Josh: Hey everyone, welcome to the show! Let's jump right in with a question: how often do you really “think” about the tech you use every single day? I mean, your phone, the apps, the AI that suggests your next binge-watch… Are these just tools, or are they quietly reshaping the world in ways we barely notice? Drew: Right? We love our smartphones. They connect us, distract us, and, you know, maybe even spy on us a little. I think Josh's right, there's definitely more going on than meets the eye. Tech isn’t just about the cool gadgets, they're part of these really deep, influential systems. And here’s the thing—they aren't exactly neutral. Josh: Exactly! That's what makes Adam Greenfield's book, Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life, so insightful. It really dives deep into how things like AI, IoT, blockchain, augmented reality, they’re not just changing how we live, but also challenging how we work, how we're governed, and even how we relate to each other. Greenfield takes a pretty critical approach, really peeling back the layers to show us what's at stake. Drew: "At stake" feels like an understatement, actually. Greenfield makes it clear these technologies don’t just change the game—they’re rewriting the rule book altogether. Think about labor displacement, the creep of surveillance... all these disruptions that, let's be honest, don’t always end well. Josh: For sure, but he also makes it clear that this isn't necessarily an inevitable slide into some dystopian future. His main point is about thoughtful engagement. It's about understanding these systems, questioning the motives behind them, and then imagining ways they could actually contribute to a more equitable and just society. Drew: Okay, so that's exactly what we're going to unpack today, right? We’ll look at how technologies like AI and blockchain are kind of upending old societal norms. Also, we need to talk about the power dynamics these "radical" systems can reinforce. Because, spoiler alert, technology tends to love a good hierarchy. And then, finally, we'll get into how innovation might actually advance justice. “If”—and it's a big "if"—we design it that way. Josh: Yeah, from our smartphones all the way up to systems of governance, and ultimately, designing a fairer future. We're tackling the big questions Greenfield raises head-on.

Josh: Okay, so let’s dive right in with the smartphone, probably the most widespread, you know, radical tech we have today. Greenfield argues it's way more than just a device; it's really a portal that's completely changed how we interact with basically everything. Think about it: communication, navigation, entertainment, even how we remember things – it's all squeezed through this little thing in our pocket. Drew: Yeah, it's kind of ironic that we still call it a "phone," isn't it? I mean, talking is probably, like, the least thing we do on it. It's more like a digital Swiss Army Knife, but, uh, with a catch, right? All those "benefits," like, replacing physical stuff with digital functions, they aren't exactly harmless, are they? Josh: Exactly. Remember when we used to carry around actual maps? Or physical photo albums? Now, it's all "dematerialized," like Greenfield says, neatly tucked away in apps. Super efficient, sure. But it also means we've swapped real, tangible things we owned for something that lives inside corporate-controlled systems. Drew: Right. And those systems don't just store your vacation photos or tell you which way to go – they're watching. Every tap, every swipe becomes data for some company to analyze or make money off of. It's a crazy trade-off. We get instant access to all these global tools, but… at what cost, exactly? Josh: That's the duality Greenfield points out, how smartphones empower us and simultaneously tie us to these networks we don't fully understand. But what's really wild is how invisible that connection is. Hardly any of us stop to think about what makes that app that gets us from A to B work, or what data it's scooping up along the way. Drew: Oh, totally, and companies use that invisibility to their advantage all the time. Waze might get you to your destination faster, but it's also vacuuming up location data to sell to advertisers – or, you know, maybe even governments. So, maybe carry a paper map next time? Assuming you can even find one in 2023! Josh: <Laughs> Good luck with that, but it brings up a bigger point. Do you think this shift to digital has changed how we see our own agency, our own control? Like, are we giving up more than we realize? Drew: Absolutely. I think Greenfield nails it when he says the smartphone isn't just a tool; it's like a mirror reflecting how dependent we are on these networks. It's convenient, sure, but if we were suddenly cut off, it's like our whole sensory system would shut down. Lose internet, and suddenly you're not just lost without GPS, you don't even know how to call for help because who memorizes phone numbers anymore? Josh: That's a pretty bleak, but fair, observation. But you can't deny that the smartphone has also created a huge potential for connection. It's not all doom and gloom. The way it has democratized access to information and platforms is just incredible. Think about marginalized communities using mobile to tell their stories or organize social movements. Drew: True, I'll give you that. The smartphone as an activism tool – there are tons of examples. But we can't forget that those platforms are still owned by private companies. There's always a gatekeeper, and their interests aren't always in line with what's good for the public. Josh: Exactly, and maybe that's a good segue into the IoT – the other technology Greenfield really digs into. The Internet of Things is like the smartphone's