We had a very interesting 501 Tech Club last night here in SF. Topics ranging from Beverly Hills 90210 to ethanol usage in sugar producing companies to my current obsession, Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat." I can't remember who said it (claim credit if you do!), but one review of the book during our conversation basically said it's great, but technodeterministic. Which is a $10 dollar word if I ever heard one. And a fair criticism of the book. Something as complex as the global economy will not be solely influenced by a little thing like technology. But it got me thinking...

My friends aren't the best sample, but I think that most world views are heavily technodeterministic at this point. I got home from 501 tech Club and a couple of friends came over for dessert and wine. We started talking about mundane stuff - getting older, the kids, etc. And I was very surprised by how much technology influenced nearly every aspect of the conversations we had. From computer literacy programs for pre-schoolers to taking pills designed for people with Alzheimer's to help healthy people remember. And as I was cleaning up, I was listening to an NPR podcast about people who insert magnets into their fingertips to extend their sensory perception. (Does your finger stick to the fridge every time you try to open it? That would be annoying!)

How much do we all believe that technology will make our world and our selves better?

So I Googled "technodeterministic" this morning and read some amazing stuff. The best, by far was a "Beyond the Future" chat transcript from the Washington Post. The chat was with Joel Garreau, author of Radical Evolution (which I bought moments ago!). Here's an excerpt from his preface to the chat:

in "radical evolution," i lay out three scenarios about where this takes us, that you hear discussed in the halls of the digerati -- "heaven," "hell" and "prevail."

in the heaven scenario, all of these erupting technologies soon banish pain, suffering, stupidity, ignorance, ugliness, and even death. it is essentially indistinguish from the christian version of heaven and it happens within our lifetimes. and it could happen. it is credible.

in the hell scenario, the spectacular powers of these technologies get into the hands of madmen or fools. the optimistic version of this scenario is that we wipe out the human race within the next 25 years. the pessimistic version has us wiping out all of life on earth. and again, this is credible and possible.

the prevail scenario is not some middle ground between these two. it is way off in its own territory. prevail argues that the problem with the heaven and hell scenarios is that they are technodeterministic -- that they are based on a belief that how many transistors you can get to talk to each other will determine human history.

prevail is fundamentally different. prevail believes that the critical element is how many ornery, unpredictable, imaginative, cussed *humans* you can get to talk to each other.

at the heart of prevail is the notion of co-evolution. that's the idea that what really matters is not how quickly our challenges are increasing -- which they demonstrably are. the big deal is whether our solutions are increasing at a matching pace.

Let me repeat some of that:

what really matters is not how quickly our challenges are increasing -- which they demonstrably are. the big deal is whether our solutions are increasing at a matching pace.

I think the key word there is pace. I perceive, and I think we all perceive, the the challenges we face as individuals and as communities and societies are increasing exponentially, and that they are more tangled and complex than ever before. They seem beyond human help. Which is why technology is just so sexy. I think that in many ways, we see it as SUPER human.

No real point here. Just some ramblings. Oh, and if your interested, the picture is an artist's conecption of Heaven - made with fractals.