Technology Makes You Ungovernable

By taking away tools of oppression and empowering individuals, technology forces people to adopt better norms. Moral progress is primarily caused by human prudence in the face of unprecedented change.

You can’t understand how the modern era came about without understanding the revolutionary effects of the printing press. Its low cost and high speed enabled protestants to flood Europe with bibles, ending the reign of Latin as the gatekeeper of religious instruction. Protestant farmers increasingly saw it as a moral obligation to teach their children how to read (causing literacy rates to skyrocket well before the advent of compulsory schooling). It seems likely that this explosion in the supply and demand of written material helped fuel the European Enlightenment.

Although it’s fascinating to think that metal letters, ink, paper, and a press could transform the world, that’s not really the right framing. Printing presses have existed many times and places without sparking any enlightenment; to do that, you need people who publish radical ideas and people who want to read them. But even if Europeans had spent the next 300 years printing nothing but bibles, the invention would have been a ticking bomb of social change. Not because of what it made possible, since, in a sense, anything is always possible to those with knowledge. No, the machine’s importance was due to what it made economically unfeasible, namely censorship.

In the early 15th century, keeping tabs on ideas meant keeping tabs on people. Rebellious groups were by necessity pretty centralized, with a limited number of communication lines and easy-to-find points of failure; difficult but within the means of censors to handle. Just a few decades after Gutenberg the tables were turned: Censorship had become a futile attempt to eradicate a hundred small objects of unknown origin. The cost of stopping ideas from spreading had skyrocketed, robbing political power of its leverage in the sphere of ideas.

Instrumental in this process was the spread of the technology itself. The printing press is a very useful innovation, as it caters to a host of different needs. Whether you’re a philosopher wanting to spread your ideas, a rebel attempting to disseminate (mis-)information, or a ruler wishing for a more efficient bureaucracy, the printing press will make it faster, cheaper and better. Because of this usefulness, the knowledge of how to build and operate a printing press quickly became viral, spreading uncontrollably through Europe.

Technical knowledge having this degree of virality is quite rare and requires it to be retainable, immediately useful for many people, and full of recognizable potential. It’s worth considering just how much important knowledge has been lost throughout the ages. How to avoid scurvy, the vast treasuries of Greek and Roman thought, and even the existence of America were all lost, lacking the potency to keep itself instantiated in the European consciousness.  

So the printing press was a game changer. As is always the case with new technologies, most people probably considered it useless, but a minority could see the potential and set out to spread the technology and in doing so, recruit others. While this process only happened once, it has striking similarities to other technologies that have changed the world. Before I get to those, I’d like to propose that all game-changing technologies are defined by the following properties:

1. They’re simple enough to spread on existing information rails

2. They’re instrumental in achieving a range of different aims, some of which were previously impossible

3. Because of 1-2, they quickly become decentralized and practically unstoppable

4. Over time, 1-3 increases the gains from employing the technology, lowering its cost while simultaneously increasing the cost of stopping it. This momentum forces opponents to choose between adoption or ruin.

Additionally, I propose that eliminating restrictions on human freedom by these means is always a net gain for humanity. Freedom is not risk-free, but forcing people to bear the cost of their own actions shifts the responsibility of developing and enforcing control mechanisms away from authorities, leaving the job to culture. This frees up resources for more productive purposes, as the total cost to society of cultural enforcement is minuscule compared to the one outside authorities have to bear. This process turns authoritarian systems of outside control through physical force into cultural systems of inside regulation by persuasion (or manipulation).

Of course, cultural regulation can be harsher and more capricious than that of rulers. But assuming that culture, too, is subjected to criticism and improvement over time and that the enforcement in question happens by way of reasoned argument, it is a more cost-effective way to handle risk. And to some extent, the introduction of unstoppable technology provides a strong incentive to engage in cultural criticism, as old ways take on unacceptable risks in new situations. Since game-changers won’t yield to any prohibitive force, cultures are just as powerless to stop them as monarchs and governments, and eventually forced to adapt in a liberal direction - facilitating even more innovation, criticism, and change. This dynamic, which is self-enforcing, explains the moral zeitgeist that has been noted by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins. Moral progress cannot happen without the opportunity to experiment - an opportunity that game-changing technology provides in abundance.

