When it comes to changes, especially in technology, it’s common for people to have beliefs for what should and should not be. But where do these beliefs come from? How easy are they to change? What makes one person, or generation, or place, have a problem with something new, while another sees nothing wrong?

Where do these differences lead to second-order effects? How can we be aware of these effects and guard against them when we see new tech?

I believe that reflecting on these questions will help us figure out where there are opportunities to benefit. This is the start of exploration of this topic.

Maybe it comes down to inertia.

For a start to a mental model of the way people judge what should or should not be in tech, I turned to Douglas Adams, author of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Here’s a quote of his.

“I’ve come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” — Douglas Adams

“Technology” is a broad category. And Adams’ quote works with more than just new tech. It might apply to anything new at all.

Let’s look at each of his rules in turn.

“1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.”

We make assumptions about the way our world should be. An easy way to test this is to travel internationally. When you travel, especially when you travel some distance, it’s easier to see the differences that exist between your own “normal and ordinary” baseline (though that’s not limited to the first age group).

And that happens as connected as the world is.

In this age group, why do you speak the language you speak? Go to the school you attend? Eat the foods you eat? Play the games you play? Have the life expectancy and health that you do? You were largely born into those situations. Because that’s what you did experience, that’s what you should experience. And since those things happened they seem normal, just like the contrary experiences elsewhere.

But travel makes some people strengthen their own first beliefs and makes others weaken them. The social transmission that some beliefs and countries have (also called “soft power”) can be hard to stop.

“2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.”

I believe this is a reason why new startup tech can spread so far and fast. Most of the users and workers find it exciting and benefit from it. They’re not already tied to the previous set of systems. This is also why rule two’s age group doesn’t challenge the new tech, especially scalable tech, as the potential origin of other problems.

I looked for a metric of that change. Rather than focus on current tech, I looked to tech introductions of 100 years ago — those discussed in the book The Rise and Fall of American Growth. The author Robert Gordon looks at tech introductions from 1870 to 1940 (electric lighting, automobiles, airlines, radio, TV and more) and concludes that those introductions resulted in more growth — and change — than we experienced previously or have experienced since.

Those introductions happened so quickly when the US population was centered around a younger age than currently. The US is still a pretty young country, at least compared to the EU and Japan. Median age in the US is around 38 years today. But in 1900, the midpoint of Gordon’s book, the median age was much younger, around 23.

The question remains of how Adams’ three rules affect people differently when the speed of change increases or decreases.

“3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

If Adams’ three rules hold, then the 35+ age bracket is the counterbalance to change. Older age groups are typically wealthier, though not necessarily always more powerful. If the 35+ age group has significantly more wealth and control of youth, power in which industries are developed, or social power in the form of politics, religion, and essential institutions, then can it slow the rate of new technology adoption?

Adams’ presents three rules, not three ideals. In rule one we have no reflection — there’s no history or comparison to what could be. In rule two we don’t consider the good or bad (if either exists) and takes newness and excitement as opportunity. In rule three we are is too quick to see the new as bad.

Are some societies more at the whim of rules one, two, or three? I think so. As discussed earlier in the post Diet, Dying, Demographics, which focused on diet-related risks that are beyond choice of any individual in a society, these risks can be an…

“…accident of birth. Life expectancy has increased in most of the world over the last century due to many factors…. Accounting for that and other factors, as the percentage of a population that is “old” grows larger, some populations have a natural advantage in the way they age.”

Just as with the type of diet you are born into, some things are beyond your concrete choice — at least at a certain age. And we often have bigger issues than to consider every option.

Rule Four

Could the “against the natural order of things” hesitation in Adams’ rule three be an advantage?

I’m thinking of a potential Rule Four. “In any age, tech that could impact large populations at scale should be considered slowly.” A free market will always move faster than legislation so when large-scale tech that has big potential second-order effects comes forward, pause. This is the reaction from some against artificial general intelligence: great potential benefits and great potential pitfalls.

Is this a slow down reaction that allows for enough time to avoid unintended consequence categories of unexpected drawbacks and perverse results? If there is no rush to adopt the new tech and its risks, then maybe there is a gain by avoiding problems through slowness.

Considerations

Guard against the likelihood that you’re influenced by rules 1, 2, or 3 just because of your age group. Sensitize yourself to what may be your intuitive reaction at different ages. Not that you need to change your mind on what is the natural order. But recognize that the “natural order” changes because it is not truly the “natural order.”
Look for trends to reactions for and against new tech.
If technological change is faster at certain times, consider the impact on each age group. Is there more or less for each group to support or oppose? What impact does that have?
As always, guard against systemic risk that can come from scale and introduction of new complexity.