I think the author sees technosolutionism (TS) as a blind faith that technology will solve each problem we have... eventually. Of course, like capitalism, if the problem is harder or less profitable than another, it will receive less attention than lower-hanging/sexier alternatives and perhaps never be addressed at all, much less to a degree of competence or integration that provides lasting improvement to our world.
That said, I think the principal problem with TS is its essential entanglement with novelty. We are drawn to novelty like moths to flame, often responding with disproportionate favor to the sexiness of the Next Next Thing, regardless of its prospect for real utility (e.g. the Segway...). The invention doesn't have to add significant value; it just has to capture enough mindshare for the inventors to use the favorable press to sell off the business. Then the product is absorbed into a bigger fish's ecosystem where filling a niche profitably, however trivial, is good enough.
The fundamental problem with TS is that its impact is mostly promotional and ephemeral —- that of introducing A New and Better Way. While revolution is sexier, it's much less viable to make lasting impact than evolution. It can't be sustained in an ephemera-based ecosystem driven only by advancing the next quarter's mindshare. For TS to escape the surly bonds of Earth, it has to be driven by more than enthusiasm for the latest cool demo.
In decades past, large firms with deep pockets and long term tech agendas (IBM, Intel, GE) provided persistent inertia to turn TS into lasting infrastructure. But with their demise, I see no Next Next generation firms to fill those shoes. Perhaps the only form of invention left now is TS, and I agree with the author; that's clearly not enough.
That said, I think the principal problem with TS is its essential entanglement with novelty. We are drawn to novelty like moths to flame, often responding with disproportionate favor to the sexiness of the Next Next Thing, regardless of its prospect for real utility (e.g. the Segway...). The invention doesn't have to add significant value; it just has to capture enough mindshare for the inventors to use the favorable press to sell off the business. Then the product is absorbed into a bigger fish's ecosystem where filling a niche profitably, however trivial, is good enough.
The fundamental problem with TS is that its impact is mostly promotional and ephemeral —- that of introducing A New and Better Way. While revolution is sexier, it's much less viable to make lasting impact than evolution. It can't be sustained in an ephemera-based ecosystem driven only by advancing the next quarter's mindshare. For TS to escape the surly bonds of Earth, it has to be driven by more than enthusiasm for the latest cool demo.
In decades past, large firms with deep pockets and long term tech agendas (IBM, Intel, GE) provided persistent inertia to turn TS into lasting infrastructure. But with their demise, I see no Next Next generation firms to fill those shoes. Perhaps the only form of invention left now is TS, and I agree with the author; that's clearly not enough.