Custodes Futurifor the advancement of humanity

Factor 09 of 9

Technological factors

Lack of access to basic tools, and harmful side effects of the technologies people do have, such as misinformation and job displacement.

Barriers within this factor

Each barrier has its own page with the evidence and sources behind it.

  1. 1The digital divide

    ITU's Facts and Figures 2025 estimates 6 billion people use the internet, but 2.2 billion remain offline. The gaps are sharp.

    Evidence and sources (3 evidence points, 6 experimental methods)

  2. 2Electricity access

    Electricity access is still incomplete, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Evidence and sources (3 evidence points, 4 experimental methods)

  3. 3Slow technology diffusion

    Comin and Hobijn (2010) studied the spread of 15 technologies across 166 countries over two centuries.

    Evidence and sources (3 evidence points, 5 experimental methods)

  4. 4Technology without supporting systems

    Providing devices does not by itself improve learning, while technology designed around how children learn can work well.

    Evidence and sources (3 evidence points, 4 experimental methods)

  5. 5Misinformation

    Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral (2018) studied about 126,000 verified true and false news stories shared on Twitter from 2006 to 2017.

    Evidence and sources (4 evidence points, 5 experimental methods)

  6. 6Digital technology and adolescent wellbeing (debated)

    Orben and Przybylski (2019) analyzed three large datasets totaling 355,358 adolescents.

    Evidence and sources (2 evidence points, 4 experimental methods)

  7. 7Automation and job displacement

    Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020) studied industrial robots in U.S. labor markets.

    Evidence and sources (2 evidence points, 5 experimental methods)

Evidence strength

Main findings behind this page, grouped by the strength ratings, from strongest to weakest. Each tier lists the findings that received that rating.

StrengthFindings
StrongOne Laptop per Child, short and long term.
ModerateThe digital divide and electricity access (agency estimates). The spread of false news. Slow technology diffusion. The size of the association between technology use and adolescent wellbeing. Robots and employment.
LimitedMindspark beyond the students studied.
Contested or debatedWhether digital technology use harms adolescent wellbeing. Effects of artificial intelligence on employment, which are still emerging.

Actions that can reduce these barriers

Proven actions for the technological barriers have not yet been researched. Each barrier below lists proposed and experimental methods only, with the stage labels and ratings explained below.

Proposed and experimental methods

Each barrier also has a list of proposed and experimental methods. It covers methods that are proposed, under trial, approved in some places but not widely used, or tried and then failed or reversed, so readers can see what is being tested. Each method has a stage label and an evidence rating in parentheses. The stage labels are Theoretical (proposed but not yet tested as an intervention), Early trial (small or first studies), Large trial (large randomized or field trials), Approved but not scaled (legally approved or running in some places but not widely adopted), In wide use (widely adopted but newly tested or questioned), Sold commercially without trials (used for polygenic embryo screening), and Failed or reversed (tested and shown not to work, or adopted and then withdrawn). The word contested is added where the evidence is disputed. Failed, reversed, and unhelpful methods are listed last and begin with "Failed," "Reversed," or "Not shown to help." A stage label shows how far a method has progressed, not whether it works, and the rating shows the strength of the evidence.

Ideal conditions that counter this factor

The growing burden of knowledge

What the evidence shows

Jones (2009) found that as knowledge accumulates, age at first invention, specialization, and teamwork all rise. Bloom et al. (2020) found research productivity is declining.

Ideal:

  • Faster ways to bring learners to the frontier
  • Structures that combine specialists
  • Tools that shorten mastery time, where some researchers suggest AI may help, which is speculative

Evidence strength: Moderate. The trend is moderate to strong, and solutions are not yet established.

All ten conditions

In the pioneer cases

Statements from the pioneer records that this site classifies under the technological factor. The classification is this site's.

PioneerEffectStatement
Albert EinsteinHelpedTechnical exposure. His father and uncle ran an electrical engineering business.
Albert EinsteinNoteGalison's hypothesis. Galison (2003) argued that reviewing clock-synchronization patents may have shaped his thinking on simultaneity. This is a plausible hypothesis, not an established fact.
Jonas SalkHelpedOthers' discoveries. In 1949 Enders, Weller, and Robbins grew poliovirus in tissue culture.
Norman BorlaugHelpedOthers' work. He crossed Norin 10, a Japanese dwarf wheat from Orville Vogel, with his rust-resistant varieties.
Tu YouyouHelpedCollaboration. Other institutes helped determine artemisinin's chemical structure using X-ray crystallography.
Fritz HaberBarrierMaking ammonia directly from atmospheric nitrogen in a practical way had long eluded chemists. His process required pressures of 150 to 200 atmospheres and temperatures of about 500 degrees Celsius.
Fritz HaberHelpedCarl Bosch and Alwin Mittasch. Bosch led the industrial scale-up and Mittasch the catalyst work. The first ammonia synthesis plant opened at Oppau in 1913.

