Earlier this week, Janan Ganesh wrote in the FT that contrary to the dominant current ‘discourse’, in fact, “public life, not private innovation, has supplied the drama of our times”. In his view, even the tech elite recognise that ultimately it is policy and politics that matter more than focusing exclusively on technology: “When Elon Musk and other tech barons stuck their oars into public life, […] Veering into politics was a tacit admission of where the action is. Almost nothing in commerce can equal affairs of state as a source of intellectual stimulation and a means to historical impact. He also argues that “Technological trends are less scary to ponder than political ones. Better a conversation about deep fakes than about a pan-European war.”
Do you agree with this somewhat contrarian view that politics rather than technology is “where the action is” both intellectually and in terms of impact? If so, what are the implications of this proposition? Equally, if you disagree, what are the consequences of technology being more important and influential than politics? Has this balance changed over time? Do such calculations differ across countries? Is it really true that “technological trends are less scary to ponder than political ones”? At a more personal level, how do you resolve such tensions in your own mind with a view to your own (future) career?