This is about typical fallacies (and biases) people have when assessing the potential of individual technologies, [[Trend]]. [[Future Vision]] or [[Future Signal]]. Specifically reasons why people think a technology **must** succeed and the narratives they use. If such narratives are used to push an agenda and suppress alternatives, they are related to [[Futures Appropriation]]. In reality technologies fail for many, many different reasons along the [[Sociotechnological Triangle]] and many do not succeed even if they are innovative and inspiring. A good example of this are [[Jetpacks]] and the [Los Angeles 1984 Olympic - Jet Flight - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt0E-AkoM9U). The success of a technology is never guaranteed, even if it might be strictly better than alternatives. See also [The 100 Biggest Technology Fails Since 2011 (wizcase.com)](https://www.wizcase.com/blog/biggest-tech-failures/) That said, the technology might still turn into a [[Story Stock]] or a [[Domesticated White Elephant]], where the story or narrative becomes more relevant than the technology itself. ## Technology as a hero's journey In many minds technology must progress on a [Hero's journey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey): > A technology is invented, venturing forth from the world of commoditized solutions into a region of supernatural wonderous innovation: Fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: The technology comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow early investors. This assumes that every technology must first overcome a big challenge to finally succeed. As a result an early failure of the technology is misunderstood as a simple setback that will rectify itself eventually. It's a misinterpretation of the Gartner Hype Cycle. ## It's still early days This is similar to the above. With this, proponents of a not utilized, adopted or failing technology can make easy excuses that a technology is still is somewhere on the journey: "*It's still early*", "*At first they fight you, then you change the world*" and so on - while in reality the technology might have failed already. A good current example is [[Blockchains#It's still early days]] and the counterpoint of [It's not still the early days (mollywhite.net)](https://blog.mollywhite.net/its-not-still-the-early-days/). ## Reverse Scooby Doo https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/those-meddling-kids-the-reverse-scooby-doo-theory-of-tech-innovation-comes-with-the-excuses-baked-in/ #TODO ## The chain of good This assumes that a technology or paradigm will become viable once another technology becomes "good enough", without any evidence. Proponents of the technology can then pivot indefinitely to another technology that needs to be "good enough" to enable their goal. Example: "*Once the game / VR is good enough, then the Metaverse will exist.*" ## Moore's Law Everything [Moore's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law) was specifically around the increase of transistors on a CPU, or more generalized: Computing power doubling every two years. It is not applicable to everything, for example how much energy density increases in batteries. Other technologies don't get twice as powerful or half as expensive automatically just because this seems true for CPUs. ## Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) This is projecting the success of previous big technology successes onto new & yet to be proven technologies with the expectation that it too will be disruptive / hugely successful. This is not strictly applicable to technology, but it is prevalent in todays technology investing. The driving force is usually financial envy towards the ones that got rich with the previous technology and the hope to also "hit it big" with the current technology. Another driver is the fear of being disrupted & made obsolete by the current technology, making an investment essentially an opportunity cost. This fear can be weaponized by a [[Domesticated White Elephant]].