The Myth of Progress: How Technology Became Our Defining Narrative

For centuries, societies have framed technological advancement as synonymous with progress. From the Industrial Revolution to artificial intelligence, the dominant belief has been that every step forward in technology automatically translates into a better world. However, this assumption remains largely unchallenged, even as technological development brings unintended consequences - social inequality, environmental destruction, and cultural homogenization. This essay explores the historical roots of the progress narrative, examines how modernization theory cemented technology as the ultimate driver of societal evolution, and critiques the idea that more technology necessarily leads to a better world.

The Birth of the Progress Narrative

The idea that history follows a linear trajectory toward advancement is deeply ingrained in Western thought. Enlightenment philosophers such as Marquis de Condorcet envisioned humanity as moving inexorably toward a future of reason, science, and technological mastery¹. This belief was reinforced by the Industrial Revolution, which saw technological innovation fuel economic growth and transform social structures. As machines replaced human labor and industrial production flourished, technological progress became a measure of national power and human achievement.

By the 20th century, this vision of progress was institutionalized in global development models. After World War II, economic reconstruction efforts and global modernization programs championed industrialization and technological expansion as the foundation for economic and social improvement. One of the most influential moments in this development was U.S. President Harry Truman's 1949 inaugural address, in which he introduced Point Four - a policy aimed at transferring scientific and technical knowledge to the so-called "underdeveloped world"². Truman's speech reinforced the idea that technology was the key to global equity, positioning Western expertise as the path toward modern civilization.

However, this narrative obscured the fact that industrialization and technological progress were not neutral forces. They were shaped by economic and political interests, reinforcing existing hierarchies between nations. What was presented as assistance to "developing" countries was, in many cases, an extension of Western economic influence, ensuring access to markets and resources³.

Modernization Theory and Its Flaws

Modernization theory, which dominated mid-20th century development economics, took Truman's vision further by proposing that all societies progress through the same stages, from traditional to industrial to post-industrial economies⁴. This theory, championed by economists like Walt Rostow, suggested that technological adoption and industrialization were the universal path to economic success. Under this model, countries that lagged behind were simply seen as being in earlier stages of development.

However, modernization theory had deep flaws. First, it was Eurocentric, assuming that Western industrial societies were the pinnacle of human progress and that non-Western nations should replicate their trajectory⁵. Second, it ignored structural inequalities - failing to account for the fact that the global economic system was designed to benefit industrialized nations at the expense of resource-rich but economically weaker countries. This was evident in the policies of institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which tied financial aid to structural adjustments that prioritized industrial expansion, often at the cost of social and environmental well-being⁶.

Moreover, modernization theory assumed that technological development was inherently beneficial, overlooking the negative consequences of industrialization. Economic growth driven by technology often led to environmental degradation, exploitative labor conditions, and cultural erasure. The ecological destruction caused by large-scale industrial projects, deforestation, and fossil fuel dependence highlighted the unsustainability of unchecked technological expansion⁷.

The Rise of AI as the Pinnacle of Progress

Today, artificial intelligence (AI) has replaced industrialization as the dominant symbol of technological progress. Governments, corporations, and research institutions race to develop more sophisticated machine-learning models, promising increased efficiency, automation, and economic transformation⁸. AI is often framed as an inevitable and necessary step in human progress, just as industrialization was in previous centuries.

However, the AI revolution also reflects many of the same issues found in modernization theory. The economic benefits of AI development are highly concentrated among tech giants and wealthy nations, while lower-income countries are positioned primarily as data suppliers or labor markets for annotation and testing⁹. The exploitation of workers in AI supply chains - such as clickworkers who label data under precarious conditions - exemplifies how technological progress is often built on hidden inequalities⁹.

Furthermore, AI systems are not neutral tools; they encode biases, reinforce social disparities, and amplify power imbalances. Automated decision-making in hiring, policing, and credit scoring has been shown to disproportionately disadvantage marginalized groups⁸. This challenges the assumption that AI leads to better decision-making - progress, in this case, is defined by efficiency rather than fairness or ethical considerations.

The environmental cost of AI is another critical issue. Large-scale AI models require vast computational resources, leading to significant energy consumption⁸. The environmental impact of training state-of-the-art models rivals that of entire industries, yet discussions of AI development often sideline sustainability concerns in favor of innovation-driven rhetoric⁹.

Progress Beyond Technology

Given these realities, it is time to rethink the assumption that technological advancement inherently equates to societal progress. While innovation has undeniable benefits, progress should not be measured solely in terms of technological capability but in terms of its impact on societal well-being, justice, and environmental sustainability⁷.

Alternative frameworks already exist. For example, some perspectives challenge the notion that continuous economic expansion should define human progress. Instead, they advocate for economic models centered on ecological balance, social well-being, and equitable resource distribution rather than GDP growth or unchecked technological advancement⁷. Similarly, other scholars argue that societies should have the freedom to shape their own paths of progress, honoring their cultural, historical, and ecological contexts rather than adhering to a singular, imposed model of development³.

A redefinition of progress would require shifting focus from technological advancement as an end in itself to a more holistic view - one that considers long-term social and environmental consequences. It would mean questioning whether every new technology is necessary and beneficial, rather than assuming that development should always move forward at any cost¹⁰.

Conclusion

The narrative that technological development equals societal progress has deep historical roots, but it is far from a universal truth. From the Enlightenment's faith in scientific mastery to Truman's "Point Four" policy and the rise of modernization theory, technology has been positioned as the engine of human advancement. However, this perspective has consistently ignored the inequalities, exploitations, and environmental consequences that come with it.

Artificial intelligence represents the latest chapter in this myth of progress - praised as an inevitable force of improvement, despite its ethical dilemmas, bias, and concentrated economic benefits. As AI continues to shape societies, it is crucial to critically examine who benefits from this progress and who is left behind⁹.

Rethinking progress requires breaking free from the assumption that technology alone defines a better future. Instead, we should ask: Progress for whom? At what cost? And toward what kind of society? Only by addressing these questions can we move toward a more equitable and sustainable vision of the future.

References

1. Condorcet, M. (1795). Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind.
2. Truman, H. (1949). "Inaugural Address", National Archives.
3. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.
4. Rostow, W. W. (1960). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge University Press.
5. Frank, A. G. (1967). Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. Monthly Review Press.
6. Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton.
7. Hickel, J. (2020). Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. William Heinemann.
8. Bender, E. M., et al. (2021). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. FAccT.
9. Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.
10. Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here. PublicAffairs.