To understand the development of technology, you may be better off studying evolutionary biology rather than, say, computer science. A grasp of evolutionary theory, with the facility for reasoning backwards which it brings, is a better model for understanding the haphazard nature of progress than any attempt to explain the world by assuming conscious and deliberate intent.
One useful concept from evolutionary thinking is the idea of the ‘adjacent possible’. As the science writer Olivia Judson explains: ‘Evolution by natural selection only works if each mutational step itself is advantageous. There’s no such thing as advantageous in a general sense. It’s advantageous in the circumstances you’re living in.’ In the field of product design, there is an analogous idea known as ‘Maya’, a phrase coined by Raymond Loewy, which stands for ‘Most advanced yet acceptable’. Any successful product should be notice-ably better than those which precede it, but not so different as to be alarming, incomprehensible or unbelievable. The plug-in hybrid electric car might be a good example of a Maya product, in that it introduces the benefits of electric propulsion without the fear fully electric vehicles often induce.
Any successful product should be noticeably better than what went before, but not so different as to be alarming
What is fascinating about this process is how uncertain it has become. Apple, one of the world’s wealthiest companies, has spent billions developing the Vision Pro, a clever set of goggles which has the potential to change computing, but which also has the potential to sell in tiny numbers and end up in a cupboard after a few months of novelty. No one yet knows.
Many government programmes fail because they don’t understand Maya or the adjacent possible. For instance, government grants are available for installing heat pumps, but only if you make a dramatic and expensive one-off transition: you must rip out your gas boiler, which has given you dependable service for 20 years, and trust your home heating to something entirely new. Evolution doesn’t make gambles like that – and neither do people.
There are also intertwined dependencies in evolutionary progress. One adaptation must establish itself before another can take root. Sometimes two things combine to great effect. The invention of the Penny Post in the UK was obviously dependent on the growth of the railways – but to some extent the development of the railways also required the introduction of the Penny Post. That’s because you can’t just travel across the country and turn up at someone’s door announcing you are staying for a week: you need an inexpensive form of communication to make arrangements first.
Hence some good ideas fail at the first attempt but succeed later. I always thought Google Glass was a fundamentally good idea: at the time it was advanced but not yet acceptable. Interestingly, with recent advances in artificial intelligence, Google has just announced it plans to relaunch a spectacle–style device.
But the really peculiar characteristic common to both processes is how uneven the pace of progress seems to be. Some things change repeatedly and rapidly, other things seem stuck. Email has scarcely improved in 15 years. Our practice of constructing houses would be recognisable to a Roman builder. At the same time, we are often blind to the genius of things that have been around for ages. I have a theory that if Harris Tweed had been invented by scientists in California last year we would hail it as a miracle fabric. Breathable, largely waterproof and warm, you can throw dirt at it and pack it in a suitcase for six months, and with a brush and a shake it’s ready to wear. Some things are unimprovable. Sharks have been around for longer than there have been trees. J.K. Starley developed the Rover Safety Bicycle in 1885. Every bicycle since has followed the same design.
Comments