Because of these dynamics, I like to call such inventions freedom technology. Of course, one could argue that all technological progress is conducive to freedom, as it offers people a greater scope of action. But the difference between a new type of plow and the printing press is not merely one of degree. Game changers reach into the very fabric of human society, grabbing hold of the most fundamental physical and cultural infrastructure, and yanks.  

Examples of freedom tech

It’s impossible to know how many human inventions have been true freedom technologies. The tech tree of Sid Meier’s Civilization games provides a decent list of candidates, though the act of introducing a technology to a given culture need not lead to more freedom or progress. Even though technology has a strong tendency to make human lives better, on the whole, it may do the opposite in particular places and timeframes. For example, the introduction of nuclear weaponry to North Korea may have made life worse for its citizens, though in a global context you can make a strong case that such weapons have done tremendous good in taking regular warfare off the table in places where there would otherwise have been a lot of it.

In this section, I’ll try to illustrate and flesh out my concept of freedom technology. By analyzing some historical examples, some of which may be surprising, it’ll hopefully become clear how very different kinds of technology can follow a very similar pattern with respect to adoption, its benefits, and the ensuing chaos as people try to adapt.

It may surprise some readers to learn that gunpowder is a clear example of a freedom technology. The introduction of firearms and explosives into Europe would make it unfeasible for small numbers of aristocrats to control a peasantry twenty times their size, effectively ending feudalism. In general, firearms strongly reduce the advantages of superior strength, massively increase the risk for anyone seeking to violate other people’s liberty, and give a distinct advantage to attackers over defenders. This final point may not be obviously positive, but those in power are much more likely to become targets than ordinary people, and making assassinations and rebellions easier thus provides incentives for rulers to keep their populations happy.

In a bigger picture, gunpowder was the beginning of what would become our long and beneficial relationship with carbon-based chemical combustion. The development of firearms laid the groundwork for the coming exploitation of other combustion agents, by demonstrating that a proper understanding of stress, pressure, and chemical properties could be harnessed to build contraptions of spectacular power. It revolutionized the stale science of alchemy, steering these curious minds in a more productive direction. And finally, black powder opened new possibilities in engineering and mining, while lowering costs and reducing the need for manual labor. The modern era is impossible to imagine without gunpowder.

Finally, the invention of computers, and later the idea of connecting them all to form the internet, seems an obvious candidate yet is tricky to capture succinctly. As a revolution, we’re still in the thick of it - or even the very beginning. It can be tempting to see it as a faster version of the printing press, as an extension of the telephone, or even as a general amplifier of all things human, but it’s still so much more than that. The internet is a sprawling Darwinian battlefield that, potentially, includes every human, every culture, and every institution on the planet. I’d be a fool trying to predict what will come of it all, but it’s already apparent that nothing will remain unscathed.

In essence, the internet is simply a massive infrastructure upgrade. Railways were merely bad news for some established businesses in the transport sector; the internet will effectively wipe out every business that sells information. No company in the internet age has successfully traded in mere facts, though piles of money have been earned selling eyeballs (Alphabet, Meta, TikTok) and storage (Amazon). Even streaming is not a service that people will pay for; Netflix would have been long gone if it hadn’t entered the production business. Information has become as cheap as water, and the only way to earn money on it is through sorting and packaging (like authors, podcasters and YouTubers do) or storing it. This is in contrast to the world I grew up in, where 2000 dollars was considered a fair price for a good encyclopedia.

But the internet has also changed the analogue world. Practically free information highways provide additional incentives for digitalization and automation, which permit people and businesses to tap into the internet’s vast pool of creativity and talent. One of the most fascinating such developments has been the rise of 3d-printing, which is already poised to become a disruptive engine of its own. Indeed, containing the spread of firearms is already a lost cause, and in the long run, there is trouble brewing for manufacturers of toys, gadgets, or perhaps everything. Versatile and cheap home manufacturing opens up strange possibilities, such as printing a 3D printer. The tantalizing universal constructor, a machine that can autonomously build anything, including copies of itself, is potentially the most disruptive technology imaginable.

