💡 A Brilliant Idea
From Edison’s lightbulb to sky grief: an exploration of the impact of technology on our lives (and what we really need)
By Adriana Nugter & Shannon Mullen O’Keefe
In the mockumentary Cunk on Earth, the host, Philomena Cunk, played by Diane Morgan, asks real historians, scientists and other subject-matter experts crazy questions. The exchanges between Cunk and her guests are silly. They provoke a smile — even a laugh. But they also provoke thought.
In one episode she focuses on Edison’s invention of the lightbulb saying:
“It’s hard to imagine the world in which Edison didn’t invent the lightbulb. And even if you did imagine it, it would be too dark to see what was in it.”
She then starts to interview her guest, Patricia Fara, a renowned expert in the history of science. The exchange goes like this:
Philomena Cunk: How did people see during the day before Edison invented light?
Fara: Light comes from the sun so people could see during the day because of the sun. What they needed the lightbulb for was during the night, when there isn’t any sun and when you can’t see.
Cunk: So what did people use before lightbulbs?
Fara: Well, they used candles, or they used oil.
Cunk: So we had daylight during the day and we had candles at night?
Fara: Yes.
Cunk: So we didn’t need lightbulbs. His [Edison’s] life’s work was meaningless.
Edison’s work meaningless? Of course not. But even though her words sound silly, could she have a point?
So what about the lightbulb that Philomena pokes fun at?
What do we really need artificial light for?
Natural light: a luxury?
Nowadays, it is difficult to remember a time when daylight was the primary means of lighting. The sun rose. And set. And that was it. With some light at night from the moon, the fireplace, a torch, a candle, a gaslamp.
But then there was Edison and his light bulb.
Some time after that, the capability to produce light bulbs en masse coincided with utility companies eager to roll out the electricity grid and electricity available at really low prices. Thus, artificial light could spread and was introduced in public, working, and private life alike. It allowed for increased safety in the streets, to work night shifts, to read a book after dark and many more things that previously were daytime activities only.
Artificial light/electricity thus became an essential enabler for the industrial revolution, allowing for innovation and economic growth.
Where daylight previously guided the rhythm of life, this ‘barrier’ to undertake all types of daytime activities, also during the dark hours, went away. Light was now available at any time!
In the architectural world, architects became convinced that for working, artificial light should become the norm, both night and day: “ultimately, if not immediately, artificial or electric lighting (…) [will] supplant natural light as the primary source during the day in the work situation.”
So the lightbulb enabled working hours to be extended and the use of artificial light even began to trump the use of real light: daylight for all kinds of buildings started to be disregarded as a possible functional source of light. After all, high ceilings and big windows to light the work space were expensive. Artificial light meant that important cost savings were possible through lowering ceilings and having small windows or no windows at all.
To a point where natural lighting started to be seen as something not so obvious: “It is inevitable that artificial light must become the primary light source where efficiency of vision is combined with an economic analysis of building function. Natural lighting is becoming a luxury.”(1) This engineer-led-approach led to windowless factories and the promotion and construction of windowless schools.
So much for natural light. The lightbulb really began to make its mark.
The lightbulb: more than just a brilliant idea
In fact, today, it is hard to imagine a society without electrical lighting. And lightbulbs have become a symbol (even at the level of an emoticon!), to represent the birth of a brilliant idea, a moment of creativity.
However, the invention of the lightbulb created some downsides too.
We might not think about these often enough.
For example, scientific research showed that daylight is not an optional amenity. But rather, it serves something really essential for human beings, like vitamin D synthesis and bone health.
We also learned from science that the darkness of the night is very important for us too: we need the night as much as we need the day. Too much artificial light impacts our mental state and influences the sleeping patterns of humans and fauna alike. It impacts plant life too. And, for example, working night shifts is linked to increased health risks.
And a large swath of our planet now basks in artificial light. This results in light pollution, also referred to as “noctalgia”, meaning “sky grief”.
Sky grief! An unforeseen consequence of artificial light…of the lightbulb?
On top of this, satellites are now adding even more light, further blurring the view of our stars.
Astrologists feel the direct impact of this light pollution already, but all of us are losing access to our stars. And talking about global warming, what about all the fossil fuels needed to light us up?
Creating an alternative to daylight, made possible by Edison’s invention, thus has had a huge impact on us and on our society — in both positive and negative ways.
History on repeat?
So, was Edison’s life’s work really meaningless — as Cunk joked? — or, even worse — was it harmful to us?
Would we have been better off without Edison’s invention?
As said before, of course not.
But understanding the downsides took us a while and mitigating those downsides has proved (and proves) to be a real challenge.
Now, let’s take a look at another brilliant idea, another form of technology, and see if we’ve at least learned from this.
What if we replaced artificial light in the above story with artificial intelligence (AI)?
Like artificial light for the industrial revolution, AI is a real enabler of the current digital revolution. Creating innovation and growing the economy. With data abundantly available at a low cost and processing capacities seemingly endless, AI seems destined to be introduced everywhere in public, working and private lives.
Just like the lightbulb.
And just like the lightbulb, its introduction comes with downsides too. New forms of sky grief.
Science, loud and clear, has identified the role algorithms used in AI systems play in creating dopamine that keeps us addicted to our screens. And already back in 2014, it became apparent that the use of social media negatively impacted the body image perception of adolescent girls. Confirmed later by the internal studies of, for example, Meta, as witnessed by Francis Haugen seven years later. Which is why now addiction clinics also treat social media addiction. And, for that matter, also treat online gambling addiction.
Science has also demonstrated that algorithms in social media are capable of manipulating public opinion during elections. Today, OpenAI is introducing technology that convincingly clones voices using just 15 seconds of recorded audio. According to the company, the technology has not yet been considered safe for general use, as its impact on misinformation could be huge, especially with so many elections around the world this year.
Which poses the question, who and what can we rely on going forward? Will we develop ‘reality-grief’? Missing the real world, nostalgic for some real contact? With so much time of our lives spent on screen, might this be a possibility?
An increasing need for human contact. For not yet another chatbot. For a real person to interact with, and not ‘the machine’.
And let’s not forget the undeniable environmental impact of AI. For example, water usage is taking center stage. Use of fossil fueled electricity too. Cloud centers after all, in reality are housed on earth and don’t live off the wind.
We had sky grief already. Now we may add ‘reality-grief’.
Brilliant inventions have social costs too
With artificial light, it took us several decades to discover that it had both good and detrimental impacts on our lives. With AI, science helped us to understand the downsides faster.
Brilliant inventions can have social costs too. Technology can be both a brilliant asset and a costly detriment in our lives. We now know that for it to be mostly beneficial to us, we need to channel it in ways for its benefits to outweigh its detriments.
This doesn’t mean becoming a Luddite — it doesn’t mean letting go of the best possible use case scenarios for technologies like AI — but it does mean holding ourselves accountable to the implementation of our technology so that it fulfills its potential to better our lives. By the way, ourselves means all of us. Not just us individuals. All of us — individuals, companies, governments.
To make our lives better — — and not worse.
And to act on our opportunity to use technology to better our lives earlier — -rather than later.
Back to Cunk
So back to Cunk. What did we really gain from the invention of the light bulb?
How meaningful or meaningless, in Cunk terms, is it? How did this technology help us to progress to a better world?
To argue that the lightbulb was a meaningless invention — as Cunk suggested, would be silly.
Of course, it has in more than one way improved our lives. It can be very helpful.
But that might be the point.
Perhaps as we’re creating technologies, we need to have a more purposeful conversation about the problems that we’re solving for.
What do we really need artificial light for?
What do we really need artificial intelligence for?
In the book 10 Moral Questions: how to design technology and AI responsibly (of which we are co-authors), a nice framework is offered to answer these very important questions.
After all, technology can be very instrumental in making the world better. But, as Adrienne LaFrance says in a recent article in The Atlantic , “(…) we must first describe the world as we wish it to be — the problems we wish to solve in the public interest, and in accordance with the values and rights that advance human dignity, equality, freedom, privacy, health, and happiness.”
She invites this question: What are we optimizing our lives for? In other words, which motivations should drive our technological progress?
How about when we want artificial light, or artificial intelligence, or whatever technology, to be used, first and foremost, to advance human dignity, the collective good (including nature,) equality, freedom, privacy, health and happiness?
And then to continuously check our implementations, our innovations, against these values and rights, to redress and make adjustments when, over time, unforeseen consequences come to light?
- Lighting in Architectural Design. McGraw-Hill,. 1964 Pub. USA.
The above essay is a part of an ongoing series that Shannon and Adriana publish about the impact of technology on our daily lives.
Dr. Adriana Nugter, Senior Independent Consultant
Adriana is intrigued by the wider impact of technology on society and on our day-to-day life, today and in the future. She believes that when innovating, a broad holistic view is required, one that also includes society and the environment as stakeholders and that respects human values and human rights.
Adriana has expertise in, among others, tech regulation, public policy, standards and stakeholder management. Recently she received her credentials as an IEEE CertifAIEd Lead Assessor. IEEE CertifAIEd is a certification program to assess the ethics of autonomous intelligent systems (AIS) used within organizations.
Shannon Mullen O’Keefe, Curator, The Museum of Ideas
A lover of wisdom, Shannon is dedicated to imagining what we can build and achieve together. She operates from a place of curiosity, inviting questions, and reflections, in order to call to light the hidden messages that surround us everywhere. She believes there is power in what is often unseen, unsaid, or invisible.
Before creating The Museum of Ideas where she curates thinking, Shannon practiced the art of leadership for close to three decades, leading workplace engagement and culture change initiatives. She has served in leadership and executive roles in a global professional services firm and in a nature-based nonprofit organization.