autopilot cousin, transforming not just our personal lives but the environments we live in. Take Copenhagen, for example. Their city-wide IoT system optimizes traffic, adjusts streetlights to save energy, and even uses buses to create a networked city narrative. Drew: Copenhagen might be the poster child for the IoT done right, but let's not forget the flip side. These "smart" cities aren't just smart for efficiency, they're smart for surveillance too. Those same sensors tracking traffic patterns? They could just as easily track individual movements, often without people even realizing it. Josh: Right, and you see this tension play out really clearly in individual IoT devices, like wearable health tech. Sure, it's great that your Fitbit can monitor your heart rate and suggest ways to improve your fitness. But that data? It's valuable – especially for the company selling your health patterns to third-party marketers. So, the balance between what benefits you and what exploits you is… well, tricky, to say the least. Drew: "Tricky"? That's putting it mildly. It's downright creepy. The fact that companies can use devices in your home or on your body to collect this kind of detailed data – what even counts as private anymore? Even your thermostat could be watching you. Where do we draw the line between convenience and corporate control? Josh: That's the core question, isn't it? And it speaks to what Greenfield calls the "unseen infrastructural forces" shaping our lives. We celebrate the convenience and efficiencies of the IoT without always questioning who’s “really” benefiting here. Drew: Spoiler alert: it's not entirely us. It's like we're living in a technocratic contract we never actually signed. Sure, you get a smarter home, but your reliance on these networks means someone else—be it a tech company or a government—holds all the cards. Josh: And this leads to one of the most important takeaways from the book. Greenfield isn't just pointing out the downsides to bum us out. He's inviting us to ask the ethical questions that these technologies rarely force out into the open. Like, how do we design an IoT system where communities—not corporations—own the data it generates? Drew: Now, that's an interesting idea. Imagine a neighborhood where the residents collectively decide how their data gets used—whether it's to save energy, manage resources, or, I don't know, just prevent ads for probiotics from showing up in their refrigerators! Josh: <Laughs> The refrigerator ads! But seriously, Greenfield's perspective reminds us that these technologies are not set in stone. They can be shaped, but only if we take the initiative to rethink how we engage with them. And that brings us to another fascinating piece Greenfield explores: augmented reality.

Josh: So, we've talked about the big picture, the societal impacts, but now let's zoom in on specific technologies and how they're changing things. And I think it's important to start with the ethical dilemmas these technologies create, especially when it comes to power. It seems like every new innovation has a hidden cost, right? This shiny new feature on the surface, but underneath, there's a much more complex, often troubling story. Take augmented reality, or AR. I personally love AR because it has the potential to overlay these incredible immersive digital experiences onto our world. But Greenfield doesn't let us get carried away. He makes us think critically about who's really controlling these spaces. Drew: Absolutely. AR is fascinating, no doubt, but it’s the perfect example of tech racing ahead without asking the fundamental question: "Should we even be doing this?" I mean, look at Pokémon Go. What a phenomenon, right? People were literally running through cities, parks, even cemeteries trying to "catch ’em all." Sounds harmless enough, but then you realize that this game turned culturally significant places into, well, a glorified scavenger hunt. Josh: Exactly. Like the National September 11 Memorial in New York City. It's a space for grieving, for remembering the victims. But then, virtual Pokémon markers were placed there, and suddenly you've got gamers running around with their phones, totally disrupting this solemn environment. It’s a perfect example of how AR can unintentionally, or intentionally, commodify public and even sacred spaces. Drew: And let’s be real, that word "unintentional" needs an asterisk next to it. Niantic, the company behind Pokémon Go, they knew their geolocation algorithms were directing people to these places. Someone had to make those decisions or at least program them, even if they didn't fully consider the ethical implications. So, it turns out, in the world of AR, the world isn’t just your playground; it's also a marketing goldmine! Josh: Exactly! And what's troubling is that AR, as Greenfield points out, it can blur the lines between what's private and what's public in ways we're just not ready for. If we keep layering all this commercial digital content over real-world locations, when does our physical environment just become a giant advertisement for corporations? Drew: Or worse, a behavioral nudge platform. I mean, AR companies could easily start directing people towards places where they spend money, right? Need more foot traffic near your restaurant? Boom, sponsor a virtual rare Pokémon. Need to boost sales at a store? Just overlay AR ads that only pop up when you're physically standing right in front of it. It's not just commodification; it's like invisible strings are pulling you around. Josh: That's a chilling thought, but brilliant marketing at the same time. But think about the implications for cities. What happens when historic landmarks end up drowning in these digital overlays? Does it trivialize