If I were to find a single thing that has become unfeasible, an option that has been taken off the mahogany tables of the elites for good, my guess would be lying. In the same way that gunpowder increased the risk of overt subjugation to unfeasable levels, the internet has made lying in public a fool’s errand. It isn’t obvious, but paradoxically, the Trump phenomenon may be the best example I’ve seen of it so far. As everyone knows, he says 10 untrue things every day, but while other politicians lie - that is, try to cover up what they know to be true - what Trump does is technically called “bulshitting”: Not really caring what is true or false.

Another sign of the same trend can be seen in modern marketing. Anyone in this business worth his salt knows that it’s all about authenticity. This is actually a trend that goes back 50 years, where maybe Nixon was the very first sign of people showing a distaste for fakery. According to some analyses, Nixon’s presidency could have survived Watergate, if not for the release of the White House-tapes, where the American people were introduced to a very different president from the one they had seen on TV. His drunken swearing sparked more outrage than his spying. Today, our tolerance for fakery is much lower than ever before, and our ability to detect it is keener than ever.

One cannot speak of the internet’s disruptive qualities without mentioning Bitcoin. Before discussing its implications, I should probably clear away a few misconceptions (if you’re familiar with it, you can skip the next 4 paragraphs).

First, it’s important not to judge bitcoin by its current state. A common objection is that its price volatility makes it useless as money, but price instability is a problem with known causes and solutions. It is not in any way speculative to claim that with greater adoption, higher liquidity, and higher confidence, the volatility will steadily drop. To make a proper objection, one would first have to have a theory of how the adoption of digital, decentralized money should look. Which patterns of adoption should we expect, what kind of price action, and so on? Bitcoin is designed to be the most stable and predictable commodity ever, but comparing it to well-established assets with almost bottomless liquidity is pointless.

Also, bitcoin isn’t finished. It is by now the most secure network on earth, but before it can fulfill its role as a global currency it also needs speed. In order to maintain its decentralized nature, the main blockchain has a speed cap of 2000 transactions every 10 minutes. The Lightning Network, a protocol running alongside the Bitcoin network, is currently in the process of eliminating this barrier by utilizing the unrivaled security of the main blockchain. In time, there will probably be other services, seeking the leverage of absolute immutability.

And security is the key to understanding bitcoin, and the standard by which it should be judged. It has lost 75% of its value in the past 12 months, yet its hash rate - a measure of its security - has increased steadily. At the time of writing, an attacker would need to get about 15 million miners, as well as the electricity output of about 15 nuclear plants, and would still have about a 60% chance of failing. In its 13 years of operation, not a single fraudulent transaction has been inserted into the Bitcoin blockchain, and internal attempts to steer the network toward greater centralization have failed. Other indicators, like adoption rate and average holding time, all show steady growth. Underneath all the noise, the technology is working like a clock.

Finally, bitcoin needs to be distinguished from “crypto”. The big cryptocurrencies share some important traits, but you could say the same about Facebook and Myspace. The important difference is that each of bitcoins competitors is controlled by some clique, which can - and frequently does - change the supply or even the code at will. Even if these actors are honest, they are a point of failure and hence a disqualifying security risk. Bitcoin has no CEO, no board of directors, or even shareholders. It’s just the code, and the millions of people who freely interact with it, build on it and secure it, all for their own personal gain. This is why, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, bitcoin is a commodity.

Assuming that it succeeds, bitcoin will make it unfeasible for governments to control money. It’s often believed that currencies are inexorably linked to government control, but this is mere parochialism. People sometimes assume that because dictionaries list the correct definition and spelling of words, they decide what is correct. But if enough people break the rules, the dictionary is the one to give way. It’s ultimately the same with currency; a question about what people deem practical. However, while it is impossible to force people into using words as prescribed by the dictionary, it is merely unfeasible to force people into using state money. In other words: They will try, and probably try hard, to retain control.

