A blind faith in technology

Sometimes we still have to use our judgement

“How could this happen with all the technology these ships have?” is the first question many of us had when we saw pictures of the Costa Concordia lying on its side with a ripped hull.

In an era where we have Global Positioning Systems, sonar, radar and sophisticated mapping technology it seems almost impossible that a ship could find itself in such a terrible situation.

Every generation has its own blind faith in the technology of the day and almost a hundred years ago one of the greatest shipping disasters of all – the RMS Titanic – happened because of the same belief in that era’s technology.

While the Titanic’s builders claim they never said the ship was unsinkable, popular belief held the vessel was the safest of all ocean liners with sophisticated steam engines, modern safety designs and better communications tools like the radio and Morse Code.

Those technologies were part of the Titanic’s undoing; the improved performance of steam ships saw the shipping companies competing for the Blue Riband prize of the fastest crossing of the Atlantic, meaning captains took risks they wouldn’t have with less technically advanced vessels. This is why the Titanic found itself in an ice field.

Once the ship was struck another problem with our blind faith in technology arose – we never foresee all the consquences.

In the Titanic’s case there weren’t enough lifeboats – the safety rules of the day had fallen behind the capacity of the ships and, while the Titanic exceeded the minimum number required, there were barely enough lifeboats to take a third of the passengers.

The Titanic’s sinking has some similarities in that today cruise ship companies are in an ‘arms race’ to build bigger and more luxurious liners, marketing them as floating resorts raising concerns among maritime experts that the capacity of these ships is too great for them to be evacuated quickly.

Of course we have to be careful of drawing too many parallels between the Titanic and the Costa Concordia, the Titanic’s loss of life was several orders of magnitude greater than the Concordia’s and the Titanic happened towards the end of a period when technology looked like it would solve all the world’s problems.

The sinking of the Titanic was also the peak of the Edwardian standards of “women and children first” and “for King and country.” Only one in six of the third class male passengers and half of that in second class survived.

A few years later, the clash of Edwardian culture and modern technologies was starkly shown when millions died in the trenches of France, Belgium and Gallipoli as generals applied 18th Century cavalry tactics against 20th Century weapons. Another example of not understanding the effects of new technologies.

Whenever we adopt a new technology there’s a risk we’ll get it wrong and blind faith in tools we don’t understand can lead us to a disaster.

Even in a business we can’t just accept that because a computer says “yes”, the answer is yes. Sometimes we have to think.

Similar posts:

Misunderstanding risk

Have we lost the capacity to judge physical and financial danger?

During the recent snowstorms that affected Europe and North America, the summer floods that struck Australia were almost unnoticed except for those living in the inundated areas.

The authorities wisely advised people, particularly tourists on their summer holidays, to avoid the affected areas.

A friend of mine decided to ignore those warnings and take his family on a drive through those backroads despite multiple flood warnings and evacuations. In disregarding the risks, he’s not alone in Western society.

Living the risk-free life

In the Western world we believe we’ve engineered risk out of our society, that we can make investments without risk, that we can build houses in fire, flood or earthquake prone areas without risk, that we plan a holiday without the risk of snowstorms, volcanoes or accidents disrupting our  trips.

As a society we believe the government will bail us because we’re good people and life, and fate, is always kind to good people.

When things do wrong, our mobile phones will work, our emergency services will come promptly and the government will quickly shelter and support us until the insurance company comes good on the damage.

Though it’s not just natural calamities where we believe this. It’s evident with people who quit their cubicles to find new enlightenment and riches as entrepreneurs.

Most of them misunderstand the risk-reward ratio that for every wildly successful new business founder, there are dozens who blow their money chasing the dream and hundreds of us that would have been better off working for a salary.

Finance markets and risk

The subprime crisis is another good example; millions were lulled into buying property on the promise that real estate values never fell and that their no cash down, defray your payments for years deal was bullet proof. These folk did not understand, or were equipped to understand, that real estate prices could fall.

During the subprime boom, the lenders thought they’d engineered out risk – Collateral Debt Obligations, default swaps and securitisation meant risk was a thing of the past – and they were proved wrong.

Indeed, the most frightening thing is our banks today believe they are still bullet proof and their profits and executive bonuses are risk free as governments will bail them out at the slightest hint of trouble. When the history of The Great Recession is written, and we are still in the early chapters, the guaranteeing of our “too big to fail” banks may prove to be the biggest mistake of our generation.

Because we believe there are no costs and little genuine threats to our lives, income or savings we don’t understand risks and therefore miscalculate them. If we think someone will be there to catch us, we’ll head up that flooded road, build that house in an earthquake zone or invest in that Ponzi scheme.

We have to understand there are risks and there are limits our governments and societies have in responding when things go wrong. If it’s clear we don’t understand those risks, then it’s probably best not to take them in the first place.

Endnote: My friend and his family made it back from the floods, although he ended up taking the family on four hour detour through some areas that sensible people would have avoided. Hopefully he’s learned a lesson about evaluating risks and won’t be taking his family into disaster areas again.

AB6N9E4DEW64

Similar posts: