Tech Pessimism

For a long time I was a futurist, and an optimist about technology in general. I agreed with the thesis that technology makes everything better over time. These days, I’m older and (maybe?) wiser, and I’ve become a lot more pessimistic about technology in general.

At the moment we’re living in the 6th mass extinction event, which is entirely the result of human activities. This fact is not something that’s up for debate, we have mountains of data which support this.

The thing about technology (and software in particular) is that it has had a tendency to lower costs and thereby increase the relative power of people who have traditionally received the short end of the stick in life. Or at least, it did for a while.

Today, however, I’m not really seeing technology improving peoples’ lives like it did 10 years ago. The Internet was an incredible creation, and what made it great was that no single entity such as a government or company controlled the whole thing. Now, however, the Internet is really just a delivery system for a handful of content arbitrators.

There’s lots of other great technology out there: take for example heat pumps, which are something I’m a bit obsessed with because of their incredibly valuable ability to move heat around.

However, once we start talking about heat pumps, I start to get more pessimistic. You can’t go to any discussion about them on the Internet without reading a bunch of false statements about how they “don’t work in cold weather” or whatever it might be. Another problem with heat pumps is that they aren’t cheap. They’re “cheap” in the sense that they’re no more expensive than an air conditioner, but in absolute terms it’s quite expensive to rip out a traditional fossil fuel based system and replace it with heat pumps. So what incentive is there for anyone to utilize this technology if it’s going to cost them a whole lot up front?

Plus, not to get too conspiracy theory or whatever, there is a huge industry that is strongly opposed to technology like heat pumps because it’s a threat to their bottom line. If you dig into the details of the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which is being advertised as “climate” legislation, you’ll notice that most of the “green” tax breaks aren’t available to most people because it caps out at levels that eliminate eligibility for the majority of homeowners who might want to install a heat pump (150% of median income, if you’re wondering). It’s almost as if it’s designed to fail, while simultaneously extending huge free money handouts to oil companies (which, let’s be honest, is the only reason the legislation ever passed).

So going back to the subject of technology: what is there to be excited about? When new, disruptive, relatively affordable technology comes along the incumbents (i.e., oil companies) will do everything in their power to wage a war of misinformation in order to prevent anyone from moving away from oil.

If technology could save us from annihilating ourselves from this planet (which, I do not believe it can), there would be just enough Senators (team red or blue makes no difference) willing to block any legislation that might accelerate the adoption of said technology because it would be bad for profits for companies selling fossil fuel products.

I’ve written about the subject of degrowth before. At this point, our option is intentional degrowth (call it a “soft landing”), or unintentional degrowth (“hard landing”), which will come about one way or another, and probably much Faster Than Expected™.

A Nuanced Approach to Tech Pessimism #

My pessimism isn’t about technology itself—it’s about the systems in which technology operates. We’ve created economic and political structures that often divert technological progress away from solving our most pressing problems and toward maximizing short-term profits or consolidating power.

There are still remarkable technological developments happening. For instance:

1. Renewable energy costs have plummeted dramatically—solar PV costs have fallen over 90% in the past decade.
2. Battery technology continues to improve, with energy density doubling roughly every decade.
3. Advances in material science are creating more efficient, durable, and sustainable products.
4. Satellite technology is connecting previously unreachable areas to the internet.
5. Medical technology has extended lifespans and improved quality of life for millions.

These advances aren’t insignificant. But what makes me pessimistic is how these technologies get deployed, who benefits from them, and whether they’re addressing our most fundamental challenges.

The heat pump example illustrates this perfectly. The technology is mature and effective—modern cold-climate heat pumps work efficiently down to -15°F or lower, contrary to common misinformation. The problem isn’t technological but structural: upfront costs, split incentives (landlords vs. tenants), regulatory barriers, and active resistance from entrenched interests.

The Internet’s Unfulfilled Promise #

The Internet’s evolution is particularly disappointing. What began as a decentralized network that democratized information and connection has increasingly consolidated into a handful of walled gardens. The technology itself remains revolutionary, but its implementation has drifted far from its original promise.

Rather than creating a more level playing field, it has in many ways amplified existing power dynamics. The algorithms that determine what we see optimize for engagement rather than truth, community, or human flourishing.

Beyond Pessimism #

While my assessment may sound bleak, I don’t advocate for giving up. Instead, I suggest a more clear-eyed approach to technology:

1. Local resilience matters: Building technology that works at community scales and enhances local resilience can bypass many of the systemic barriers to adoption.

2. Incentives over ideology: Rather than hoping corporations or governments will prioritize long-term thinking out of altruism, we need to design systems where their incentives align with sustainable outcomes.

3. Systems thinking: Technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum. We need to understand the economic, social, and political systems in which technologies operate and factor those into our solutions.

4. Appropriate technology: Not all solutions need to be high-tech. Sometimes simpler, more accessible technologies that people can understand, maintain, and repair themselves are more impactful.

5. Technological humility: We should remain skeptical of “tech will save us” narratives that promise easy solutions to complex problems, while still appreciating genuine progress.

Perhaps what I’m advocating isn’t so much tech pessimism as tech realism—acknowledging both the tremendous potential of technology and the very real barriers to realizing that potential. The challenge isn’t inventing new technologies (though that remains important) but creating the social, economic, and political conditions for beneficial technologies to flourish.

Whether we pursue intentional degrowth or find another path forward, our relationship with technology will need to evolve. We need technologies that enhance our resilience rather than increasing our vulnerability, that distribute power rather than concentrating it, and that work within planetary boundaries rather than accelerating their transgression.

That may require a fundamental reorientation of how we develop, deploy, and govern technology—moving from asking “Can we?” to “Should we?” and “Who benefits?” Perhaps then, technology might help us build the future we actually want to live in, rather than the one we seem to be hurtling toward.