real-world history, art, and collective memory, all in favor of the company that can pay the most to dominate those digital layers? Drew: And the craziest part? The people actually visiting those spaces, their consent, it doesn't even factor into the equation. Suddenly, we're immersed in this privatized version of reality that puts profit above everything else. And yeah, everyone loves talking about "immersive experiences," but, hey Josh, at what cost are we paying here? Josh: And these are the same questions Greenfield raises when he talks about blockchain. Another so-called radical technology with its own tangled web of ethical issues. On one hand, you know, we've got this brilliant decentralized system that promises to level the playing field. No banks, no middlemen, just peer-to-peer transactions. But in practice? It's a different story altogether. Drew: Different as in, deeply ironic? Blockchain loves touting its decentralization, but what dominates the landscape? Massive mining farms run by corporations with unlimited resources, or at least massive wallets. The whole idea of blockchain as this democratizing force starts looking a little shaky when the actual power and environmental impact are anything but democratized. Josh: Let's really zoom in on that environmental issue. Bitcoin mining, for instance, consumes more electricity annually than some small countries. And where does that electricity often come from? Coal-fired power plants. That's right. And the very communities suffering from this environmental impact, the ones living near these plants, they get absolutely no benefit from it. It's decentralization on paper. Centralization in practice. Drew: And that's where the ethical paradox of blockchain really starts to bother me. You've got this supposedly revolutionary technology that's designed to dismantle traditional power structures, but it ends up just mirroring their worst aspects: extraction, inequity, environmental harm. Radical, right? Josh: True. But, you know, I think Greenfield invites us to look beyond that immediate critique and think about what could be. Imagine if we could design blockchain systems that didn't rely on such energy intensive processes. Or if we use blockchain ledger system for community governance instead of just cryptocurrency speculation. I still think there's potential here, it's just untapped. Drew: Potential if—and this is a massive "if"—we actually prioritize equity in the design process. Otherwise, it's just business as usual with, let's say, a fancier, shinier coat of paint. But hey, this also brings us back to Greenfield's main point: every radical technology has the power to reshape systems, but it ends up being a reflection of the people, or corporations, behind it. Josh: Exactly. And that's why Greenfield's focus on asking, "Who benefits?" from these technologies is so crucial. Whether it's blockchain, AR, IoT, or predictive policing algorithms, these systems don't exist in a vacuum. They're built within, and often “for”, existing power structures. Drew: Right, which is exactly why it's crucial that we not only recognize the problems, but also think about how to design better systems from the ground up. Systems that aren’t just efficient, but genuinely inclusive and fair. Otherwise, we’re just swapping one set of inequities for another, a shinier, digital version.

Josh: So, after all the ethical minefields we've explored, it's time to look at some alternatives, some ways to proactively engage. Greenfield's point isn't to leave us feeling hopeless, but to empower us. It's about taking back control and building fairer futures. We're shifting from just pointing out problems to actually doing something about them. The focus is on working together, being sustainable, and designing things in a way that includes everyone. The main idea? Giving communities the power to shape the technology around them, instead of just being passive users. Drew: Right, about time we got to some solutions, or at least potential solutions. So, what's the first step Greenfield suggests for making things more equitable? Josh: He talks a lot about cooperative economies. Basically, these are systems that prioritize local control and shared ownership rather than just chasing profits for a few big players. The idea is that the people involved directly benefit from the system. A good example is regional food co-ops. Instead of profits going to shareholders who might be far removed from the community, the money stays local, supporting local sustainability. Drew: I see. So, it's not necessarily about tearing down capitalism completely, but about reshaping it to better serve community needs, huh? Josh: Exactly. These cooperative models shift decision-making power. Like, in worker-owned co-ops, the employees aren't just workers; they're also stakeholders. They collectively decide where the business goes and share the profits fairly. It’s a stark contrast to gig economies where workers are vulnerable and isolated. Drew: Sounds great in theory, but my skepticism is kicking in here. How do you actually scale something like that? Running a co-op bakery is one thing, but would that model even work in the tech world, where profits often depend on exclusive innovations? Josh: That’s a valid question! Greenfield admits that these models aren’t one-size-fits-all. They require trust, active involvement, and a shared sense of responsibility. You know, it's as much about changing the culture as it is about changing the structure. But there are emerging examples of tech-based co-ops out there. Think open-source software collectives or community-run broadband initiatives. They’re still new, but they show promise. Drew: Okay, so cooperation is phase one. What's next? How do we deal with the