Key figures

MeasureValueSource
Internet users and people offline6 billion use the internet and 2.2 billion remain offline. 96% of those offline live in low- and middle-income countriesITU Facts and Figures 2025
Share online by group, 2025High-income countries 94%, low-income countries 23%, urban areas 85%, rural areas 58%, men 77%, women 71%ITU (2025)
5G coverage, high-income vs. low-income countries84% vs. 4%ITU (2025)
People without basic electricity, 2024About 655 million, leaving about 92% of the world with basic access. 89 million people gained access that year, but population growth meant the total fell by only about 11 million. About 86% of those without power (563 million people) live in sub-Saharan AfricaTracking SDG7 (2026)
People lacking clean cookingAbout 2 billionTracking SDG7 (2026)
Average lag from invention to adoption, 15 technologies in 166 countries over two centuries45 years, with wide variation. Newer technologies have been adopted faster than older onesComin and Hobijn (2010)
Income differences accounted for by differences in technology adoptionAt least 25% of per capita income differencesComin and Hobijn (2010)
One Laptop per Child, Peru (318 rural schools)Computers per student rose from 0.12 to 1.18, with no evidence of effects on math or language test scores after 15 monthsCristia et al. (2017)
One Laptop per Child, long-term follow-upNo significant effects on academic performance, school completion, or university enrollment, and some evidence of slower grade progression. Computer skills improved, but teachers' digital skills did not, and classroom computer use was lowCueto et al. (2025)
Mindspark gains after 4.5 months0.37 SD math, 0.23 SD HindiMuralidharan et al. (2019)
Spread of true and false news on Twitter, 2006 to 2017About 126,000 verified stories studied. False news spread significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than true news in every categoryVosoughi et al. (2018)
Digital technology use and adolescent wellbeing (debated)Three datasets totaling 355,358 adolescents. The association was negative but small, explaining at most 0.4% of the variation in wellbeingOrben and Przybylski (2019)
Robots: employment and wage effect per robot per 1,000 workers-0.2 percentage points, -0.42%Acemoglu and Restrepo (2020)

References cited on this page

  1. ITU: Facts and Figures 2025
  2. SEforALL: Tracking SDG7, Energy Progress Report 2026
  3. Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2031-2059. AEA
  4. Cristia, J., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severín, E. (2017). Technology and child development: evidence from the One Laptop per Child program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 295-320. AEA
  5. Cueto, S., Beuermann, D. W., Cristia, J., Malamud, O., & Pardo, F. (2025). Laptops in the long run: evidence from the One Laptop per Child program in rural Peru. Journal of Public Economics, 252, 105538. DOI
  6. Muralidharan, K., Singh, A., & Ganimian, A. J. (2019). Disrupting education? Experimental evidence on technology-aided instruction in India. American Economic Review, 109(4), 1426-1460. AEA
  7. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. DOI
  8. Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173-182. DOI
  9. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. DOI
  10. Kahan, D. M., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735. Nature

