Destructive creation and the new world disorder

Much of the global economy melted down in 2008. Three nuclear reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant melted down in 2011. This pair of catastrophes, though very different, sprang from the same fundamental cause: a proliferation of complexity and uncertainty in the world, produced largely because of humankind’s increasing prowess in science and technology. Before the two disasters occurred, mathematical models that help manage the economic risk of highly leveraged investments, and nuclear reactors that help power the global energy system, were both seen as important contributors to the economic growth that in recent decades has raised standards of living for hundreds of millions around the world. After the meltdowns, the unavoidable question was: “How could we have been so stupid?” Because humanity depends on complex technological systems to survive and thrive, and because this dependence creates ever-expanding domains of uncertainty and unpredictability, an inescapable incoherence lies at the core of modern society. The incoherence ensures a tragic element in the modern world’s quest for progress and control, and this tragedy is woven as intricately into the web of human affairs as were the mood swings of the gods into ancient Greek dramas. The key to the modern tragic dilemma is this: Modern market democracies depend on technological advance for the economic growth that undergirds their political stability. But technological advance is also the source of societal and economic disruption that can threaten such stability. This inherent tension plays itself out every several generations in paroxysms of economic decline and social unrest. The rationale for technological advance is clear. According to the functionalist logic of a consumerist, globalized, capitalist system, technological advance is understood to be a key catalyst for wealth creation, especially through boosting economic productivity and adding novelty and value to the economy via new types of processes and products. Thus, governments increasingly have gotten into the act of promoting technological advance. Since World War II, most market democracies have invested directly in research and development, and have sought to develop a portfolio of policy tools—such as intellectual property regimes, technical standard-setting, technology procurement programs, tax incentives, and rules for public-private collaborations—aimed at accelerating technological innovation in the private sector. The global economic downturn has only magnified the political and cultural obsession with innovation as the secret sauce for future growth. But to promote innovation through scientific and technological advance is also to promote social change—often radical social change. Since the Industrial Revolution, spectacular growth in market economies has been powered by wave after wave of technological transformation: textiles and water power; railways and steam power; steel and electrification; automobiles and mass production; and, most recently, information and communication technologies. The economic, political, social, and cultural differences between today’s world PaUl harris is deputy director of the HC Coombs Policy Forum at the Australian National University. Daniel sareWitz is a professor at Arizona State University and codirector of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. science