And yes: Bitcoin does fit the description of freedom tech, though it’s without a doubt the most complicated of the bunch. Bitcoin probably wouldn’t have made it without the superior information rails offered by the internet to secure adoption. Any amateur who is interested can find videos, graphics, essays and podcasts to suit his interest and level of understanding, though a bit of digging is required. That, too, was probably an essential feature, since if bitcoins disruptive potential was apparent to everyone from the beginning, it would have been strangled in its infancy. And in spite of what skeptics say, it is indeed useful for a range of applications, such as stabilizing power grids, preventing methane emissions, incentivizing renewables, escaping oppression and high inflation, and remittances.

There’s even more, some of which hasn’t been thought of yet, but in my view nothing is more important than undermining the economic power of the state, eventually removing current restrictions on where to spend, earn, save and invest money. These restrictions are invisible to most people in the developed world, but acutely felt in emerging economies. Promoting freedom in the economic sphere has branded bitcoin as a libertarian or even right-wing project, but that’s a mistake. Economic freedom underpins all liberties fought for on the political battlefield, and the exploitative privileges of the banking sector are an insult to descensy itself, not any particular political ideology.

Human civilization is built on trade. Everything we do, even relationships and hobbies, are in some way connected to the exchange of goods and services. Money, in turn, changes how we behave. People dealing with 30% inflation exhibit radically different behaviors in life from those who’ve only known 2%. Bitcoin promises the ability to reliably earn money by setting it aside, which would upend our economic system. Many economists warn of disastrous consequences from deflationary currencies, yet the US enjoyed eye-watering growth with an average 1,5% deflation during the Gilded Age.

As with the few bits and pieces comprising an early printing press, it’s fascinating to think that a mere list of symbols can revolutionize anything, but its ability to resist any conceivable tampering makes it unique in human history. Indeed, its ability to keep itself instantiated by human creativity, combined with its minimalist and foundational application, may make the Bitcoin network the most permanent man-made object.

Is it wrong to be afraid of freedom technology?

Freedom technologies remove, one by one, the means by which powerful individuals and groups control others. In terms of basic freedoms, even my great-grandfathers were spoiled relative to the average medieval king, and, hopefully, my descendants will pity us. The fact that there are technologies in this universe with exactly the properties needed to push civilizations in a better direction, is incredible to me. The fact that, seemingly, there is no such thing as anti-freedom tech, is nothing short of magical.

It’s normal to worry about freedom. People imagine their neighbors doing something reckless, the fabric of society cracking, or some great misalignment between human wants and needs. I think they’re right to worry. Every positive development in history has been bad news to a great many people, to whom it mattered little that humanity would benefit in the long run. These changes can be brutal, and they can’t be predicted or planned for, much less avoided. Civilization advances one blind step at a time, with no guarantee of success, because we have to.

But there is no safety in slow development. The precautionary principle is an invitation to hamper progress through bureaucracy and, eventually, corruption. We are here today because our forebears found new ways to exploit and unleash human talent, connect with each other and solve problems. This is what we call freedom, and the way we get more of it is not by instigating revolutions or electing the right politicians, but by inventing things that make us less governable.

Imagine yourself as an Ottoman soldier, standing on the hills west of Constantinople in 1453. Seeing your sultan’s expensive new cannons fail to destroy the famous walls, you probably wouldn’t have guessed that those monstrosities would soon change the world. Even though history doesn’t actually repeat itself, the underestimation and demonization of new technology is a recurring motif. And the fears are often true. The ancient greeks were correct in assuming that writing would weaken people’s memories, and that ideas would gain a life of their own. But what no one could see was the advantages, because at the time they were yet to manifest.

Think back just 20 years! To do research, I had to go to the library, when abroad I’d visit an internet café hoping that my friends would be online as well, and people went around with a cell phone AND an mp3-player. In 2010, when none of this was true anymore, did you even realize that the world had changed? Technological revolutions manage to sneak up on us every time, and by the time we notice them, we have also changed - beyond recognition.

I believe bitcoin is by far the most revolutionary piece of technology to come out of the internet, but like the historian Niel Ferguson I have a suspicion that humanity’s newfound ability to communicate at the speed of light will cause even bigger changes - in our lifetimes. We are not just reenacting Gutenbergs revolution, we are in the middle of a new renaissance.