“The future can be shaped”
Professor Grunwald, approaching the subject in general terms: what exactly does technology assessment do and why do we need it?
Technology assessment deals with acquiring an early understanding as comprehensively as possible of the effects of technology. That’s not only about the technical functions per se but particularly about the social, environmental, and economic effects that are associated with new technologies. It’s important for me to emphasize that technology assessment is not intended to inhibit innovation. The opposite is true – it’s supposed to help make technology better. Positive shaping of technology can only be achieved when we know its opportunities and potential side effects. In that way, technology can be developed and deployed that ultimately as many people as possible will benefit from it.
The expert
Dr. Armin Grunwald, born in 1960, works as a professor of philosophy and technology and ethics of technology at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT). In addition, he is head of the institute of technology assessment and systems analysis at KIT and serves the German federal parliament as head of the office for technology assessment and consultant to the members of parliament in questions regarding the effects of technology.
In the days of the steam engine and industrialization, hardly anyone systematically dealt with the consequences of technology. So, who invented technology assessment?
Technology assessment in terms of how we know it today is a relatively young development. From a historic perspective, it originated in the United States: In the 1960s and 70s, the country as an intensively industrialized place was heavily confronted with environmental issues – air and water pollution, dying fish, disappearing song birds. The U.S. Congress realized that issues like these could not be resolved retroactively but had to be detected and controlled early on. That’s why in 1972 an Office for Technology Assessment was established exactly for that purpose. The notion was clear that failure to address the potential consequences of technology entailed the risk of encountering serious problems later. Handling of asbestos is a case in point. In the construction industry, that mineral was highly sought after, its risks were initially ignored, and other concerns set aside. Without a comprehensive technology assessment that led to many people becoming seriously ill with cancer and even dying in many cases. Another historic example is the advent of the nuclear age. In the 1950s and 60s, there was great enthusiasm about nuclear power in many industrial countries – it was seen as a technologically fascinating and socially promising form of energy. In view of such fascination, hardly anyone thought about what would happen with the radioactive waste generated by the utilization of that technology. That today we must safely deal with nuclear waste for thousands of years was not a concern in any of the plans back then because no-one systematically thought about the future.
On the other hand, technology is regarded as an important problem solver. Would it be fair to say that technological progress is even necessary to handle the consequences of earlier technologies?
Yes, you could look at it that way. Part of today’s technological progress is indeed focused on solving problems that were created by earlier technologies. In a way, this creates kind of a circular system: new technologies bring progress and prosperity but also generate new challenges to which we must respond with further innovations. Environmental and climate protection is a case in point. The industrial evolution has led to a major environmental burden across decades – due to emissions and resource consumption, for instance. Today, we need new technologies like in the field of renewable energies or more efficient production methods to deal with exactly those issues. That shows that technology is not only part of the problem but also always part of the solution. The crucial aspect is that we learn from experience and shape new developments from the get-go in ways that make them viable in the long run and cause as few new problems as possible. That’s precisely what technology assessment is supposed to support.
How do companies like Schaeffler as one of the leading motion technology companies help enable progress, quality of life, and sustainable growth for our society with technological innovations – beyond their classic core business as automotive and industrial suppliers and into new growth fields such as humanoid robotics, electric aviation and aerospace?
First, technology is the key to mastering the major challenges of our time. It not only enables sustainable manufacturing, climate-friendly energy, or smart mobility but also creates new opportunities for new business models, better quality of life, and long-term, sustainable growth. Technology is one of the key drivers for progress: it has enhanced our prosperity, increased our life expectancy, and made everyday life safer and more comfortable for us. Never in history have so many people had such a good life at the same time as we have today. A particularly clear example of that is digitalization: it rapidly changes how we work, communicate, and make decisions, and shows how much technological innovations can fundamentally change our life.
"Technology is the key to mastering the major challenges of our time.“
Are we experiencing greater social change due to digitalization than in the days of industrialization?
