Lightning Talk: History - Technology's Ultimate Disruption

by Eric Tillberg

In a lightning talk at the Blue Ridge Ruby 2024, Eric Tillberg explores the relationship between history and technology, posing the question of whether technologists possess a theory of history and whether such a theory is necessary. He opens by inviting discussion on the topic and reflects on the tendency of technologists to adopt a superficial understanding of history, often seeing it as a mere chronology of events rather than a framework that includes cause and effect.

Recognizing the various theories of history, he contrasts cyclical and progressive perspectives, emphasizing that many in tech culture lean towards a simplified progressive view, shaped by a narrative that often overlooks significant complexities.

Key points discussed include:
- The importance of having a robust theory of history to contextualize technological progress.
- The influence of a simplistic view of history on technologists, which stems from historical narratives of the Cold War and a prevailing optimism surrounding startups.
- The challenges faced as this optimism shifts towards disenchantment, with growing concerns about the actual impact of technology on society.
- Acknowledgment that while technology can be progressive, there are historical instances of technological regression.
- The pressing need for tech professionals to critically evaluate their understanding of history in light of current global events and constraints.

Tillberg concludes by stressing the importance of understanding our historical context as stewards of technology, while also highlighting that we must not continue to cycle through historical patterns without addressing the urgent challenges of our time. He wraps up his talk with a subtle call to action for technologists to reflect on their perspectives on history, asserting that deeper understanding can inform better decisions moving forward. He finishes his presentation ahead of schedule, expressing gratitude for the audience's attention.

00:00:12.400 All right, I'm ready. Hi, I'm Eric. I like history a lot.

00:00:17.160 Thank you! I enjoy talking about history and hearing what other people think about it. So, just as a first note, if you want to discuss history, come talk to me; I'd love that.

00:00:20.240 I've been thinking a lot about history, and I have a lot to share. Given the limited time available for a lightning talk, I’ll dive right into history and technology.

00:00:34.040 I have a few questions on my mind. One is: do technologists have a theory of history, and do we need one? Can I get a show of hands in the room—how many of you, as individual technologists, have a theory of history?

00:00:41.440 All right, how many of you do not? And how many of you don’t know what the heck that is? Just curious. Okay, great! Well, I didn’t want to rely solely on my own brain, so I consulted ChatGPT.

00:01:00.399 It's a little insulting when you think about it. We don’t have a theory of history, but we need one. So, I considered: what does having no theory of history mean, and how would that look? It might just be that history is treated as a mere chronology—one event after another—without analysis or deeper meaning.

00:01:14.360 I don’t think we, as people, can live that way. We always need to perceive some kind of cause and effect, no matter how deep or superficial it may appear. These cause-and-effect chains can be grand or modest, and that's all right.

00:01:28.240 There are a couple of theories of history to consider: one is cyclical, and the other is progressive. I’ll briefly discuss this. This graph illustrates anacyclosis, which is interesting because the arrows point toward the particular stages that lead to the next step in the cycle.

00:01:50.680 There are many cycles of history to think about, and there are also progressive theories. The illustration here reminds me of the Marxist dialectical theory that many of us might be familiar with.

00:02:08.479 What I would point out, particularly relevant for technologists, is that we tend to have a superficial theory of history. A lot of hands went up for those who do not have a theory of history, which I interpret as meaning we possess a version of history heavily influenced by technology—always being progressive—and nothing more to it.

00:02:29.200 This viewpoint can be problematic, as technology is generally progressive, with one notable exception—there are instances where some technologies may have been lost. That said, we have not 'uninvented' the atomic bomb or the internet, and it’s unlikely that we ever will.

00:02:54.680 I also believe this simplistic view of history is inherited—not just from technologists but also from the successful narrative of the Cold War, which largely benefited the West and supported what we can call the Washington consensus.

00:03:00.640 I think we find ourselves in a situation where many technologists who have been in the industry for years exhibit a specific optimism about startups. The term 'startup' used to carry a positive connotation, but there seems to be growing disillusionment about what's happening around us.

00:03:15.080 Here are some descriptions of the optimistic side: Increased educational access for everyone thanks to educational technology startups, expanded democracy, and a weird idea surrounding identity politics—with the notion that everyone will just be words expressed online, losing the real world context of their identities.

00:03:41.560 However, this pessimistic reality is a rough state—it’s not a significant change; it feels like we're facing overwhelming negative events and ideas. What I’m getting at is that reality comprises a mix of cyclical preferences and progressive evolutions.

00:04:01.959 We need to learn to discern the difference in our own software and business domains. However, I didn’t come here to discuss software business domains, so what is the key takeaway? It matters whether we have a superficial or robust theory of history.

00:04:20.239 As individuals, and especially since we are stewards of technological progress, this information is crucial. But, maybe that’s not the point either. Let’s try this once more: We can’t afford to continue cycling through history while the pressing planetary constraints are urging us to halt progression.

00:04:30.680 In any case, I will conclude here, ending my talk just 26 seconds ahead of time. Thank you!