Subscribe to discover Om’s fresh perspectives on the present and future.
Is Optimism Wired or Tired?
On January 2nd, 1993, Wired burst onto the scene, and let me tell you, it transformed the way many of us looked at technology and its impact on our future. It was like part field notes, part research lab, and a whole lot of fantastic storytelling. That magazine infused us with the kind of wild excitement that only comes from endless possibilities. It was like throwing gasoline on the fires of our imagination and lighting up our optimism.
In 2017, when chatting with Louis Rossetto, one of the co-founders of Wired, along with Jane Metcalfe, I told him, “Discovering Wired was like stumbling upon my Rolling Stone. It gave me my cultural context more than anything else. I didn’t even think of myself as a nerd back then. I wasn’t. I was just genuinely interested in the future.”
And that’s precisely what made Wired so special. It always said, ‘Look at where we’re headed.’ That shiny beacon of light was always there, and I think that’s what excited me about everything. Wired, in those early days, gave us a broader cultural and long-term perspective on the changes driven by technology and science.
Nowadays, you have to dig through its pages (and links) like a lost prospector searching for gold in the Sierras. The last memorable story I read in the magazine was a conversation with Jennifer Doudna, the genius behind CRISPR, who rightfully earned herself a Nobel Prize. But on the flip side, there was an article about someone’s quest for the best-smelling scrotum. Yes, you read that right! And no, it’s not from The Onion. This isn’t the only time I have been left scratching my head or confounded by the stories in the magazine. What a strange turn for the Bible of optimism!
These days, I think a lot about optimism, or rather the fact that it seems to have gone missing—in our society and our media. I get it!
It is hard to be optimistic when there are regional conflicts that can push us into a global war. It is hard to be excited about the future when the planet seems to be convulsing under the repeated assaults of the ultimate invasive species that is us. And at the same time, we have this new thing called “AI” that most likely will put an end to the world as we know it. And maybe that is precisely why we need some optimism. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, said it best:
The essence of optimism is that it takes no account of the present, but it is a source of inspiration, of vitality and hope where others have resigned; it enables a man to hold his head high, to claim the future for himself and not to abandon it to his enemy.
When I think about optimism, I wonder what is the role of media, particularly the technology media. Wired is a perfect example. It was a magazine that often gave us context for the future and all the technologies that were coming our way. It presented a scenario that inspired and gave us hope. Today, when you look through the magazine, it feels like just another run-of-the-mill magazine, that is focused on highlighting the dark side of technology and all the havoc it’s going to wreak on the world.
It is quite easy to understand why mainstream media — The Guardian and Fox News, to name a few — have to present a version of reality that makes sense to their audience, one that feels it has been wronged by technology.
I get it!
Technology has become all-pervasive, the “big tech” too big and powerful. While it is easy to amplify the “bad” of technology—it makes for great copy—it is easy to ignore the positives. After all, we take them for granted, unless of course when they break.
The same Facebook that’s seen as a villain also owns WhatsApp, arguably the communication heartbeat of the entire planet. It’s probably the last place where the original internet ethos of connection and communication, regardless of class and culture, still thrives. And without Google Maps, most of us would be lost. Without Elon Musk and Tesla, we would still be kicking the can when it comes to electric vehicles and solar energy. Like I’ve said time and time again, our relationship with technology is incredibly complicated.
What confounds me is that technology-first publications such as Wired, and technology-first writing communities seem to have little enthusiasm for technology and change. Now, more than ever, we have so many converging trends that are going to impact humanity and our planet. Technologies are ever so complex that they need careful, longer deliberation, with the right context. We have problems, but we are also on the cusp of breakthroughs that solve these problems. An optimistic view would help explain the complex future and give everyone hope.
Writing about science and technology for a technology-first magazine means that you have to be biased toward optimism. I have written about technology, the business of technology, and the implications of technology for multiple publications. I continue to write with an optimist’s view of the future, but I am never blind to the perils of what we build. It is because I believe that optimism is the key ingredient for the future we want to build.
January 2, 2024. San Francisco
8 thoughts on this post
Comments are closed.
so well put, om:
“…it transformed the way many of us looked at technology and its impact on our future. It was like part field notes, part research lab, and a whole lot of fantastic storytelling…”
i remember getting those first issues (living back in chicago at the time–but about to spend half my time in the bay area–and then move out full-time in 1999…) and feeling like i was tapping into what was coming but had not yet become prevalent!
i feel privileged to have my life’s work be part of technology emerging and then becoming mainstream. now, arguably, all areas of our lives are infused with tech. not all the results have been perfect, but we have had a chance to be midwife to the future being born and that has been immensely satisfying…
and it ain’t over yet for me or you!!!
I am not sure if I have played any role, but I have enjoyed being part of the transformation and reporting on it.
I’ve been a Wired subscriber since nearly the first year it came out. I too have thought about how Wired has changed over the years, but perhaps with a slightly difference stand on the optimism front.
Wired hailed the coming technology revolutions and I kept issues on the shelf for years, in part just to see how well those revolutions came about. I remember reading about how the internet and wired communities would spread democracy. I remember optimistic takes on a hydrogen society in essence saving us from climate apocalypse. Self driving cars as standard mode of transportation, the list goes on.
The optimism in many cases became such a let down, especially around 2016, as it became apparent that once heralded technologies were being used to undermine democracies, and corralling many into politically exploited turmoil.
If anything, Wired HAD to start reporting on the dark side of technology, which of course doesn’t make for good reading, unless you are into depressing facts.
The magazine did get thinner, with some seemingly questionable topics. However, I stay with the magazine probably because of the writing. Good, long reads, that can draw me into subjects which I might not normally have cared about.
It would be great if Wired could once again get back to the more optimistic stuff I guess. But seems like that dang reality is going to have to change.
Richard
You make strong and good arguments. Just as the optimism without a little dose of reality didn’t make much sense in their “fat” years, similarly throwing baby with the bathwater doesn’t make sense either. Just read the magazine, and you start to see what passes as tech and science coverage lacks depth and energy.
To your points — I wrote an essay few weeks back — have a look if you have not already — to see that things are happening and they are not as obvious.
We do indeed have self-driving cars, though not as widespread as you think. Hydrogen economy is emerging in non-passenger car vehicles. The network did help spread democracy and so did misinformation. The point is that it is not all shit, as many seems to think.
From my perspective, when was the last time I read something in Wired or in technology media and felt excited about the prospects. It has been a long time. A very long time!
Thanks for the link, Om.
I agree that I can’t remember the last time something in Wired left me feeling excited about the future.
As far as tech, Generative AI was a pretty big eye-opener for me that did bring back the feeling of excitement. I played with the online generators for about a month straight when they came out. In retrospect, I think I did read something about ChatGPT in Wired first.
No doubt tech has brought a lot of good stuff. And maybe the last decade we have just been in the midst of an “Empire Strikes Back” moment, with all the baddies catching up with the tech.
So here’s hoping we get back some of that optimistic mojo. I’ll look forward to reading a future Wired issue, titled: “Top 25 things to bring back Optimism!”
One of the challenges in driving optimism in the tech story is that so much of tech has become attached to a need for some kind of capital-creating function.
The early days of Wired (and of the dotcom boom) were driven in large part by blind idealism and a sense of wonder that went away as some creators became rich. No longer is the object of creation purely exploration. Nowadays, more often than not, it’s about creating a profit.
The independent website that existed as a geeky exploration of its creator’s passion has been replaced by the side-gig you monetize because you’re the best at this niche. Merely exploring something for the sake of pure exploration is considered suspect and people attach some kind of profit-driven motive to any online action.
Along this path, the trolling of anyone trying anything different is making it that much harder for any creator to present themselves in the raw. And if they do, some critic will find a way to take them down for not being “enough” this or that, not doing enough for X or Y, or being overly self-indulgent for following one’s passion.
Against this background, it is difficult to maintain a consistently optimistic outlook (besides, social media seems to have taught us that optimism is no longer en vogue). So while the sad demise of Wired as a bible of optimism is only the product of our times, when mainstream prefers to scream about the evils of technology than celebrate the wonders of the new.
Tristan
Thanks for the comment. I respectfully disagree.
I worry that many are looking at the world from a myopic “venture” or “Silicon Valley” lens. That is not right. Optimism is more than just that. It is a belief system that allows us to do things better. In the process if you tend to create capital, and profit from it, so what’s wrong with it. I recently came across a small businessman (we now call them entrepreneurs) who was so consumed by the idea that the world needs a new kind of a fountain pen nib. So he decided to make it. He is selling it — hopefully at a decent profit — and in the process has created a new thing. As a fountain pen owner, I am excited to be part of this “can do better” experiment. Fountain Pens are not really a growth business. But that didn’t stop him from pursuing his dream in an optimistic manner.
Whether it is a fountain pen nib, or a next generation of vaccine, or new forms of plastic-eating bacteria — we need to be optimistic to believe that we can solve the problems of today. As to your other points, I am guessing you and I are both “web publishers” who scratched their itch. I continue to do so. And so do many more who are experimenting, and exploring. The sad part is that most people manifest an ulterior motive to that exploration.
That said, what’s wrong with a side-gig? What has attracted me to America and continues to attract me to this place is that ‘chasing your dream’ is a feature, not a bug? The real question is why does the mainstream prefer to talk about who everything is turning to shit. I mean we have had a lot of convergent technologies and miracle of science save the planet from a pandemic with the new vaccines.
As an aside, I don’t see a problem with capital creation function. And neither does anyone else, no matter who that person is. If your 401K or any retirement fund has any technology stocks or anything from the sci-tech sector, then you are benefitting indirectly from that capital creation. Just because we only invest in an index fund doesn’t absolve us from the actual act of capital creation. I know this is tangential, but we are all better served to think — yes we can do something about the shit that we have on our hand.
Media (including Wired) would want us to sit on our hands, twiddle our thumbs, and hope it all goes away.
As a kid growing up in Houston, Wired magazine was a portal into another world: bold, transgressive, sexy, and inspiring. I cherish the magazines I’ve collected and actually pick them up from time to time to get some perspective on what’s actually new and what we were excited about in the 90s and early 2000s. I have an online subscription to Wired, and some of its gadget reviews are useful, but the features haven’t really moved me in a while. The story from Lily Hay Newman on Meta encryption was good, same from Elizabeth Minkel’s coverage of Tumblr, the review of the Combustion thermometer, and the Museum of Misalignment. But for understanding the world I’m more likely to come here, to Byrne Hobart, Ben Thompson, Matt Levine. Wired could easily come back though, they have a dear place in my heart and the heart of so many people… I still remember when they put Firefox / Blake Ross on the cover.
I don’t think it’s about optimism vs pessimism, it’s that the criticisms they’re making have felt so shallow it’s like taking cheap shots rather than really understanding the technology they’re claiming to critique.