I’d say yes. Digitalization and especially the developments in the field of artificial intelligence have a profound effect on our society that used to hardly be conceivable in the past. They not only penetrate our world of work, the economy, or mobility but also the way we think, solve problems, or even basic questions about the way we see ourselves as human beings. Who are we still going to be when machines can do a better job of performing mechanical work and calculations than we and even creative processes? Compared to that, steam engines, trains, or automobiles were breakthrough technologies but always affected only individual parts of society. Digital technologies on the other hand have the effect of cross-sectional technologies – they change practically all areas of life at the same time. Today, we’re even thinking about consequences for spirituality, religion, or ethical questions, areas that in previous technology assessments hardly played a role. AI amplifies this change once more. It raises questions that go far beyond the labor market or the economy: what role will people play when technology performs jobs better than we do? How do we create a meaningful life in a world in which technology can do practically everything and values change? I’m not a prophet of doom but we need to be careful to prevent people from devaluing themselves or large groups turning into losers while a few others benefit. That shows how fundamental and comprehensive the transformation through digitalization really is.
What’s your take on the planned massive use of humanoids, in other words robots with human characteristics in the world of work?
Modern humanoid systems directly work together with humans, which is clearly more complex than classic industrial robotics that fundamentally changed automotive production in the 1980s and 1990s and typically takes place in shielded locations behind safety guards. That’s why the transformation toward humanoids is happening at a slower pace and step by step. And that exactly is an opportunity, because the change is not taking place abruptly, and the labor market, educational system, and policy makers can respond in better ways – for instance, through retraining programs or systematic supporting actions. As far as that’s concerned, I see the current developments as a challenge that can be shaped. It’s crucial that we look at the situation early on and actively support the changes so that as many people as possible profit from the new technologies.
Another example is autonomous driving that’s currently being pursued intensively. What’s your assessment of that – also in terms of ethical questions?
Autonomous driving is a good example of how expectations pinned on new technologies sometimes grow faster than their actual implementation. About ten years ago, an impression emerged that in a short space of time there would be millions of autonomous vehicles traveling on our roads. From today’s perspective, we know that it’s not as simple as that because road traffic is a highly complex and partly chaotic system. Technologies like those take time to reliably function. At the same time, though, we’re seeing that the development is moving forward. In the United States, for instance in cities like Phoenix, autonomous vehicles are already in use as driverless taxis as part of large-scale test projects. These systems are constantly learning and becoming progressively safer. That’s why I’m convinced that this technology is going to be successful in Europe too. Yet I feel that the frequently discussed ethical dilemmas – like the question of what choice a vehicle should make in an unavoidable situation – are overrated. Scenarios like those are statistically almost irrelevant.
"Technology can clearly enhance the prerequisites for a good life."
Prof. Dr. Armin Grunwald
From a more philosophical point of view: Do you feel that technological progress has made people happier?
One thing that can clearly be said is that technological progress has significantly improved our life in many respects. A large part of humanity today enjoys greater prosperity, is more mobile, lives longer, and stays healthy longer. Safety has increased in many areas of life too. In this respect, that’s enormous progress. Whether that has caused people to become happier is another question. Happiness depends on many factors that go far beyond technology – like personal relationships, life circumstances, or individual expectations. While those areas are affected by technological progress, they’re not automatically enhanced by it. Plus, happiness research shows that additional material gains often produce only short-term effects. Even greater changes such as winning in a lottery in most cases lead only to a temporarily higher happiness level before a normal state returns. That’s why I’d say that technology can clearly enhance the prerequisites for a good life but whether that also produces personal happiness ultimately depends on other factors.
In closing, let’s look at the future: Thinking about the year 2050 – what technological developments could shape the life of today’s young generation most significantly?
For starters, I’m not a prophet. We tend to simply extend current trends into the future – in other words, primarily digitalization and artificial intelligence. But such developments seldom run in a straight line. Trends can lose their momentum or even reverse themselves. We can already see today that among young people there’s something like a certain digital fatigue and a growing need for analog experiences. That shows a fundamental aspect that humans remain analog beings. As important as digital technologies may be, the value of the analog realm is not going to disappear but may even become more important again. That’s why I feel that it’s hardly plausible that the world in 2050 will be fully digitalized. At the same time, digital technologies will obviously become more important. We’ll be able to do a better job of handling them, like systems of artificial intelligence where there are still a lot of uncertainties today. The collaboration between humans and machines, for instance in industry, is still in its infancy and will continue to evolve. An aspect that’s frequently ignored is that aside from digitalization there are other technological fields with major transformation potential such as biological and genetic engineering where completely new opportunities in dealing with diseases may be arising that are hardly foreseeable today. Altogether, we’re living in very exciting times. Despite all the challenges the future is not determined but can be shaped. That implies a major opportunity especially for young people as technology and science offer them the potential to actively participate in that future and to develop it into a positive direction.
