- Humanities
- 23 de October de 2024
- No Comment
- 9 minutes read
Diego Hidalgo: “The ‘Off’ button has disappeared from our devices”
Interview with Diego Hidalgo, activist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat, and magician
Diego Hidalgo: “The ‘Off’ button has disappeared from our devices”
“The technological expansion defining our era does not fully align with humanity’s interests, making it urgent for us to reclaim control”: this is how Retomar el control. 50 reflexiones para repensar nuestro futuro digital (Catarata, 2024), Diego Hidalgo’s latest book, begins. He returns to the spotlight after his essential work, Anestesiados (2021).
What do you mean by “gaseous technology”?
It represents the final phase in the model I propose of the three ages of digital technology. When technology first entered our homes and lives in the 1970s and 1980s, it was more “solid,” meaning that, like physical solids, we largely controlled the distance we kept from it. Later, with the rise of smartphones, it became more “liquid,” and we began to struggle more with containing it and defining our relationship with connected devices.
The “gaseous” technology now being deployed behaves more like gas, relying on devices that cling to us, always connected, tiny or invisible—such as smartwatches, connected speakers, and perhaps soon the promised implantable technologies. Like gases, we breathe it consciously and constantly, and we no longer hold the power to decide whether we are connected or not.
“Technology is designed to make us lose control over our relationship with it”
“Difficulty concentrating, lack of attention towards those closest to us, anxiety… The consequences of this addiction are increasingly well-known. Just having a smartphone nearby raises cortisol levels, the hormone associated with stress” (p.15). Why is it so difficult for us to react?
Precisely because technology is designed in a way that we lose control over our relationship with it. The ‘Off’ button has disappeared from our devices, and without us realising it, that button once granted us a certain power over them. There is a growing asymmetry between tech platforms and the user. People believe they are using their devices, when in reality, the devices are often using them. These platforms push us towards increasingly automatic behaviours, devoid of intentionality, and optimised for the interests of the companies that design them. Their main interest is to keep us engaged for as long as possible, taking control of our attention and shaping our decisions.
How can we prevent the “total atrophy of our person” (p.91)?
Technology assists us in increasingly sophisticated ways in nearly everything we do. This can feel convenient in the moment, as it brings efficiency to our lives and reduces effort. If you were to ask someone, “Would you like to live in such a way that you no longer have to do or decide anything and become completely passive?” they would probably say no. The problem is that this dynamic forms a spiral, and without realising it, we gradually surrender our faculties and decision-making in more and more areas of our lives. If we don’t interrupt this process, our lives will become impoverished.
To have the willpower to act in our long-term interests, we must be aware of where we will end up if we allow technology to do everything for us. Even in a world where we no longer had to walk to get anywhere, we’d still want to walk in order to maintain the ability, avoid complete muscle atrophy, and prevent becoming dependent on others for mobility. Plus, it would make us feel better. The same goes for cognitive assistance—we need to limit it if we wish to keep exercising our minds.
“We must cultivate everything that makes us human and retain some prerogatives, even if it requires effort”
To avoid being absorbed into an automated world where the space reserved for human action shrinks inexorably, we must understand that efficiency is not an end in itself, and we have higher interests. We must cultivate everything that makes us human and retain some prerogatives, even if it requires effort.
“In Spain, according to a 2024 study by Cyber Guardians, mental health issues among those under 20 have quadrupled between 1997 and 2021” (p.20). Shocking, isn’t it?
We’ve been slow to recognise this phenomenon, but for years now, we’ve observed a rapid decline in mental health, especially among young people. What’s remarkable is that the statistics are largely consistent across countries with available data, and this rise in mental health problems began in the early 2010s. This coincides with the widespread adoption of smartphones and constant connectivity. Studies like this not only show a temporal correlation but also demonstrate a causal link between hyperconnectivity and these mental health issues.
Is it true we’re having less sex in the West in the age of Tinder?
That’s what the statistics indicate in many countries. In France, for example, the frequency of sexual activity has dropped by 15 points in the last 15 years, and among those under 35, video games and social media have become more popular than sex.
Why shouldn’t we live in a smart home?
When we connect any element to the internet, we expose ourselves to vulnerabilities that can be exploited. A smart home can be hacked by third parties, causing us to lose control over the systems governing our living space. Moreover, many of the devices that enable a smart home are designed to learn more about our habits and daily lives and to profit from that knowledge. Robotic vacuum cleaners like the famous Roomba, for example, don’t just vacuum our floors; they collect data. This was one of the main reasons why Amazon tried to buy the company. The same applies to smart thermostats (such as Nest, acquired by Google). All of this contributes to a system in which our lives are increasingly transparent and exploitable.
“From a cognitive and motor perspective, handwriting far outperforms typing on devices”
Why does uncritical use of technology harm learning?
In certain contexts, technology can support learning. However, there are strong arguments for drastically limit its role, particularly in schools. Among other things, devices encourage constant distraction, making it harder for students to concentrate. Additionally, we know that reading on paper significantly outperforms reading on screens when it comes to comprehension. From both a cognitive and motor perspective, handwriting far outperforms typing on devices.
Recently, we launched the campaign For an Off School campaign, which summarises all these arguments and invites us to rethink the digitalisation of schools (offm.org/education).
Are you still using your Nokia 3310 without internet?
Absolutely. I’m connected for most of the day already, and when I’m not in front of my computer, I want to maintain a distance from the distractions smartphones bring. Not having one also reduces the amount of data I share with platforms and allows me to independently exercise functions like memory or navigation. There’s no constant temptation to ask the internet what to do, think, or focus on.
Is there really an extinction risk from out-of-control AI?
In Retomar el control, I present several worrying scenarios where it seems nearly impossible to prevent catastrophic consequences from an AI gone rogue. However, the main risk I foresee with AI is less about global destruction and more about it taking over our lives to such an extent that our role as a species is drastically diminished. We could end up as passive beings, stripped of will and room for manoeuvre. Our place in the world would become similar to that of domesticated animals. This would be another form of extinction—less violent, perhaps, but just as profound.
Source: educational EVIDENCE
Rights: Creative Commons
