fbpx
01 / 05
Don’t Slam the Brakes on Technological Progress

Blog Post | Innovation

Don’t Slam the Brakes on Technological Progress

Embracing change is worth the cost in disruption.

Summary: Fearing job losses and loss of control, some politicians are calling to halt technologies like driverless cars and artificial intelligence. Yet history shows that efforts to “protect” people from innovation only delay progress and raise costs. Automation inevitably disrupts, but it also saves lives, boosts efficiency, and expands opportunity.


Some US conservatives want to slam the brakes on progress, quite literally. At the recent US National Conservatism conference, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri declared: “Only humans ought to drive cars and trucks.”

His techno‑scepticism runs deeper than opposing driverless vehicles. “Every so‑called innovation the tech class has delivered in recent decades operates as a power transfer … from us to them,” he warned. “Us” meaning the honest “common man”. “Them” being Silicon Valley transhumanist elites and their job-killing code.

We must take this urge to ban driverless cars and smother AI seriously. Not because Hawley is right, but because his anxieties are commonly held here. A recent survey by the Schwartz Reisman Institute found just 8 per cent of Britons are strongly positive about artificial intelligence, putting us last except for Australia. Only France and the US had higher negative sentiment than the UK too (33 per cent). On driverless cars, just 22 per cent of us say we’d feel safe in one. This is fertile ground for populists looking to appeal to displaced workers in our own politics.

Fears of job loss from new technology aren’t irrational. But trying to resist the tide can smother the benefits of new tech while making any eventual adjustment harder. Still, politicians can’t help themselves. Last year, in opposition, Labour’s Louise Haigh warned that automated vehicles could repeat “the ravages of deindustrialisation”. That’s Labour-speak for “government intervention required”. The tool of choice, of course, is typically “safety” regulation.

This instinct isn’t new. In 1865, parliament passed the Locomotive Act, capping self-propelled vehicle speeds at 2mph in towns and 4mph in the countryside, while requiring each be preceded by a man waving a red flag. Branded as a safety measure, it was backed by the horse-drawn carriage and rail lobbies. Maybe it spared a few pedestrians, but it certainly stunted any early car industry. Innovation was sacrificed to protect incumbents, with safety the excuse.

The US mis-stepped too. For decades, cities required human lift operators even after automatic elevators became safer and cheaper. A few thousand jobs were saved, with higher costs for building owners and slower productivity in sectors based in tall buildings. Like red flag laws, the aim of this safety regulation was really to preserve jobs in aspic.

The Hawley instinct would repeat this error. Trials of autonomous vehicle systems like Waymo in the US show 70–90 per cent reductions in crash rates compared with human drivers. In the UK, where human error is a factor in 88 per cent of collisions, industry modelling suggests autonomous vehicles could save 3,900 lives and prevent 60,000 serious injuries by 2040, with just 20-24 per cent market penetration. Studies predict less congestion, lower fuel use, and cheaper deliveries and logistics. And then there’s time freed. The average Brit spends over 120 hours per year behind the wheel, which is ripe for reclaiming for work or leisure. All these efficiencies would boost downstream sectors.

Yet the public isn’t sold. Polls show most Britons still consider driverless cars unsafe. That gives our own Hawleys an opening. Regulation to slow innovation always attracts both well-meaning safety worriers and affected workers with political allies. Labour has passed enabling legislation for automated vehicles, but seems to be dragging its feet on rollout. Meanwhile, the diffuse benefits of improved safety and efficiency get downplayed and delayed.

As AI spreads through the economy, such political battles will proliferate. Someone will always stand ready to highlight the freak accident, the displaced worker or the imperfect chatbot. And certain politicians will promise to protect workers affected.

That’s why it falls to those not wedded to the status quo to state the obvious: yes, automation is disruptive. But it’s also the path to safer roads, cheaper goods, and higher productivity. Hiding behind a modern red flag is no answer.

Progress that is delayed amounts to progress denied.

This article was originally published by The Times on 9/17/2025.

