Technology brings incredible change – but what kind? Over the last 40 years, we’ve experienced an explosion of digital innovation that many believed would lead to the betterment of humanity. Yet in America, the number of people in poverty has increased, inequality has hit levels not seen for a century and we’ve done little to stop climate change. Something is missing from the story of technical triumph.

According to the titans of Silicon Valley, all we need to make the world a better place is more technology. Google CEO Larry Page once remarked: “I think we need to be training people on how to change the world. Obviously, technologies are the way to do that … that’s what drives all the change.” Apple’s Tim Cook said of Steve Jobs: “[He] convinced me that if we made great products, we too could change the world.” And, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg suggested: “The richest 500 million [people in the world] have way more money than the next six billion combined. You solve that by getting everyone online.”

There’s no doubt that digital technology has altered our world. With YouTube and Netflix, those of us with internet access can entertain ourselves like no king or queen could a century ago. Through Facebook, we can stay connected with hundreds of friends with whom we might otherwise lose touch. And as tech cheerleader Peter Diamandis wrote: “Right now a Masai warrior with a cell phone has better mobile phone capabilities than the president of the United States did 25 years ago.”

Advances like these blinded me to the limits of technology at first. I am a computer scientist, and a little over 10 years ago, I moved to India to start a new research group for Microsoft. My team sought ways in which electronic devices could boost agriculture, education, finance and healthcare for the poorest people in the developing world. We built low-cost multimedia to present agricultural information to farmers. We wrote software that turned laptops into multi-student learning platforms and prototyped digital tools that supported healthcare workers.



But, while some of our projects improved lives, most had little long-term impact. When I looked back at our 40-odd projects, what I saw was that it wasn’t the technology that decided whether the outcomes were good or bad, it was us and our partners. When we were committed and worked with capable partners, our technology augmented their impact. But when we had corrupt or inept collaborators, the technology aggravated the dysfunction. In other words, technology doesn’t add a fixed benefit. Instead, it amplifies underlying human forces.

Amplification is a simple idea, but it’s powerful. It explains a broad range of man-machine interactions. It explains why the internet boosts free speech in America but stifles dissent in China and spreads misinformation in Russia. It explains why massive open online courses (Moocs) are completed mostly by well-educated professionals with good habits of adult learning, not jobless high-school dropouts. And, it explains why a technological golden age in the world’s richest country isn’t enough to end poverty – Americans don’t seem to care enough about it as a nation.

Amplification also means that while technology can lead to some kinds of progress, meaningful social change isn’t up to gadgets. For example, technology in and of itself doesn’t fix broken institutions. Schools failing to teach reading, writing and arithmetic with pen and paper aren’t going to graduate Silicon Valley engineers with an influx of iPads. Nor does the internet by itself cause democratization.

Technologies for increasing government accountability work either through a strong civil society or at the pleasure of those in power. Technology doesn’t cause us to do things we fundamentally don’t want to do: if we’re not serious enough about inequality or climate change to instate kinder, wiser policies, the best technology won’t save us.

All of this might sound pessimistic, but it need not be. Amplification reaffirms human agency in an age of machines, as well as the power of non-technologists to cause meaningful change. The technology industry will keep building faster engines, but it’s up to us as human drivers to decide where we go. If we’re headed the wrong way, more horsepower isn’t the issue; the essential thing is to course correct. (Even with self-driving cars, it’s people who choose the destination!)

Of course, a better engine will get us there faster, but only if we point ourselves in the right direction.