26, November 2025

Resistance is futile, or is it?  How society impedes technological change.

What is well recognized is the role that new technologies have played in improving our quality of life and standard of living in the last few hundred years.  What is not so well recognized is the active resistance to adopting new technologies that took place, that slowed down or in some case completely stopped adoption of new technology.

Historical examples.

Luddites. This is probably the best-known example, where workers in the textile industry in Britain actively opposed the adoption of automated weaving machinery when they were first introduced in the early 1800’s.  The new machinery eventually came into widespread use.

Japan firearms.  The Tokugawa shogunate severely restricted firearm production and ownership after 1603.  This was to maintain the dominance of the large number of samurai, whose identity and power were based on martial prowess, and tied to the sword.

Printing Press. The Ottoman empire banned the printing press from printing in Arabic script from the 15th to the 18th centuries.  Religious authorities and scribes feared it would spread heresy. The ban delayed the spread of printed books in the Islamic world by centuries compared to Europe and delayed economic development.

In two of these three examples a powerful elite group was able to prevent use of a technology, sometimes for hundreds of years. In the third example it was a groundswell of affected workers.

Current examples.

Montreal protocol. In 1987 a worldwide treaty banned certain chemicals – mostly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – that were depleting the ozone later in the upper atmosphere. It is considered one of the most successful treaties in history because it achieved universal ratification and has led to a significant recovery of the ozone layer.

Human cloning. Most countries — including Germany, France, and Canada — have outright bans on reproductive human cloning, because of ethical, religious, and social concerns about human identity, personhood, and potential abuse.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs). France has banned the cultivation of genetically modified crops because of strong public opposition, environmental concerns (like biodiversity loss and gene flow to wild plants), and a desire to protect its traditional, high-quality food system from industrialized agriculture

In each of these example’s bans were enacted with wide public support.

The big picture.

Joel Mokyr – this year’s winner of the Nobel Prize in economics – has written extensively about resistance to technological change. He commented: “Throughout history technological progress has run into a powerful foe:  the purposeful self-interested resistance to new technology…technological progress in society is by and large a temporary and vulnerable process, with many powerful enemies.”

However, being sceptical about new things is not a bad idea as it can protect against damaging ideas (think Thalidomide.). Mokyr points out that most new technological developments are accepted (or not) by the free market without raising any public issues. There was not an outcry when Kodak went bankrupt because it failed to adapt to digital photography, or when Blockbuster video went bankrupt because of competition from streaming services. That was seen as the marketplace in action.

There are often winners and losers when new technology is introduced. There are often a small group of highly motivated losers wanting to maintain their position, and a larger group of potential winners. The situation with Canada Post is a good example, where email is well on the way to replacing hand delivery of mail.

Unintended consequences.

Sometimes a new technology has consequences that take time to be fully understood. For example, tetra-ethyl lead was regarded as an excellent solution to the” knock” problems with early automobile engines. It was only later that the effect of lead poisoning led to its banning. Similarly, phosphate was regarded as an excellent additive to washing powder. It was later that it was realized that it caused algal blooms in lakes and rivers that killed fish that led to its banning.

Unions and tariffs.

Mokyr commented that two big areas that resist new technologies are unions and tariffs. From a historical perspective he noted that the weak guilds (unions then) in Britain could not prevent adoption of the new technologies that drove the Industrial Revolution. In Canada we cannot buy Chinese EVs today as they are blocked with high tariffs.

Conclusion.

Resistance to technological change, according to Mokyr, is widespread and comes mainly from two places. First the beneficiaries of the status quo, and second, from intellectuals who for one reason or another are fearful of technology. However, being sceptical of a new technology is not a bad idea until its full scope and implications are known. AI and robotaxis are currently being scrutinized in that way. Too much resistance to new technologies results in stagnation. Looking at who is resisting a new technology will give a good idea if it is a group that would lose if the new technology was adopted or if there is opposition based on as assessment of the impact of the technology (which may or may not turn out to be true.).

Peter Josty