New York Times | Motor Vehicles

An Auto Holy Grail: Motors That Don’t Rely on Chinese Rare Earths

“The recent instability in rare-earth supplies is a much bigger threat to automakers than in the past. It has given new urgency to the search for motors that don’t need rare earths or for materials that would replace them.

BMW’s electric vehicles already use motors that operate without rare earths. Researchers at Northeastern University and other institutions are working to synthesize materials that have promising magnetic properties and are found only in meteorites.

Start-ups have begun developing new kinds of motors and other technologies. And the Department of Energy is encouraging that work, despite the Trump administration’s rollback of other forms of support for electric vehicles.”

From New York Times.

Reuters | Scientific Research

New Method Spots Signs of Primordial Life in Ancient Rocks

“Scientists have detected some of the oldest signs of life on Earth using a new method that recognizes chemical fingerprints of living organisms in ancient rocks, an approach that also holds promise in the search for life beyond our planet.

The researchers found evidence of microbial life in rocks about 3.3 billion years old from South Africa, when Earth was roughly a quarter its current age. They also found molecular traces left by microbes that engaged in oxygen-producing photosynthesis – conversion of sunlight into energy – in rocks about 2.5 billion years old from South Africa.

The scientists developed an approach, harnessing machine learning, to distinguish in ancient rocks between organic molecules with a biological origin – like from microbes, plants and animals – and organic molecules with a nonliving origin at greater than 90% accuracy. The method was designed to discern chemical patterns unique to biology.”

From Reuters.

The Conversation | Agriculture

Agricultural Drones Are Saving Farmers Time and Money Globally

“We estimated the number of agricultural drones operating in some of the world’s leading agricultural countries by scouring online news and trade publications in many different languages. This effort revealed where agricultural drones have already taken off around the world.

Historically, most agricultural technology – tractors, for example – has spread from high-income countries to middle- and then lower-income ones over the course of many decades. Drones partially reversed and dramatically accelerated this pattern, diffusing first from East Asia to Southeast Asia, then to Latin America, and finally to North America and Europe. Their use in higher-income regions is more limited but is accelerating rapidly in the U.S. 

China leads the world in agricultural drone manufacturing and adoption. In 2016, a Chinese company introduced the first agriculture-specific quadcopter model. There are now more than 250,000 agricultural drones reported to be in use there. Other middle-income countries have also been enthusiastic adopters. For instance, drones were used on 30% of Thailand’s farmland in 2023, up from almost none in 2019, mainly by spraying pesticides and spreading fertilizers.

In the U.S., the number of agricultural drones registered with the Federal Aviation Administration leaped from about 1,000 in January 2024 to around 5,500 in mid-2025. Industry reports suggest those numbers substantially underreport U.S. drone use because some owners seek to avoid the complex registration process. Agricultural drones in the U.S. are used mainly for spraying crops such as corn and soy, especially in areas that are difficult to reach with tractors or crop-dusting aircraft.

In countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam, millions of smallholder farmers have upgraded from the dangerous and tiring job of applying agrochemicals by hand with backpack sprayers to using some of the most cutting-edge technology in the world, often using the same models that are popular in the U.S.”

From The Conversation.

CERN | Scientific Research

Breakthrough in CERN’s Antimatter Production

“In a paper published today in Nature Communications, researchers at the ALPHA experiment at CERN’s Antimatter Factory report a new technique that allows them to produce over 15 000 antihydrogen atoms – the simplest form of atomic antimatter – in a matter of hours.

“These numbers would have been considered science fiction 10 years ago,” said Jeffrey Hangst, spokesperson for the ALPHA experiment. “With larger numbers of antihydrogen atoms now more readily available, we can investigate atomic antimatter in greater detail and at a faster pace than before.”

To create atomic antihydrogen (a positron orbiting an antiproton), the ALPHA collaboration must produce and trap clouds of antiprotons and positrons separately, then cool them down and merge them so that antihydrogen atoms can form. This process has been refined and steadily improved over many years. But now, using a pioneering technique to cool the positrons, the ALPHA team has increased the rate of production of antihydrogen atoms eightfold.”

From CERN.