environmental mess that this constant drive for innovation pushes us into? Josh: That's where sustainability comes in, especially through the idea of a circular economy. Greenfield argues we need to rethink how we make, use, and get rid of things. Instead of just taking resources, making stuff, and then dumping the waste, a circular economy focuses on making products last longer—repairing, recycling, upcycling, and even sharing resources. Drew: Like turning old jeans into insulation or stuffing for furniture? That kind of thing? Josh: Exactly. Creative repurposing! But it's more than just recycling. The circular economy challenges the whole idea of ownership. Instead of buying a car that sits parked most of the time, you use ride-sharing or bike-sharing services. It's about redefining access. Drew: Hmm. That's interesting, but I can already hear the pushback. Getting people to switch from owning to accessing isn’t easy. People like owning stuff, even when it’s not practical. Josh: That’s a fair point, and Greenfield acknowledges that it’ll require some big shifts, both in policy and in how we think. Policies that encourage sharing or make producers responsible for the lifecycle of their products could help. And, so can innovative business models. Look at Patagonia, for example. They have repair programs to help customers keep their clothes longer. That's a step in the right direction. Drew: True, but here's the thing. Moving to these systems isn't just about changing our attitudes. It needs a complete overhaul of policies and power structures. Who's going to pay for all this? Who enforces it? And what if this just turns into a marketing gimmick for corporations? What have we really accomplished then? Josh: Those are definitely critical challenges, but they're not impossible to overcome. And that leads us to participatory design, which Greenfield champions as a solution to many of these dilemmas. The idea is simple, but actually pretty groundbreaking: involve the people who will be using or living with a technology in the actual design process. Drew: Groundbreaking, sure, but it also feels like common sense, doesn't it? If people are going to rely on solar power in rural areas, why wouldn't they have a say in how those systems are designed? Josh: Greenfield highlights a great example in exactly that context. Decentralizing solar power in communities where the main power grid is unreliable. Local engineers work with residents to build solar networks that fit their specific needs. The result? Not just a practical energy solution, but also a real sense of ownership among those communities. Drew: Okay, but doesn't that require expertise most people don't have? Participatory frameworks sound great for small projects, but what about something as complex as, say, urban transportation or healthcare tech? Josh: The key is collaboration. It's not about turning everyone into an engineer overnight. It's about using the lived experiences of users to inform the design. The best solutions come from the ground up, when technical expertise and local knowledge come together. It's about trust and shared ownership. Drew: Still, that sounds pretty slow, doesn't it? Participatory design doesn't exactly scream "efficient." Josh: Efficiency isn't always the only goal. When you prioritize inclusivity, the process might take longer, sure, but the results are often more sustainable and fair. And remember, it's not just about the tools that get created through participatory design. The process itself builds that sense of ownership and engagement. Drew: Fair enough. I guess that ties back to Greenfield's challenge to stop being passive consumers and start actively shaping the tech around us. Josh: Exactly. Whether it's through cooperative economies, circular systems, or participatory governance, the common thread is reclaiming power and agency. None of these futures are guaranteed—we have to choose them and build them together. Drew: And isn't that the big lesson that goes beyond technology itself? These innovations aren't just about tools; they're chances to redefine what justice, inclusion, and community can mean in the 21st century. But only if we're willing to take them.

Josh: Okay, so to bring it all together, Adam Greenfield’s “Radical Technologies” really pushes us to look past the surface appeal of new tech and dive into the intricate systems that power our digital lives. From smartphones that change how we connect, to IoT networks re-engineering our cities, and even the power dynamics baked into AR and blockchain, it's clear that technology isn’t just a neutral tool; it mirrors the systems that create it. Drew: Exactly. And while all these technologies promise big changes, they often make existing inequalities even worse. Things like increased surveillance, turning everything into a commodity, and environmental damage—it's all hidden in the details. Greenfield doesn’t give us simple solutions, but he does challenge us to think critically about technology, to ask who benefits and at what cost. Josh: But hey, it's not all bad news! At its heart, this book is about empowerment—showing how we can guide technology towards fairness, sustainability, and community. Things like cooperative economies, circular systems, and design that involves everyone aren’t just wild ideas; they’re practical steps we can take toward a future that works for everyone. Drew: And that’s “really” the key point, isn’t it? None of this is set in stone. The tools we build reflect the decisions we make. So, the question we want to leave you with is this: How are you going to interact with the technologies that are shaping the world around you? Will you just accept them as they are—or will you get involved and help reshape them for the better?