When the motor came along, horses didn't all of a sudden become extinct

Journalist: Bettina Bhend | Photographer: Markus Bertschi

What does a technology need to become a game changer?
Money is key. It must be possible for a technology to be translated into a business case so that the necessary research can be financially supported and advanced. Another important factor is how autonomous a technology is. Technologies that require an entire ecosystem or adjustments to the infrastructure in order to function tend to be more difficult, or at least slower, to establish. But what really matters is people: if they don’t use a technology, it won’t become established.

What makes people open up to a new technology?
As the saying goes, ‘convenience is king’. People have to see a practical use for a new technology before they’ll adopt it. Tools for digital collaboration, for example, aren’t only successful because they fulfil a specific function, but because they offer us as users something that goes beyond that. In this case, the freedom to work from anywhere.

Where do you generally see the benefits of new technologies in the working world of tomorrow?
Technologies allow us to outsource work that nobody enjoys doing, such as activities that are extremely repetitive, dangerous or harmful to health. This enables companies to make efficiency gains, as machines work more cheaply than people. In turn, it means that job profiles change and have to be regrouped, with some tasks being eliminated and new ones added.

This also triggers fear of technologies like AI and robotics, which could end up competing for our jobs.
I don’t think people are afraid of technology. Who’s really afraid of a better pacemaker or a new medication? It’s more the consequences of technological change that can trigger fear. The robot isn’t the problem, but rather the fact that our social system is geared towards earned income. If this disappears, then we have a huge problem. Fear always emerges in the face of loss – whether loss of a secure existence, loss of power or loss of privileges.

Are these fears justified?
To some extent, yes. But the consequences of new technologies aren’t the same for everyone. And they differ depending on a person’s social class and where they live in the world. To put it simply: the future’s already here, but it’s unevenly distributed.

What does the future look like for Switzerland?
We have many very well-educated people in Switzerland who can keep up with technological change. We also have enough wealth to afford a welfare state that supports those who’d otherwise be left behind.

Who’s most at risk of being left behind?
This varies from case to case. But in the world of work, it isn’t always just the employees who suffer and the bosses who reap the rewards. Generational differences play an important role here. That’s because young employees are often more adept at dealing with new technologies than their older bosses. One example I can share is from a research experiment where, ultimately, the management team was putting up resistance against the introduction of generative AI in their company. Everyone was using AI and nobody was asking the managers for advice any more, so eventually they felt redundant.

There always seem to be winners and losers somewhere. How can new technologies ever establish themselves fairly?
Democratic legitimacy is important. We must determine, as a society, where the limits of a technology should be set. The decision-making power mustn’t be left in the hands of just a few corporations.

We often hear that regulations stand in the way of innovation. What is your view on this?
That isn’t how I see it. Regulations are often necessary, as otherwise it takes too long to achieve a goal. Regulation can also offer opportunities. For example, if we decide that plastic will be banned in five years, then innovators in this field will have legal certainty and can develop concrete solutions to meet these new conditions. It’s important that we do exactly that: define the framework – and not prescribe solutions.

Is there such a thing as ‘too much’ technology?
I don’t think so, because technologies become naturalised over time. Electricity is technology, cooking with a stove and oven is technology, clothes made of synthetic fibres are technology. But we perceive these things as part of everyday life as soon as they’re no longer brand new. In this sense, there isn’t always more technology, but rather constant change.

We’re also seeing trends that point in a different direction: digital detox, LPs over Spotify, vegetables from your own garden instead of the freezer. How do you feel about developments like these?
These trends exist. I don’t see them as a countermovement, but rather as a niche. They’re ‘islands’ that thrive on nostalgia and exoticism. Horses didn’t all of a sudden become extinct when the motor car came along. There are still people today who enjoy riding a horse. Despite having electricity, we light candles during a romantic dinner. We go on holiday in tents or climb Mount Everest without oxygen, even though there are other options.

On another note, there are concerns that when we get older we’ll be cared for mainly by robots and become lonely in high-tech rooms in retirement homes. What do you think about that?
I can understand that this image of the future is a scary concept. But I don’t think that ‘caging’ senior citizens in this way is really the direction in which technology is heading in when it comes to ageing and health.

What are more realistic scenarios?
It makes little sense for technology to replace the tasks that humans do extremely well. It seems more likely to me that there’ll be other areas where robots will help us, like cleaning, laundry, making beds and personal care. If we can outsource these tasks to machines, hopefully carers will have more time for interpersonal relationships.

How confident are you that technology will improve how we age in the future?
I’m inclined to be optimistic. When my father gave up his driving licence because of his age, he said that a self-driving car would be handy. It would’ve given him back the freedom of movement that he’d lost. But we shouldn’t be overly optimistic – technology needs to be manageable, especially for older people. Key finders for people with dementia are a great idea, but if you have to remember to charge them every evening then they aren’t practical at all. There are many different technological possibilities. However, whether they’re used sensibly also depends on our imagination.

What’s important to you personally in this respect?
When it comes to old age, we shouldn’t just focus on infirmities. People’s healthy lifespans are getting longer and longer. And even when we retire, we usually still have many healthy years ahead of us. This is, of course, a result of technological progress. But we mustn’t forget to think about what we actually want to do with the time we’ve gained.