Technology has always promised progress — longer lives, greater comfort, deeper knowledge. Yet every breakthrough carries a shadow. The same tools that cure diseases can destabilize societies; the same systems that connect us can quietly reshape our minds. Modern life is built on technologies that empower us, but also expose us to risks no previous generation has faced. Understanding this duality is essential if we want to navigate the future without losing ourselves.
Technology’s Dual Nature
Technology and society have always shaped one another. Every invention begins as a human idea, though not every innovation is designed to improve life. Once released into the world, technologies start influencing human behaviour, reshaping social structures, and creating new forms of risk. Over the past century, we crossed a threshold: our own tools gained the power to threaten our continued existence. This dual nature is striking. Technology took us to the Moon and opened access to global knowledge. Yet the invention of the nuclear bomb brought humanity closer to existential catastrophe, and social media has destabilized psychological well‑being on a global scale.
This tension emerges with almost every major innovation. Some see technology as a path toward a better society, while others warn of its destructive consequences. One of the earliest examples of this second perspective was the Luddite movement — English weavers and artisans in the early 19th century who destroyed machines that threatened their livelihoods. But Luddism was not a fear of novelty. It was a protest against technologies designed primarily to increase industrial profit while reducing workers’ quality of life. This philosophical stance laid the groundwork for a crucial question that still follows us today: Is technological progress truly worth it?
Progress, Comfort, and the Paradox of Modern Life
Technology undeniably expands human capabilities and often increases comfort and safety — but not uniformly, and not for everyone. As modernity advances, our lives become more complex, and new problems and risks emerge alongside the benefits. This leads to one of the most striking paradoxes of the contemporary world: by objective measures of well‑being, we are better off than at any point in history, yet it is far from clear if we are happier. Modern humans live in environments that are fast, digital, always available, and often psychologically demanding.
Still, I believe technological progress matters. To explain why, I turn to the ideas of Australian philosopher Toby Ord, whose work on existential risk offers a framework for understanding both the promise and the peril of modern technology.
Toby Ord and the Landscape of Existential Risk
In The Precipice, Toby Ord maps the wide spectrum of existential risks humanity faces. Technology is central to his analysis: on one hand, it reduces natural threats such as asteroid impacts; on the other, it creates human‑made risks — nuclear weapons, biotechnology, artificial intelligence. According to Ord’s estimates, these human‑made risks are far more likely than natural ones, which means that the very tools we rely on for progress also pose the greatest danger to our survival.
However, Ord introduces one more concept that is crucial for understanding the value of technological progress: human potential – the vast space of future lives, achievements, and discoveries humanity could reach if it survives. Technology is essential to unlocking this potential. Without it, we would never have developed modern medicine, explored space, or understood our planet.
Ord’s conclusion is clear: we must support technological progress, but invest at least equal effort into minimizing the risks it creates. This perspective is accurate from the standpoint of existential threats, but it overlooks one crucial dimension: technology is never neutral
Technology Is Shaped by Society
If technology is never neutral, then we must ask what shapes it. Technologies do not emerge in a vacuum; they are products of societies with their own interests, power structures, and economic motivations. In capitalist environments, the dominant motivation is often profit. When the pursuit of profit diverges from human values or the preservation of human potential, problems arise.
We see this clearly in the digitalization of society. The internet enabled the rise of surveillance capitalism, which profits from massive extraction of personal data. At the same time, social participation without the internet has become nearly impossible in developed countries. A technology meant to democratize access to information has become a tool of manipulation, monitoring, and commercial pressure.
The Problem of Uncontrolled Technological Development
What follows from this? Today’s technological progress is largely uncontrolled. It does not necessarily lead us where we want to go. Ord is right that we must analyze existential risks, but another category of risks emerges from the fact that technologies gain meaning only through their interaction with society. They are developed within specific ideological frameworks, often with the goal of maximizing profit rather than human well‑being. This raises essential questions: Who creates technology? Who uses it? And what values does it embody?
There is nothing wrong with human ingenuity or the desire to preserve human potential. But we must openly discuss whether specific technologies truly serve this goal — or whether they primarily advance private interests that may conflict with societal needs. Technology always has two faces: the same tools that enable extraordinary achievements can also threaten and destabilize us.
Toward a More Responsible Technological Future
The ideal scenario would be a society in which every major technological innovation is evaluated by competent analytical bodies capable of assessing its safety and designing strategies for its responsible integration. Such oversight could help minimize risks — whether job displacement caused by AI or declining mental well‑being linked to social media. However, this kind of system would require global cooperation, which is unlikely in a world driven by competition and profit. Even if cooperation were achieved, a single actor breaking the rules could destabilize the entire framework.
Despite how impossible this path may seem, it might be the only viable way to secure a future that is not dystopian. We must organize, debate, and establish rules that guide technology rather than letting it guide us. It is a humanistic argument — but I see no alternative for humanity to remain united. The first step is an open public conversation about the kind of technological progress we actually want. This essay is an attempt to spark that conversation.
Leave a Reply