[Inside Chodong] Our Attitude Toward Times of Transition

Just because a revolution occurs does not mean our lives change instantly. The Industrial Revolution that emerged in 18th-century England is often praised for having rapidly transformed human behavior that had continued for thousands of years, but looking deeper, it was more of a gradual change over several decades. While the metaphysical world of knowledge might see foundations of belief shift overnight after centuries or even hundreds of years, human life itself is inherently incompatible with such sudden changes.

The automobile, ranked second among notable engineering achievements of the 20th century (with the power grid ranked first), fits into this context as well. It is credited with overcoming mobility constraints and ultimately achieving individual freedom, but this self-propelled mode of transportation was not welcomed by humanity from the start.

Since the 19th century, steam-powered vehicles emerged and achieved considerable technological progress, but they clashed with the mainstream mode of transportation at the time?horse-drawn carriages. The Locomotive Act or Red Flag Act enacted in England required vehicles to stop when encountering horses or to avoid emitting smoke that might startle them. This is now regarded as a prime example of outdated customs failing to read the tide of the times, a judgment made long after the fact. At the time, given the contemporary perspective and circumstances, it was unavoidable.

In the 20th century, the United States began mass-producing automobiles by introducing conveyor systems and other innovations. However, automobiles were not naturally or universally distributed to everyone. Behind the scenes, automobile companies and oil companies actively worked to hinder the development of public transportation systems. During periods of transformation when new technologies or systems emerge, various groups assert their own interests. It is not easy to distinguish right from wrong or good from bad. While it is roughly true that automobiles expanded humanity’s right to mobility, it is also true that they do not have only positive aspects.

Recently, many say that the changes surrounding modes of transportation are comparable to past revolutions. There is a consensus that power sources that do not emit harmful substances, such as electricity or similar alternatives, are needed to replace vehicles powered by fossil fuels. On the surface, this is justified by the need to address the climate crisis. The faster-than-expected pace of this transition is partly due to the influence of the ‘eccentric’ symbolized by Tesla and the pressure from China aiming for G1 status.

Along with electrification, autonomous driving?cars that move by making their own decisions?is also seen as an imminent future. The focus on software rather than hardware as a mode of transportation is in the same vein. To enable cars to communicate with humans and with each other and operate safely, a completely different approach from traditional machinery is required. This is why engineering technology refined over more than a century is being redirected in a completely different direction.

What is important is our attitude toward change or transition as a continuation rather than a break from the past. Humanity created vehicles and refined automobiles by adding various technologies to overcome mobility constraints. The slogan of one automobile company, “Progress for Humanity,” is not merely a marketing tool or rhetoric to sell more cars but an expression of the will to approach the essence of the matter. Naturally, it is necessary to encourage the driving force behind technological advancement. However, consistently questioning whether the direction of change is correct and whether the purpose is appropriate is also required to gain legitimacy. Although it is difficult to predict life after change, humanity has reached the present because we have continuously reflected on why change is necessary.