I think we over-emphasize elements that seem more “technological,” overestimate their importance. The printing press example is great. We credit the press because it’s mechanical and complex, but not the paper (or ink or literacy or religion).

For peaches in winter, most people think of botany, refrigeration, airplanes… science. Fewer people would think of joint stock companies or shipping containers as important enablers.

For productivity, it seems impossible that a computer on every desk with modern digital communication, software of every kind and all our gadgets didn’t move the productivity needle. It’s all so technological. In practice, non-technologies like kanban or just-in-time did move the productivity needle. It’s counterintuitive.

There are a lot of examples of counterintuitive bland results. Genetic engineering has not improved crop yields nearly as much as green revolution technology, not even close. Nuclear energy changed very little besides war.

That’s not to say these aren’t impactful technologies. Computers have changed our lives and our work. Modern Agg-tech has changed farming. It just didn’t change total output all that much.

I suppose that in the theme of this article, big technologies work in complexes, and that makes them hard to bang into a narrative and hard to predict.