I first saw the idea articulated clearly by the great philosopher of our time, Scott Adams of “Dilbert” fame. The simple observation is that evolution works slowly, and the human brain has not changed significantly since we first stood erect on the grasslands of Africa. The amount of information this brain is expected to retain and process continues to increase exponentially. As a result, all of us go in and out of competence on a nearly constant basis.

That is the nature of the “progress” that we see around us. Most of what we are aware of is what can be called “technology”, or the new gadgets and products which are there to satisfy urges and supposedly make our lives better. “Progress” itself is much bigger than that, however, and includes the institutions and policies that gradually sneak into our lives for the purpose of organizing a population that is always living closer together – and to deal with the side effects of technology.

The word “technology” is an interesting one, meaning literally “the study of skill”. At that level, it has a policy ring to it. The word is commonly used to refer to information management, a vernacular that causes me to cringe, but it really refers to all of the things that come into our life as the by-product of science and new learning about how the stuff of our lives can be manipulated. Everything from new packaging on snacks to new methods of transportation to, yes, internet apps can be described broadly as “technology”. All of them are change, all of them are supposed to be sellable as a kind of “progress”.

The implications of all of these things find their way into laws and organizations that have to deal with the by-products constantly. New packaging may require legislation on how the waste is processed. New transportation methods may affect land use planning in cities. Internet communications has required vast binders full of policies and protocols, and at least one small town to pass a law against cyber-harassment in the wake of one adult driving a teenager to suicide. These concepts of “progress” deal with the detritus of technology, and clean up what is left over once our lives are bettered.

This brings us back to the Adams Theory. We are all appliance users of the technology around us because we cannot possibly understand it all. The implications of any of these changes become apparent much later, and require policy changes to deal with them. That generally implies thicker law books and more social structure, all of which we probably understand less than the gizmo that we can hold in our hand that may have created the mess in the first place.

Ug.

Our world loves “progress”. There is a basic assumption that technology will always make us better, meaning that “new” and “improved” are still watchwords that advertisers love as they push these products on us. But we have grown to be wary of more government and new regulations because these are abstract items that we cannot see or touch. They can easily be shown to be nothing less than a power grab if you have the desire to portray them that way.

I often write about the limits of all kinds of “progress” because I want to know how anything helps people get the control over their lives that they need. The world we live in rarely knows that caution. While we have grown weary of the structure that is often needed to deal with the by-products of technology, we remain enthralled by the technology itself. Meanwhile, fewer people live in the countryside and instead have desk jobs in the urban core, many of them taking the odd faith that a suburb is not a kind of urban core. The effects of a changing world are magnified by the constant urge to live closer together.

“Progress”, to a free people, cannot be about created a world where people slip in and out of competency on a constant basis without having a tremendous support structure in place. Democracy demands that we have control over the world around us, or at least enough that we really control our own destiny. Technology generally works against that, rendering older generations obsolete long before they are eligible for a pension. That doesn’t mean we can’t deal with the problem, but we have to have an innate faith in the world around us if we are to get past the parts where we feel stupid and helpless.

When I write about these issues, I stress the faith and deep sense of social belonging that is at the center of the animal that first stood up so long ago. That’s how they survived long enough to become everything we are today, warts and all. Technology? Whatever. Progress? You have to have a strong foundation if you expect the new addition onto your house to last. That foundation is the set of values and basic faith in the people you live close to which gives you the strength to not understand absolutely everything but still have control over your life. Your neighbors have to have your back. Your culture has to make that clear.

I’m not against Progress, and I’m not against Technology. I merely want them to serve people, and I believe very strongly that there are far more important things than Progress for the sake of Progress. My observations on how people live, work, and vote say to me that most people really do agree with this, too. I’d like us to spend as much time working on the basic social cohesion that makes technology palatable as we do on pushing the latest gizmo. Is that really so much to ask?