions between the West and Eurasian autocracies under a new generation of leaders, to an even more intense conflict that is hard to imagine.
So, feel free to speculate about the potential of technology. But keep in mind that one or two entirely possible political events could outweigh any impact the technology might have on everyday life.
Even a modest trend, such as the planned increase in European defense spending, has repercussions on taxes and thus on private consumption - such that they would be comparable only to the impact of some truly great innovation. Let's look at the recent past. Nothing has affected businesses and consumers more than a spike in inflation in the wake of the pandemic. Whatever you attribute to the cause - the war in Ukraine, too-loose monetary policy, or supply chain disruptions caused by lockdowns - it was a political issue. The experience should have reminded us of the primacy of the public sphere. Instead, the fascination with technology as a driver of reality has only grown over that period.
Why? Partly because of generational habits. In the eighteen years leading up to the iPhone, technological change was dizzying: from a world with little or no internet to ubiquitous connectivity, from bulky and dirty cars to clean but uniformly curvy ones. In contrast, the difference between George H.W. Bush and George H.W. Bush was much smaller. People who grew up during that period—and thus almost everyone who holds influence today—tend to see technology as the main driving force behind history, not politics. Hence the widespread belief that social media gave birth to populism. (But somehow not in Australia or Denmark. Interesting, isn’t it?)
Another reason for focusing on technology is that it serves as a coping mechanism. Technological trends are less scary to think about than political ones. It’s better to talk about “deepfakes” than about a general European war. It’s a way of being serious—without, in fact, being fundamentally serious.
Look at what people who can do anything do. When Elon Musk and other tech moguls began to engage in public life, it was interpreted as an attempt at personal gain: to influence regulations or even public contracts in their favor. Perhaps, to some extent, that was the case. But there is no doubting their sincere desire to leave their mark. Meddling in politics was a tacit admission of where the real action was. Almost nothing in the business world can match government as a source of intellectual challenge and a way to leave a historical mark. Those who have reached the top of the tech world seem to see its limits most clearly.
The text is taken from "Financial Times"
Translation: NB
Bonus video:
