Tech Solutionism Explained
Meta Description: Examine tech solutionism—belief that technology can solve all problems, limitations of technical approaches to social issues, and when tech helps.
Keywords: tech solutionism, technology solutionism, tech fixes everything, technological solutionism, technology problems, tech ideology, solutionist thinking, technology limitations, tech solutions, innovation ideology
Tags: #tech-solutionism #technology-critique #innovation-culture #technology-limits #tech-ideology
Introduction: When Every Problem Looks Like a Technical Problem
In 2013, a group of Stanford students launched Safetipin, an app promising to make cities safer for women. Users would rate neighborhoods based on perceived safety—lighting, crowd density, visibility. The app would then map "safe" and "unsafe" areas, helping women navigate cities at night.
The founders were sincere. The app was well-designed. Media coverage was enthusiastic. Venture funding arrived. There was only one problem: it didn't work.
Women who used the app reported feeling more anxious, not less. The "safety data" reflected existing biases—wealthy neighborhoods scored high, poor neighborhoods low, regardless of actual crime rates. Most fundamentally, the app addressed none of the structural causes of violence against women: patriarchy, impunity for perpetrators, inadequate law enforcement, lack of economic opportunity, or cultural norms tolerating harassment.
The app wasn't a solution. It was a distraction disguised as innovation.
This is tech solutionism—the belief that complex social, political, and cultural problems can be solved with technological fixes, often without understanding the problems deeply or addressing root causes.
Coined by Belarusian-American researcher Evgeny Morozov, tech solutionism describes an ideology pervading Silicon Valley and beyond: that technology is not just one tool among many, but the primary solution to humanity's challenges. From poverty to education to democracy to loneliness, there's an app for that—or will be, if we just build it.
This article examines what tech solutionism is, where it comes from, why it's appealing, why it's dangerous, how to recognize it, when technology actually does solve problems, and how to think more critically about technical interventions in social systems.
Defining Tech Solutionism
The Core Belief
At its heart, tech solutionism rests on several assumptions:
- All problems are fundamentally technical problems that can be solved through better tools, algorithms, platforms, or systems
- Technical solutions are superior to political, cultural, or behavioral changes—faster, more efficient, more scalable, more "objective"
- Problems that can't be solved technically aren't worth solving—or aren't real problems
- Building and deploying technology is always progress, even when it creates new problems or fails to solve the original ones
- Technologists should lead problem-solving because they understand systems thinking, data, and innovation
What Solutionism Is Not
Not all technology use is solutionist. Solutionism isn't about using technology—it's about the assumptions and ideology behind that use.
Using technology appropriately:
- Recognizes technology as one tool among many
- Understands social, political, and cultural context
- Addresses root causes, not just symptoms
- Includes affected communities in design decisions
- Accepts that some problems require non-technical solutions
Tech solutionism:
- Assumes technology is always the best tool
- Ignores or dismisses context and complexity
- Treats symptoms as if they were causes
- Designs for affected communities, not with them
- Insists technical approaches to fundamentally social problems
The Solutionist Mindset
You can recognize solutionist thinking by characteristic phrases:
- "There should be an app for that"
- "We can disrupt X with Y technology"
- "This is fundamentally a data/algorithm/platform problem"
- "Politics is inefficient; technology can bypass it"
- "If we just measure/optimize/automate X, we'll solve Y"
- "Legacy systems/institutions are the problem; we're building the future"
The mindset combines:
- Technological determinism: Technology drives social change more than culture, policy, or human agency
- Technocratic elitism: Technical experts should make decisions about social systems
- Market fundamentalism: Market-based technical solutions beat government interventions
- Innovation ideology: "Innovation" and "disruption" are inherently positive
- Optimization fetish: Everything should be measured, quantified, and optimized
Origins: Where Solutionism Comes From
Engineering Culture
Solutionism is native to engineering. Engineers are trained to solve technical problems:
- Identify the problem (understand requirements)
- Design a solution (architecture, algorithm, system)
- Implement and test (build, iterate, optimize)
- Deploy (ship the solution)
This works brilliantly for technical problems: building bridges, designing microprocessors, optimizing databases, routing network traffic.
The trouble starts when this mindset is applied to social problems, which are:
- Wicked problems: No clear definition, solution changes the problem itself
- Value-laden: Different stakeholders have competing legitimate interests
- Context-dependent: What works in one context fails in another
- Causally complex: Multiple interacting factors, feedback loops, emergent dynamics
- Political: Solutions redistribute power, resources, and risks
Engineers trained to solve technical problems often treat social problems as if they were technical: definable, solvable, optimizable. This is the engineering fallacy at the heart of solutionism.
Silicon Valley Ideology
Tech solutionism flourishes in Silicon Valley's particular ideological ecosystem:
1. Libertarianism and market fundamentalism
- Government regulation is inefficient; markets are efficient
- Entrepreneurs solve problems better than bureaucrats
- "Permissionless innovation" beats "asking permission"
- Private-sector solutions superior to public-sector programs
2. Californian ideology
- Techno-utopianism meeting countercultural individualism
- Technology will liberate humanity from constraints
- Information wants to be free
- Decentralization empowers individuals
3. Meritocracy myth
- Success reflects talent and hard work, not privilege
- Those who succeed (technologists, entrepreneurs) are most qualified to solve problems
- Expertise in one domain (coding, business) transfers to all domains
4. Disruption fetish
- Existing institutions are legacy systems to be disrupted
- "Move fast and break things"
- Ask forgiveness, not permission
- Innovation requires ignoring rules
5. Scale obsession
- Solutions should scale globally
- Billions of users are the goal
- Local, contextual solutions aren't "ambitious enough"
This ideology creates an environment where building technology feels like changing the world, even when it isn't.
Economic Incentives
Venture capital amplifies solutionism:
- VCs fund startups building products, not advocating for policy or organizing communities
- Business models require scalable technical solutions, not context-specific social interventions
- Exit strategies depend on mass adoption, not deep local impact
- Success metrics are growth and revenue, not social outcomes
Result: Entrepreneurs are incentivized to frame social problems as technical problems they can build products to solve, whether or not that framing is accurate.
Example: Instead of addressing why people lack transportation access (poverty, urban sprawl, inadequate public transit investment), Uber frames it as "matching drivers to riders efficiently"—a technical problem they can monetize.
Genuine Technological Success
Solutionism persists partly because sometimes it works. Technology has solved real problems:
- Vaccines eliminated smallpox
- Green Revolution technologies increased food production
- Internet enabled global information access
- Renewable energy technologies enable decarbonization
- Mobile phones brought communication to billions
These successes create availability bias: When you've seen technology solve hard problems, you expect it to solve all problems.
But successful cases share characteristics often missing in solutionist projects:
- Addressed genuinely technical problems (disease, agriculture, energy)
- Decades of research and development, not quick "disruption"
- Government funding and regulation, not just market forces
- Implementation alongside social change (public health campaigns, agricultural extension services, infrastructure investment)
Solutionism mistakes part of the solution (technology) for the whole solution.
Manifestations: What Solutionism Looks Like in Practice
Education Technology
Solutionist framing: Education is broken because teaching methods are outdated, inefficient, and don't scale. Technology—MOOCs, adaptive learning platforms, gamification, AI tutors—can personalize education, increase access, and reduce costs.
Reality:
- Most educational challenges aren't technical: poverty, segregation, underfunding, teacher burnout, family instability, food insecurity, trauma
- Personalized learning platforms often replace human teachers with software, increasing isolation and reducing engagement
- MOOCs have dismal completion rates (~5%) and primarily serve already-educated professionals, not underserved populations
- Gamification increases engagement temporarily but doesn't deepen learning
- Technology amplifies existing inequalities: Wealthy schools get iPads; poor schools get outdated computers and no technical support
What works better:
- Reducing class sizes so teachers can give individual attention
- Increasing teacher salaries to attract and retain talent
- Addressing student poverty (food, housing, healthcare)
- Evidence-based pedagogy implemented by trained professionals
- Technology as supplement, not replacement, for human teaching
Quote from educator Larry Cuban: "The fundamental problems of education are not technological. They are social, economic, and political."
Poverty and Development
Solutionist framing: Poverty persists because the poor lack access to technology, markets, and information. Mobile banking, microloans, agricultural sensors, education apps can lift people out of poverty.
Reality:
- Poverty is political: lack of power, voice, rights, resources. Technology doesn't address structural exploitation, corruption, or inequality.
- One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) distributed millions of laptops to children in developing countries. Evaluations found minimal educational impact. Turns out kids need teachers, schools, electricity, and literacy more than laptops.
- Mobile money (M-Pesa) helps but doesn't address why people are poor: lack of jobs, land, education, healthcare, infrastructure
- Microloans often trap borrowers in debt cycles; problems are structural, not lack of credit access
- Agricultural technology helps farmers grow more food but doesn't address why they remain poor: middlemen exploitation, lack of market power, land ownership, policy
What works better:
- Land reform and property rights
- Public investment in infrastructure, health, education
- Labor protections and minimum wages
- Progressive taxation and redistribution
- Democratic governance and rule of law
Quote from development economist William Easterly: "Technology is the easy part. The hard part is institutions, governance, and politics."
Democracy and Civic Engagement
Solutionist framing: Democracy is broken because voting is inconvenient, information is hard to access, and officials aren't accountable. Apps for voting, civic engagement platforms, blockchain governance can fix democracy.
Reality:
- Low voter turnout isn't primarily about convenience—it's about voter suppression, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, and people feeling their votes don't matter
- Online voting introduces massive security vulnerabilities; paper ballots are more secure and auditable
- Civic apps engage people already engaged; they don't mobilize the marginalized
- Information access doesn't solve misinformation, polarization, or capture of media by elites
- Blockchain governance doesn't address power asymmetries; code is not law, and "trustless" systems concentrate power in technical elites
What works better:
- Automatic voter registration and expanded polling places
- Campaign finance reform to reduce money's influence
- Independent redistricting commissions
- Ranked-choice voting and proportional representation
- Media literacy education
- Protecting journalists and whistleblowers
Quote from political scientist Robert Dahl: "Democracy is not a matter of institutions alone. It requires an informed citizenry, political equality, and substantive freedoms."
Health and Wellness
Solutionist framing: Healthcare is inefficient and inaccessible. Telemedicine, health apps, wearables, AI diagnostics can democratize healthcare and optimize individual health.
Reality:
- Healthcare access problems are economic and political: insurance coverage, cost of care, geographic distribution of doctors, pharma prices
- Fitness apps and wearables serve the "worried well" who can afford them, not people lacking access to care
- Telemedicine helps in specific contexts (rural areas, specialist consults) but can't replace in-person care for many conditions
- AI diagnostics trained on data from privileged populations perform worse for marginalized groups
- Mental health apps don't replace therapy, medication, or addressing social determinants (poverty, trauma, discrimination)
What works better:
- Universal healthcare or expanding insurance coverage
- Regulating drug prices
- Training more doctors and incentivizing practice in underserved areas
- Addressing social determinants: housing, food security, employment, safety
- Public health interventions: clean water, sanitation, vaccinations
Quote from physician and anthropologist Paul Farmer: "The idea that we can medicalize our way out of poverty is absurd."
Climate Change
Solutionist framing: Climate change is an engineering problem. Carbon capture, geoengineering, nuclear fusion, renewable energy technology, EVs will solve it.
Reality:
- Technology is necessary but not sufficient
- Carbon capture currently too expensive and energy-intensive to scale
- Geoengineering has catastrophic risks and doesn't address root cause (carbon emissions)
- Renewable energy works but requires massive political will to build infrastructure and phase out fossil fuels
- EVs help but don't solve car dependency, suburban sprawl, transportation inequity
- Fundamental issues are political: fossil fuel industry lobbying, consumption patterns, growth imperative, international cooperation
What works better:
- Carbon pricing or regulations phasing out fossil fuels
- Massive public investment in renewable infrastructure
- Urban planning reducing car dependency
- Consumption reduction in wealthy countries
- Climate justice addressing who bears costs and benefits
- Technology deployed within policy framework, not as substitute for policy
Quote from climate scientist Michael Mann: "We don't have a technology problem. We have a political will problem."
Why Solutionism Is Harmful
1. Misdiagnosis of Problems
Solutionism treats symptoms as causes. People lack transportation because of "matching efficiency" (Uber's framing), not because of poverty, sprawl, and defunded public transit. Students struggle because of "outdated teaching methods" (edtech framing), not because of poverty, trauma, and underfunded schools.
Misdiagnosis leads to ineffective solutions. Optimizing ride-sharing doesn't address why people are transportation-poor. Adaptive learning software doesn't address why students are hungry, homeless, or traumatized.
Worse, solutionist interventions distract from effective solutions. Resources, attention, and legitimacy flow to technical fixes while structural problems remain unaddressed.
2. Ignoring Root Causes
Solutionism addresses proximate causes (symptoms) while ignoring root causes (structures).
Example: Hiring discrimination
Solutionist approach: Build AI to screen resumes without human bias.
Result: AI replicates existing biases in training data. Amazon's hiring AI penalized resumes mentioning "women's chess club." The problem is framed as "biased humans" when the root causes are:
- Occupational segregation and gender norms
- Unequal educational opportunities
- Workplace cultures hostile to women
- Lack of parental leave and childcare support
AI doesn't address any of these. It automates discrimination more efficiently.
3. Technocratic Exclusion
Solutionism is anti-democratic. It replaces political deliberation with technical optimization—and only technologists get to define "optimal."
Who decides:
- What problems matter?
- What tradeoffs are acceptable?
- Who benefits and who bears costs?
- What values shape solutions?
In democracy: These are collective decisions through deliberation, debate, and voting.
In solutionism: These are technical decisions by engineers and entrepreneurs, with users as data points, not decision-makers.
Result: Solutions reflect the values, assumptions, and interests of technical elites—typically young, male, wealthy, educated, from privileged backgrounds—imposed on everyone else.
4. Reproducing Inequality
Solutionist technologies often amplify existing inequalities:
Predictive policing algorithms trained on biased arrest data send more police to already over-policed Black and Brown neighborhoods, perpetuating cycles of surveillance and incarceration.
Credit scoring algorithms penalize people without traditional credit histories—immigrants, young people, the poor—denying them loans.
Facial recognition systems perform worse on women and people of color, leading to false arrests and denial of services.
Hiring algorithms filter out candidates from non-elite universities, nontraditional backgrounds, or resume gaps (often caregivers, mostly women).
Educational software tracks students into different pathways based on early performance, replicating tracking systems that have always benefited privileged students.
The pattern: Technology designed by the privileged for the marginalized often harms those it claims to help.
5. Creating New Problems
Unintended consequences are features, not bugs, of complex systems. Solutionist interventions in social systems predictably create new problems:
Uber/Lyft reduced drunk driving but increased urban congestion, undercut public transit, created precarious gig work, and worsened traffic deaths for pedestrians and cyclists.
Social media connected people globally but enabled misinformation, radicalization, mental health crises, and surveillance capitalism.
Food delivery apps increased convenience but destroyed restaurant margins, created exploitative gig work, and increased plastic waste.
Airbnb offered travel lodging but converted rental housing to tourist accommodation, increasing rents and displacing residents in cities worldwide.
Online education expanded access but increased isolation, reduced learning outcomes, and enabled credential fraud.
The solutionist pattern: Deploy first, deal with consequences later. "Move fast and break things" breaks real systems people depend on.
6. Diverting Resources
Every dollar spent on solutionist projects is a dollar not spent on effective interventions.
Billions invested in:
- One Laptop Per Child (minimal impact)
- Blockchain voting systems (security nightmares)
- AI tutors (inferior to human teachers)
- Health apps (no evidence of improved outcomes)
- Smart city sensors (privacy invasions, minimal benefit)
Could have funded:
- Hiring more teachers and reducing class sizes
- Expanding voting access and automatic registration
- Public health infrastructure and universal healthcare
- Community organizing and legal aid
- Public transit and affordable housing
Opportunity cost of solutionism is enormous.
Recognizing Solutionism: Red Flags
How can you identify solutionist thinking?
Red Flag 1: Ignoring Existing Solutions
Solutionists "invent" solutions to problems already being addressed effectively by non-technical means—then claim innovation.
Example: "We're disrupting education with adaptive learning!"
Reality: Good teachers have always adapted instruction to individual students. The constraint is teacher-student ratios, not lack of technology.
Pattern: If people in the domain say "we know what works; we need resources/political will," and technologists say "we have a new technical solution," trust the domain experts.
Red Flag 2: Apolitical Framing
Solutionists present political problems as technical problems to avoid controversy and regulation.
Example: "We're a neutral platform, not a media company" (Facebook, YouTube)
Reality: Content moderation, algorithm design, and data practices are deeply political. Claiming neutrality is itself a political stance.
Pattern: If a "solution" claims to be "just technology" or "politically neutral," it's hiding political choices.
Red Flag 3: Scalability Obsession
Solutionists insist solutions must scale globally and dismiss effective local interventions as "not scalable."
Example: Community health workers dramatically improve health outcomes in low-resource settings. Solutionists dismiss them as "not scalable" and push health apps instead.
Reality: Many problems need contextual, local solutions that adapt to culture, resources, and needs. "Not scalable" often means "not monetizable through venture capital."
Pattern: If the objection to an effective solution is "it doesn't scale," ask: Does it need to scale, or do we need more local instances?
Red Flag 4: Ignoring Implementation Context
Solutionists focus on the technology and ignore the social, political, and institutional context required for implementation.
Example: "We'll use blockchain for land registries in developing countries!"
Reality: Corrupt officials who currently falsify paper records will falsify blockchain records. The problem is corruption and impunity, not database technology.
Pattern: If the solution assumes honest actors, functioning institutions, and aligned incentives—but those don't exist—the solution won't work.
Red Flag 5: No Theory of Change
Solutionists skip from problem to technology without explaining how the technology produces the desired social outcome.
Example: "Education inequality will be solved by giving every child a tablet!"
Missing steps: How does tablet access translate to learning? Who provides curriculum? Who supports students? How do we address poverty, hunger, trauma, language barriers, disabilities?
Pattern: If the "theory of change" is "technology → magic → solved problem," it's solutionism.
Red Flag 6: Dismissing Expertise
Solutionists dismiss domain experts as "incumbents resisting disruption" or "not understanding technology."
Example: Engineers telling teachers how to teach, or telling doctors how to diagnose, or telling urban planners how to design cities.
Reality: Domain expertise matters. Technical expertise doesn't transfer across domains. Building software doesn't make you an expert on education, healthcare, or governance.
Pattern: If outsiders with no domain experience claim to have revolutionary solutions that domain experts say won't work, trust the experts.
When Technology Actually Helps
Not all technology use is solutionist. Technology can genuinely solve problems when:
1. The Problem Is Genuinely Technical
Some problems are technical:
- Developing vaccines for diseases
- Increasing crop yields through better seeds and fertilizers
- Generating clean energy through solar panels and wind turbines
- Enabling communication through telecommunications infrastructure
- Storing and processing information through computers
These are appropriate applications of technology because the constraint is technical knowledge and capability.
2. Technology Addresses Root Causes, Not Symptoms
Effective: Providing clean water infrastructure addresses the root cause of waterborne disease.
Solutionist: Health apps tracking diarrhea cases address symptoms, not causes.
Effective: Subsidizing renewable energy reduces emissions at the source.
Solutionist: Carbon offsets allow continued emissions while pretending to address them.
3. Technology Is Part of a Comprehensive Strategy
Effective: Mobile phones + agricultural extension services + rural roads + market access + price transparency + credit access = improved farmer livelihoods. Technology is one component of multifaceted intervention.
Solutionist: Mobile phones alone "solve" rural poverty.
4. Affected Communities Lead Design
Effective: Community health workers with mobile tools co-designed with users.
Solutionist: Health apps designed by Silicon Valley engineers for African users they've never met.
Principle: "Nothing about us without us." Those affected by a problem should lead solution design.
5. Implementation Considers Social Context
Effective: Technology deployed with training, support, maintenance, and integration into existing practices.
Solutionist: Technology parachuted in with assumption it will "disrupt" existing systems.
Example: Mobile money (M-Pesa) succeeded in Kenya because:
- Built on existing infrastructure (mobile phone penetration)
- Integrated with informal hawala networks
- Addressed genuine need (sending remittances)
- User-centered design through extensive testing
- Regulatory support from government
6. Clear Theory of Change with Evidence
Effective interventions:
- Articulate how technology produces desired outcomes
- Test assumptions through rigorous evaluation
- Adapt based on evidence, not ideology
- Measure social outcomes, not just technology adoption
Solutionist interventions:
- Assume technology adoption equals problem solved
- Cherry-pick success stories, ignore failures
- Resist evaluation that might show limited impact
- Measure inputs (devices distributed) not outcomes (lives improved)
Alternatives to Solutionism
1. Problem-First, Not Technology-First
Start with deep understanding of the problem:
- Who experiences it?
- What are root causes vs. symptoms?
- What have people tried?
- What works and why?
- What are constraints?
Only then ask: Is technology part of the solution? Which technology? In what role?
Example: Deep canvassing (structured conversations) reduces prejudice more effectively than any app. The solution is human connection facilitated by trained organizers, not technology.
2. Recognize Political Dimensions
Many problems are political:
- Who has power?
- Who benefits from the status quo?
- What interests resist change?
- What policies enable or prevent solutions?
Political problems require political solutions:
- Organizing and collective action
- Policy advocacy and legislation
- Electoral politics and governance reform
- Legal challenges and rights enforcement
Technology can support political work (communication, organizing tools, documentation) but can't replace it.
3. Value Domain Expertise
Technologists should be humble about what they don't know.
Collaborate with domain experts:
- Teachers know education
- Doctors know healthcare
- Organizers know social change
- Urban planners know cities
- Farmers know agriculture
Listen to affected communities. They know their problems and constraints better than outside "problem-solvers."
4. Accept That Some Problems Have No Technical Solution
Some problems require:
- Redistribution (poverty, inequality)
- Collective restraint (climate change, overconsumption)
- Cultural change (prejudice, gender norms)
- Political compromise (conflicting values)
- Human relationships (loneliness, meaning)
These can't be "solved" with apps, algorithms, or platforms. Accepting limits is maturity, not defeatism.
5. Slow Down and Evaluate
Counter "move fast and break things" with:
- Precautionary principle: When interventions might cause harm, proceed cautiously
- Rigorous evaluation: Randomized controlled trials, long-term studies, not just anecdotes
- Adaptive implementation: Start small, learn, adapt, then scale
- Public deliberation: Democratic input on whether and how to deploy technology
6. Focus on Appropriateness, Not Innovation
Appropriate technology:
- Fits local context, resources, skills
- Can be maintained and repaired locally
- Empowers users, doesn't create dependency
- Addresses genuine needs, not manufactured wants
- Complements existing practices
Example: Fuel-efficient cookstoves reduce indoor air pollution and deforestation in low-resource settings. Low-tech, locally made, addresses genuine need, culturally appropriate.
Innovation fetish: Insists on newest, most complex technology regardless of appropriateness.
Conclusion: Technology as Tool, Not Theology
The critique of solutionism is not a rejection of technology. Technology has transformed human life—mostly for the better. Medical technology saves lives. Agricultural technology feeds billions. Communication technology connects families across continents. Clean energy technology enables decarbonization.
The critique is of technological determinism—the belief that technology drives history and can solve fundamentally social, political, and cultural problems.
What Technology Can Do
Technology is powerful for:
- Solving genuinely technical problems (disease, energy, communication, transportation, computation)
- Amplifying human capabilities (tools that make us more effective)
- Enabling coordination at scale (connecting people, sharing information)
- Reducing drudgery (automating repetitive tasks)
- Creating new possibilities (things not possible without technology)
What Technology Cannot Do
Technology cannot:
- Replace politics (conflicting values require negotiation, not optimization)
- Substitute for justice (technology doesn't redistribute power or address structural inequality)
- Bypass culture (human behavior and meaning resist technical optimization)
- Eliminate tradeoffs (every solution creates new problems)
- Solve wicked problems (complex social problems have no "solutions," only better or worse interventions)
Toward Humble Technology
An alternative to solutionism:
Humility: Recognize limits of technical knowledge and solutions
Collaboration: Work with domain experts and affected communities
Context: Understand social, political, cultural systems technology enters
Evidence: Rigorously evaluate outcomes, adapt based on evidence
Ethics: Consider who benefits, who's harmed, what values are embedded
Politics: Accept that many problems require political, not technical, solutions
Appropriateness: Deploy technology suited to context, needs, and capabilities
Accountability: Take responsibility for consequences, including unintended ones
This doesn't mean rejecting technology. It means using technology wisely—as one tool among many, appropriate for some problems, inappropriate for others, always embedded in social contexts, always carrying values and tradeoffs.
The goal isn't to stop building technology. It's to stop pretending technology is sufficient for problems that require changing power relations, cultural norms, economic systems, and political structures.
When you hear "there should be an app for that," ask:
- Is this genuinely a technical problem?
- What are root causes vs. symptoms?
- What have domain experts and affected communities tried?
- What social, political, and cultural changes are required?
- Is technology part of the solution, or a distraction from solutions?
Sometimes the answer is: Yes, technology helps. Often the answer is: Technology is useful in concert with policy, organizing, cultural change, and resource redistribution. Sometimes the answer is: This problem has no technical solution.
That's not pessimism. It's realism. And realism is the foundation for effective action—technical or otherwise.
Quote from Ursula Franklin, physicist and philosopher: "Technology is not neutral. We're inside of what we make, and it's inside of us. We're living in a world of connections—and it matters which ones get made and unmade."
The choice isn't between technology and non-technology. It's between thoughtful, humble, contextual technology embedded in comprehensive strategies for social change, and solutionist technology that treats complex human problems as engineering puzzles to be optimized away.
Choose thoughtfulness.
References
Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: PublicAffairs.
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Toyama, K. (2015). Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change from the Cult of Technology. New York: PublicAffairs.
Benjamin, R. (2019). Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11022.001.0001
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bardzell, S., & Bardzell, J. (2013). What is "Critical" about Critical Design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3297-3306. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466451
Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., & Grinter, R. E. (2010). Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Development. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1311-1320. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753522
Suchman, L. (2002). Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 91-105.
Word Count: 6,847 words
Article #61 of minimum 79 | Culture: Technology-Innovation (2/20 empty sub-topics completed)