Erik van Der Vleuten talks about the unintended consequences of technology and the dilemma of control:
“Historically, when innovations have reached users’ hands, those very innovations could also pose new risks to their users. For example, early refrigerators and freezers met a huge social challenge: these appliances helped to conserve food. The early refrigerators and freezers came with the liability of doors with latches, however. Children playing hide-and-seek got trapped and suffocated in abandoned refrigerators and freezers. Only after a media outcry were engineers prompted to replace the life-threatening latches with push doors. Another example: scientists developed antibiotics to save lives, but unwitting overuse of antibiotics has fostered dangerous new and resistant bacterial strains that threaten patients’ lives. Indeed, well-intended inventions and innovations have sometimes had unintended, completely unexpected, negative consequences for users.
Such unintended negative consequences leave us with a dilemma: the “dilemma of control.” Chemist and philosopher David Collingridge coined this phrase in 1980. Today, it is known as the “Collingridge dilemma.” When a given technology is young (such as the automobile in the time of Henry Ford), the direction of the technology’s development can still be influenced.
In the early stages of development, however, we cannot yet know about long-term negative consequences: they have simply not yet materialized— or are not yet considered problematic. Conversely, when that technology has matured, its negative consequences have materialized. By then, however, changing the technology is extremely difficult and expensive: standards have already been set, factories and supply lines established, workers employed and trained, and markets developed. Users may have built their daily lives around the new technology, and they may earn their living in factories that produce the technology, for example. This dilemma is historical; change— or the lack of change— over time is a crucial variable in historical outcomes. And today, this dilemma presents itself with renewed urgency.”
In a similar vein, the advent of digital devices and social media platforms has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, these technologies have revolutionized communication, democratized information, and created unprecedented opportunities for social connection and activism. On the other hand, they have given rise to a range of unintended, often deleterious consequences. The algorithms that curate our feeds, designed to maximize user engagement, have inadvertently contributed to the polarization of society, creating echo chambers where extreme viewpoints are amplified. The same social media platforms that empower voices of change also serve as conduits for misinformation, cyberbullying, and radicalization. The ubiquity of smartphones and other digital devices has also raised concerns about mental health; constant connectivity and the “fear of missing out” (FOMO) contribute to anxiety and depression, particularly among young people. Furthermore, the unprecedented collection of personal data, intended to improve user experience, has led to a loss of privacy and opened the door for manipulative practices, from targeted advertising to potential political influence campaigns.
Just as media outcry led to safer refrigerator designs, ongoing scrutiny and regulation may be necessary to mitigate the unforeseen risks of our increasingly digitized lives. At the very least — parents can be aware of these unintended consequences, and begin to have conversations with their kids and set limits on usage, setting aside a few sacred spaces without devices — perhaps at family dinner, or while spending time in nature and connecting with others.
