The Techno-utopianism of Peter Diamandis

I am an admirer of Peter Diamandis. He and Steven Kotler have been largely responsible for shifting the planetary conversation from endless doom and gloom within a context of scarcity to the possibility of sustainable abundance. For the book Abundance and his related work, I believe we all owe him a large debt.

Peter is a techno-utopian. This has never been clearer than in his recent essay.

The techno-utopian mindset credits humanity as a whole with more rationality than is justified.

The recent advent of outsourcing, which I view as a kind of first shot across the bow for technological unemployment (for reasons discussed in another blog), has led to serious flirtations with authoritarian leaders in democracies across the world. Such leaders offer simplistic solutions to pressing problems. The “totalitarian temptation”, as a classic book of yesteryear is named, is ever-present. For so long as people live within a context of scarcity, they will remain fearful of having their limited resources stripped away and their lives crushed.

This is not the only significant example of irrationality controlling the body politic. For example, while research has consistently supported the societal benefits—including cost savings–of programs such as Head Start, they remain underfunded.

While thinkers both left and right” have determined that the consolidation of welfare programs could pay for a far superior program called a guaranteed minimum income, no such programs are being seriously considered anywhere in the world. (This may change; hopefully without need for the shock of a Greater Depression.) Most income tax systems are grotesque and Frankensteinian; universally disliked if not loathed. Yet efforts at fundamental reform have repeatedly failed.

There are many such examples to be found in most societies and, as Lester Thurow noted in the Zero Sum Society, the combination of special interest groups and public lethargy has yielded almost continuous gridlock. (It has gotten much worse since his book was published decades ago.)

We humans are “predictably irrational” creatures who make decisions based on limited information and within contexts of bias, fear and hope. We are not equipped by biology or education to deal with rapid change, and the kind of change now upon us is unprecedented. While it will surely seem counterintuitive, there is no reason to expect that the majority will welcome or accept the advent of “free” food, “free” housing and so forth; as projected by Peter.

Yes, such developments are POSSIBLE—just as it is possible that employers will translate the cost savings from automation into higher wages, as expected by Andrew McAfee. But are such expectations realistic? I think not.

Producers of these products, with their profit margins endangered, will advocate for protectionism, as farmers in the US have enjoyed for many decades. I can envision various marketing campaigns to tug at heartstrings. Such campaigns often win, not because they are in the best interests of those they purport to protect (the public), but rather because those who benefit from them are far more organized and focused than the public. This is, in part, why I expect guaranteed minimum income programs to falter.

The past century has seen phenomenal change, nearly all of it due to technology. Much of this change has been wrenching; some of it existentially threatening to minority groups and some to humanity as a whole. The best technology doesn’t always win; look at the oft-cited case of Betamax. Neither do the best societal practices. Venality, violence, bribery and other societally corrosive practices are common in much of the world—including countries such as Afghanistan and Congo with colossal natural resources lying dormant.

My big objection to techno-utopianism is this: just because something wonderful COULD happen due to exponentially accelerating technology doesn’t mean that it WILL happen. The creaking sounds in the foundation of Western society that we are now hearing could be the first alerts of cornucopian trees about to burst forth. They could also be the first rumbles of society-leveling earthquakes.

Rather than count on the great wave of technological progress to rationally unfold without significant human opposition, I submit that a small group of like-minded, rational people who actually understand and believe in the power of technology to transform society should converge to create one model Celebration Society. With a single such society established, it will become far easier for others–especially those frightened by accelerating change–to envision themselves living in societies based on abundance.

Most people aren’t very good at imagining possibilities. Ask any realtor about prospective buyers’ abilities to imagine improvements to properties. They’ll tell you that it’s usually necessary to do the imagining for the buyers.

We might be able to do what’s needed via the simulation of a Celebration Society. I hope so—it will be years faster than building the actual model, and allow us to refine the model virtually before doing so more expensively in the real world.