Rebecca Costa

Don't get me wrong. I'm extremely grateful to be one of only a handful of tech futurists and to have a career that affords me the opportunity to speak to businesses and organizations around the world. I know that being able to do work that is your true passion is a privilege. As is being a woman who lives and works in a country where there are laws to protect her. I never forget or fail to appreciate my good fortune.

That said, wherever I go, and whomever I speak to, I can be sure that one question will eventually crop up: "Is all this new technology good for us?" There seems to be some underlying, universal worry that we are becoming victims of too much technology too quickly; worry that younger generations will be adversely affected by a deluge of electronics; worry that we may be blindly and recklessly marching down a dangerous path.

The reason I struggle with the question of whether technology is good or bad is I don't really understand the question. Nor the worry.

Is electricity good or bad? How about steel? Aviation? Or refrigeration? The tendency to treat the internet, genomics and social media as if these advances are somehow different than other byproducts of human progress perplexes me. Consequently, the only answer I can offer is "Technology is neither good nor bad - it just is."

But that is not what people want to hear from a futurist. It's too obscure. Too Vulcan-like and devoid of emotion. Too benign. And yet, it may be as close to the truth as we are capable of today. And here's the reason why:

Continuous progress is one of the hallmarks of the human species. We were born to this world novelty-seeking organisms - ill content to rest on our laurels. As soon as we achieve or acquire what we want, we quickly habituate. In no time, the sheen wears off and we are onto the next thing.

"Fast adaptation" (fast habituation) has been the biological engine behind man's rapid ascent to the top of the living pyramid - eclipsing millions of other species for that top slot. It is also the same phenomena to which we owe gene therapies, driverless cars and microwave ovens. Who can deny that pioneers like Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are relentlessly on the hunt for the next big innovation, pushing civilization forward one breakthrough at a time.

If we have questions about whether advances in technology and science can cause harm or be misused, the simple answer is no more than electricity is responsible for killing a person who sticks a screwdriver in a socket. All innovations have the potential to do harm. They always have and always will.

Take human flight for example. Many people are unaware the Wright Brothers and Charles Lindbergh were the recipients of a number of peace prizes. At the time, people believed the ability to shuttle heads of state from country to country would lead to better understanding and more peace. No one imagined those same planes would be used to carry bombs.

Same goes for the internet. Without it we would have no telemedicine or GPS guidance for ships, planes and cars. No online education, instantaneous news alerts, no way for a small mom and pop in Arizona to sell goods to a consumer in Paris. On the other hand, neither would identity theft, social isolation and privacy infringement be the problem they are today. Without the internet terrorist recruitment would be magnitudes more difficult. As would obtaining instructions on how to make a plastic gun.

Do these nefarious uses make the internet bad? Or do the positive benefits outweigh the negatives? As an evolutionary biologist who looks at the long haul of human progress (millions of years) I have no basis on which to judge. I can only suggest that wishing the toothpaste back into the tube isn't going to do anything to put it back in. Likewise, wishing robots wouldn't displace people's jobs is as useless. Social media is not going away anytime soon. And neither is genetic engineering. And if you're concerned about data privacy, that train has already left the station. Your info has been captured and is being used by retailers, financial institutions and others everyday.

To my way of thinking we are far better off dealing with what is than wishing reality was some other way.

That is why my purpose as a writer and speaker is to study changes that are headed our way so we can make preparations to capitalize on them. It's no longer necessary to wait until disruption is upon us. Or worse yet, respond after the damage has been done. Using foresight, along with advanced technologies such as predictive analytics, nanosensors, and AI we have the ability to get the jump on potential hazards and opportunities before-the-fact. It is this unprecedented advantage which offers the greatest hope that technology will do more good than harm. In other words, in a very funny, convoluted way, I am suggesting that we use technology to prevent technology from having unintended consequences ... (may have to read that sentence twice).

The next time anyone feels tempted to ask me: "Is all this technology really good for us?" please don't. It's complicated.