Keith is a thought leader in Digital Journal’s Insight Forum (become a member).
Everyone is picturing it. The year is 2030.
Our digital-first society has solved some of the key challenges we face today. Advancements in AI have led to incredible breakthroughs in health and medicine, progress around energy has created a world of abundance, and our robotic helpers allow us to focus solely on the things that matter to us (side note: do not look at the recent humanoid robot design if you want to keep this novel idea of home robots without nightmares).
I’m clearly in the camp of progression and believe that technology will be a force for good, and with the progress we are creating, there is a path forward in which everyone wins.
But as a fun (or not so fun) thought experiment, what if we ask the question: What if we’re wrong?
I’ll quote the very wise Spider-Man (or more accurately, Uncle Ben): “With great power comes great responsibility.”
We can easily switch to a narrative in which the same advancements in AI-driven medicine create a future in which only the wealthiest can access these treatments, or if the same shift creating unlimited energy creates new global conflicts rather than global equality.
What if automation, instead of empowering humanity, erodes the true meaning of a hard day’s work and leaves billions of people feeling purposeless?
All decisions can have unintended consequences, and our investments in technology are no different.
At a global scale, it often feels like there may be little within our control, but when we examine the ecosystems we support, like our companies, industries and communities, how are we understanding the multi-layered implications of the investments, decisions and tradeoffs we are making?
There are two questions I find fascinating when thinking about how organizations should invest in emerging technologies.
How can we balance investments to control for risk versus reward?
It starts with clarity.
Too often, technology is adopted to chase a trend rather than solve a real problem. Organizations need to get painfully clear about what “reward” actually means to them — is it efficiency, inclusion, innovation, or all three?
From there, risks can be better scoped, and investments more aligned to outcomes rather than hype.
How can we know the tradeoffs we are making are net-positive?
We won’t always know, or, at least, not in the moment. But we can ask better questions upfront: Who gains? Who might be left behind? What does success look like in three months vs. three years?
Organizations that routinely ask these questions and invite diverse perspectives into the decision-making process are more likely to build systems that serve more than just the bottom line.
Which future are we building?
The examples I shared at the start may sound extreme, but they’re not that far off. Whether we end up in a future of abundance or widening gaps depends on our choices today, at every level.
Society is the sum of its parts. If we want a future where technology amplifies what we love — purpose, connection, progress — we must be intentional with the paths we choose, the risks we take, and the systems we build.