Sources for the actions

  1. Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. (2026, June 30). NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth provides Congress an update on BEAD. link B Moderate
  2. EPB. (2021, January 21). New economic study documents $2.69 billion in benefit from Chattanooga's community fiber optic network [Press release]. link D Contested
  3. Federal Communications Commission. (2024, May 31). FCC to end Affordable Connectivity Program [Press release]. link B Moderate
  4. Ford, G. S. (2026). When narratives replace evidence: Employment claims and the EPB municipal broadband network (Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 84). Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies. link B Moderate
  5. Ford, G. S., & Seals, R. A. (2021). The rewards of municipal broadband: An econometric analysis of the labor market. Telecommunications Policy, 45(8), 102220. link C Limited
  6. Ghoshal, A. (2016, February 8). Facebook's Free Basics blocked by India over net neutrality rules. The Next Web. link B Moderate
  7. Hardesty, L. (2026, August 25). NTIA signs off on Illinois BEAD final proposal, the last of 56 proposals. Fierce Network. link B Moderate
  8. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (n.d.). Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. BroadbandUSA. link B Moderate
  9. Via Satellite. (2021, January 22). Alphabet shutters Loon venture. Via Satellite. link B Moderate
  10. Zuo, G. W. (2021). Wired and hired: Employment effects of subsidized broadband internet for low-income Americans. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(3), 447-482. link B Moderate
  11. Aklin, M., Bayer, P., Harish, S. P., & Urpelainen, J. (2017). Does basic energy access generate socioeconomic benefits? A field experiment with off-grid solar power in India. Science Advances, 3(5), e1602153. link B Moderate
  12. Berkeley Institute for Business and Social Impact. (n.d.). Digital collateral [Research brief]. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. link B Moderate
  13. Burlig, F., & Preonas, L. (2024). Out of the darkness and into the light? Development effects of rural electrification. Journal of Political Economy, 132(9), 2937. link B Moderate
  14. Gertler, P., Green, B., & Wolfram, C. (2024). Digital collateral. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 139(3), 1713-1766. link B Moderate
  15. J-PAL. (n.d.). The impact of subsidies on the demand for electrification in rural Kenya [Evaluation summary]. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. link B Moderate
  16. Lee, K., Miguel, E., & Wolfram, C. (2020). Experimental evidence on the economics of rural electrification. Journal of Political Economy, 128(4), 1523-1565. link B Moderate
  17. World Bank. (2025, September 24). 17 countries commit to concrete plans to scale up electricity access as Mission 300 expands [Press release]. link B Moderate
  18. Xinhua. (2026, June 27). Over 50 mln Africans connected to electricity under continental power access program. The Star. link B Moderate
  19. Beaman, L., BenYishay, A., Magruder, J., & Mobarak, A. M. (2021). Can network theory-based targeting increase technology adoption? American Economic Review, 111(6), 1918-1943. link B Moderate
  20. Bloom, N., Eifert, B., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2013). Does management matter? Evidence from India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 1-51. link B Moderate
  21. Carter, M., Laajaj, R., & Yang, D. (2021). Subsidies and the African Green Revolution: Direct effects and social network spillovers of randomized input subsidies in Mozambique. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 13(2), 206-229. link B Moderate
  22. Fabregas, R., Kremer, M., & Schilbach, F. (2019). Realizing the potential of digital development: The case of agricultural advice. Science, 366(6471), eaay3038. link B Moderate
  23. Hvide, H. K., & Jones, B. F. (2018). University innovation and the professor's privilege. American Economic Review, 108(7), 1860-1898. link B Moderate
  24. Beuermann, D. W., Cristia, J., Cueto, S., Malamud, O., & Cruz-Aguayo, Y. (2015). One Laptop per Child at home: Short-term impacts from a randomized experiment in Peru. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(2), 53-80. link B Moderate
  25. Cristia, J., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severín, E. (2017). Technology and child development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(3), 295-320. link B Moderate
  26. Escueta, M., Quan, V., Nickow, A. J., & Oreopoulos, P. (2017). Education technology: An evidence-based review (NBER Working Paper No. 23744). National Bureau of Economic Research. link B Moderate
  27. Hanna, R., Duflo, E., & Greenstone, M. (2016). Up in smoke: The influence of household behavior on the long-run impact of improved cooking stoves. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(1), 80-114. link B Moderate
  28. Muralidharan, K., Singh, A., & Ganimian, A. J. (2019). Disrupting education? Experimental evidence on technology-aided instruction in India. American Economic Review, 109(4), 1426-1460. link B Moderate
  29. Piper, B., Zuilkowski, S. S., Kwayumba, D., & Strigel, C. (2016). Does technology improve reading outcomes? Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICT interventions for early grade reading in Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 204-214. link B Moderate
  30. European Commission. (n.d.). Enforcement of the Digital Services Act. Shaping Europe's Digital Future. link B Moderate
  31. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market for Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act). Official Journal of the European Union. link B Moderate
  32. Guess, A. M., Lerner, M., Lyons, B., Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., et al. (2020). A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(27), 15536-15545. link B Moderate
  33. Martel, C., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(10), 1957-1967. link B Moderate
  34. Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629-676. link B Moderate: C for adolescents
  35. Information Commissioner's Office. (n.d.). Age appropriate design: A code of practice for online services. link B Moderate
  36. NetChoice. (2026). NetChoice v. Bonta. link B Moderate
  37. Schmidt-Persson, J., Rasmussen, M. G. B., Sørensen, S. O., Mortensen, S. R., Olesen, L. G., Brage, S., et al. (2024). Screen media use and mental health of children and adolescents: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(7), e2419881. link C Limited
  38. Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889-942. link B Moderate
  39. Guerreiro, J., Rebelo, S., & Teles, P. (2022). Should robots be taxed? The Review of Economic Studies, 89(1), 279-311. link C Limited
  40. Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025). Still waters, rapid currents: Early labor market transformation under generative AI (NBER Working Paper No. 33777). National Bureau of Economic Research. link B Moderate
  41. Hyman, B. G., Kovak, B. K., & Leive, A. (2024). Wage insurance for displaced workers (NBER Working Paper No. 32464). National Bureau of Economic Research. link B Moderate
  42. Kasy, M., & Lehner, L. (2026). Employing the unemployed of Marienthal: Evaluation of a guaranteed job program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy (forthcoming). link B Moderate
  43. Katz, L. F., Roth, J., Hendra, R., & Schaberg, K. (2022). Why do sectoral employment programs work? Lessons from WorkAdvance. Journal of Labor Economics, 40(S1), 249-291. link A Strong
  44. Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187-192. link B Moderate: C for job outcomes

All references