Behind many of our ‘cultural war’ issues, there’s a tension that doesn’t make much sense to me. Namely, the categorical difference between material human products and conceptual human products. This distinction has led to innumerable safety standards for nearly everything humans manufacture, grow, or otherwise produce. From food safety standards, building codes, and environmental protection acts to the FFA, FDA, and Federal Highway Administration, we’ve blanketed the material landscape of human production with standards to ensure that products are safer and more sustainable.
But in the second category of human creation, that of our cultural and intellectual production, we’re shockingly reticent to accept that new guardrails might be a good idea. As we grapple with political upheaval, the collapse of traditional belief systems, and the formation of a society that our ancestors would have found unthinkably complex and diverse, it’s time to apply the same logic of continual development to our most sacred productions.
Where safety features make sense
Human beings, with our seemingly endless creativity and ingenuity, have created a cornucopia of new inventions. From the iron plow to the concept of cryptocurrency, we have a tendency to solve problems by manipulating our environments and our culture in novel ways to produce beneficial outcomes.
When we do this materially, say the combination of coke and iron to produce steel or the unification of systems that produces a Mazda Miata, we have little problem accepting that improvements over time are not only acceptable but positive.
A great example can be found in common automobile safety features. Way back in 1894, the Benz Velo, the world’s first production car, had a top speed of 12mph. That’s about a fifth the speed of a horse at full sprint, which helps explain the oft-quoted “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is a passing fad.” However, by the 1950s, automobiles were being clocked at over 150mph, now tripling the speed of those reliable old horses, and modern supercars are pushing past the 300mph mark.
And of course, it wasn’t just these super fast facers alone on closed tracks. In 1905, there were less than 100,000 registered motor vehicles operating in the United States, a number which includes all buses, trucks, and cars, both private and public. 45 years later, that number ballooned to nearly 50 million, and today, that number is cruising toward a solid 300 million in the U.S. alone.
Combine the rapid increases in average speed and the increasing frequency with which two of these fast-moving machines might meet on a road and you have a very dangerous recipe. It’s perhaps unsurprising that automobile fatalities remained largely unchanged from the 1950s to the 1970s, but then something curious started to happen – the numbers started to decline. By the year 2010, the frequency of deaths from automobile accidents was less than half what it’d been in the 1950s.
The change was brought about by a great many improvements in automobile safety features and a concerted shift in driving culture. Seat belts, airbags, highway speed limits, anti-drunk driving campaigns, better automobile crash design, assisted driving features, standardization of automobile licensing, turn signals, etc. created much safer motor vehicles and a safer road network on which to operate them.
Despite more cars going more places faster, consistent improvements in how we built and operated motor vehicles reduced the loss of human life, period. And all without compromising America’s car culture or limiting freedom of movement.
The same trend can be seen in buildings becoming more stable, medicines becoming safer, air transportation becoming more reliable, and common household items containing less harmful chemicals. Over and over, we’ve accepted that our material products and systems can and should evolve to provide safer and more reliable operating conditions.
Manufacturing ideas
Here’s where I may be asking you to take a leap with me. I contend that most (if not all) human cultural and social constructs are no more natural or timeless than the Benz Velo was in 1894.
Just as that first production car (and all those that came after) was meant to solve a specific human need, so to did most of our social systems. No group of people woke on a Tuesday and decided to form the Roman Catholic Church, establish the Athenian Republic, or band together as shareholders to invent this thing called a corporation. These systems evolved over time to create shared identities, manage complex social needs, and pool resources for mutual benefit.
And much as automobiles become faster, skyscrapers were built taller, and food production evolved into agri-business, our belief structures, media, systems of governments, and social norms have grown to levels of influence and speed that we once would have found unimaginable. But in these areas, we refuse to apply the same common-sense logic that we’ve applied to our material goods.
We can see the negative political consequences of a poorly engaged and undereducated polity. We face the very real physical violence of sectarianism and fundamentalism. We watch the rising income inequality around the world as corporations extract an increasing share of value from our economic systems.
But in the face of these negatives, we continue to treat this subset of human production as its own object class, somehow different in essence from the many areas we have already improved through refinement and iteration. This is a tragic mistake at best, and worse and most likely, a purposeful subterfuge to maintain systems that could otherwise evolve to materially improve human lives.
Conclusion
Whenever I hear appeals to founding documents or ideas from any group, I want to continue to exercise. If a Supreme Court Justice wishes to adhere to the intent of our all-knowing founders, then I expect that same individual to explore the medical application of leeches, trephination, and revolutionary-era dentistry. If we are meant to live under the guidelines laid down by 1st-century religious thinkers, then I expect all religious media broadcasts to cease immediately and all church travel to be accomplished via donkey.
Let me be clear by saying that I don’t mean we can’t be informed by earlier versions of a thing. Even the earliest automobiles or airplanes are recognizable as the forebearers of their modern descendants. They still have 4 wheels, a steering column, and an engine, but the addition of airbags, safety harnesses, and crumple zones have evolved the basic design into a demonstrably safer product.
How might we reimagine our media, our governments, and our economy to include safety features that reduce the most dangerous side effects? As ideas spread faster and become more potent, can we educate our citizens in the safe operation of tools like social media and generative AI? And most importantly, can we shift our cultural manufacturing systems to align with a vision of the future where all we produce be for the betterment of all?