Not so Fast races through the history of debates over technology from Plato to the Unibomber and beyond. It covers a wide range of sources, fiction and non-fiction, spoken and written, academic and popular. The author is not neutral, he clearly describes his position which I would call cautiously pessimistic about progress. That might be a bit unfair, as his primary concern is how thoughtful we are about technological change rather than how fast it happens; he wants to slow down not to retard progress, but to give us more time to experience the trade-offs and make wise decisions. Moreover the author does not allow his views to color his descriptions of competing views, he lays out the full range of argument seriously and fairly.

The strength of the book is its wide coverage, there are concise descriptions of dozens of major thinkers and discussions of dozens of pivotal events in the history of technology. It is well written and entertaining. Of course the discussions cannot be deep, but readers who are interested can find plenty of additional material in the cited works.

In the conclusion, the author writes, "The threat of global warming alone suggests that many of the gifts technology has bestowed may soon be eclipsed. When populations start fighting for food and shelter, count on whatever refinements we think we've acquired to disappear." Civilizational collapse due to carbon emissions any time soon is pretty unlikely, but fears of scenarios like this drive much of the thinking in the book. Moreover, suppose we knew it was likely that in, say, twenty years there would be catastrophic warming to make the Earth incapable of supporting more than a few million people. No sensible person would suggest thoughtful contemplation of technological progress and cutting back on consumption, the only useful response would be full speed ahead on research to prevent or mitigate the disaster.

The author does not discuss what seems to me to be the best resolution of his issues, for individuals to learn more science and technology. No one can be an expert in every scientific field, but it's possible for most people to have a reasonable understanding of the direction of research. If technology is magic to you, then it will seem as if your life is ruled by forces beyond your control. But everything seems mysterious and threatening unless you try to understand it. Technology is not even in the top ten of most harmful social forces (and is also among the top useful social forces) but nevertheless some people fear it more than war, repression and hatred.

The author is always accusing optimistic thinkers of having naïve visions of utopia, but a lot of his own thought seems underpinned by fears of the worlds of [[ASIN:B00M5MBOG0 Mad Max]] or [[ASIN:0451524934 1984]]. The point is not that these outcomes are impossible, but there's no obvious way that slowing down technological progress will make them less likely. I am reminded of the account of Yellowstone Park in Michael Crichton's [[ASIN:0061782661 State of Fear]]. Yellowstone was the first wilderness set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world. Everyone celebrated its wild and natural beauty. The trouble was, when people tried to preserve it, it changed, and changed disastrously. It is a dangerous myth that there is some natural order that we can preserve by doing nothing, doing nothing causes change as rapid and unpredictable as technology.

Technological progress has always been slowed by regulation, popular resistance and conservatism. Of course, it's possible to argue that technology should be slowed even more, or at least more thoughtfully. But it's the most thoughtful and rational attempts to direct it that have done the most damage, whether we're talking about totalitarian regimes or liberal regulation. The useful slowing has come from unorganized popular resistance. Technological change does not come from a power, financial or technical elite; it's ordinary people who choose what to use and how to use it. Picture telephones have been around since the 1960s, and no one wanted them. Science fiction writers always assumed we would have them in the future, and use them like standard telephones. But when mobile phones became widely available, people wanted cameras on them, and started using them in all kinds of way no technologist ever imagined--but not for video telephone calls. It's restraint of technology that concentrates power and destroys freedom.

In the end, I find this book informative, but misguided. The author thinks he has modest goals, slow things down a little, think a little harder about consequences, make sure everyone's perspective is considered. But that's a recipe for irrelevance or stagnation--either the world will pass you by, or the things you want to preserve will lose their value. That doesn't mean we have to accept whatever future results from technology, we can choose as individuals to take what we like and leave the rest. But we do have to accept the systems that grow up from everyone else's choices. We don't need to use a car, but we need to be careful crossing the street.