Techno-Visions: Expert Conversation Series

Early on in Player Piano, Paul crosses the river into Homestead to buy a “bottle of Irish” for Finnerty. While waiting for the bartender to retrieve the whiskey, Paul suffers through an awkward and embarrassing exchange with two gentlemen at the bar.

There is Rudy Hertz, a retired machinist full of nostalgia for the way things were, who wants to celebrate the appearance of Paul, the “smartest man in Ilium . . . the smartest man in the country,” at their humble saloon. 

Then there is a man, full of concern for the present, who wants to help his son find work in any place other than the Reeks and Wrecks or the Army. Paul can only muster the name of a contact he knows will lead nowhere and offer the wholly unoriginal suggestion that the young man open a repair shop. 

“Darling, you look as though you’ve seen a ghost,” Anita tells Paul when he returns home. After he explains what happened in Homestead, Anita tries to soothe him by rationalizing with him, by putting things in perspective.

In Anita and Paul’s brief conversation we can find three key themes of Player Piano, and the three themes we’ll explore in the Summer Book Club's series of expert conversations. 

Their back and forth goes like this (Anita begins):

“If his son isn’t bright enough for anything but the Reeks and Wrecks or the Army, is that your fault?”

“No; but if it hadn’t been for men like me, he might have a machine in the plant—”

“Is he starving?” 

“Of course not. Nobody starves.”

“And he’s got a place to live and warm clothes. He has what he’d have if he were running a stupid machine, swearing at it, making mistakes, striking every year, fighting with the foreman, coming in with hangovers.”

“You’re right, you’re right.” He held up his hands. “Of course you’re right. It’s just a hell of a time to be alive is all—just this goddamn messy business of people having to get used to new ideas. And people just don’t, that’s all. I wish this were a hundred years from now, with everybody used to the change.”

What are the three themes? And with whom will we speak?

With psychologist Barry Schwartz, we’ll ask: Is work a means to an end or something more meaningful?

Anita suggests that work holds no value for the worker beyond the external payoff. He works so he doesn't starve, go homeless, or freeze. If a worker’s needs are taken care of, why would it matter what work he does? Though Paul senses something different in Homestead, he can’t articulate what that something is just yet. 

Barry Schwartz is emeritus professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and the author of The Paradox of Choice and Practical Wisdom (with Kenneth Sharpe). His TED talk and companion book, Why We Work, explore the ways our collective assumptions about human nature—be they true or false—shape the work we do and the workplaces we inhabit. In his TED talk, he explains: 

“Adam Smith was convinced that human beings were by their very natures lazy, and wouldn't do anything unless you made it worth their while, and the way you made it worth their while was by . . . giving them rewards . . . So we created a factory system consistent with that false view of human nature. But once that system of production was in place, there was really no other way for people to operate, except in a way that was consistent with Adam Smith's vision.” 

With economist Simon Johnson, we’ll ask: Who benefits from technological progress?

Why is Paul torn up by the exchange with the father? Because he senses there is nothing he can do to alter the eighteen-year-old's fate, and something about that bugs him. For Anita, it’s the natural order of things. And if it’s the natural order of things, then there’s no point in worrying about it, because there is nothing Paul can do to change it. Some men are destined to lead humanity forward, she’d say, and some men are destined for the Reeks and Wrecks. In fact, it’s because of the smarter men that those in the Reeks and Wrecks have food, housing, and fancy domestic gadgets that even kings couldn’t have dreamed up. 

Simon Johnson is the Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at MIT, a former chief economist to the IMF, and the co-author of the bestsellers 13 Bankers and White House Burning (with James Kwak). His most recent book, Power and Progress (co-authored with Daron Acemoglu), offers a new look at “our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity.” They write:

“With the demise of good jobs available to most workers and the rapid growth in the incomes of a small fraction of the population trained as computer scientists, engineers, and financiers, we are on our way to a truly two-tiered society, in which workers and those commanding the economic means and social recognition live separately, and the separation grows daily.”

With futurist Jane McGonigal, we’ll ask: Is the future something we have to get used to or something we shape?

“It’s just a hell of a time to be alive is all,” Paul says, as he concedes the argument to Anita. “Just this goddamn messy business of people having to get used to new ideas . . . I wish this were a hundred years from now, with everybody used to the change.”

Paul takes comfort in the idea that, given enough time, everyone in 100 years will be onboard with the things they're supposed to be onboard with today. Though the pace frustrates him, humanity is marching toward its singular future. Of course, to think that the future won’t change and then change again and then again and again, in ways we can’t predict, is a fantasy.

Jane McGonigal is a futurist, director of games research and development at the Institute for the Future, and the bestselling author of Reality Is Broken, SuperBetter, and Imaginable. In her work, she designs games and simulations to help people think about the future in more creative and agentic ways. She told our books editor, Antonia, in an interview:

“Future we usually say with an ‘s’—‘futures’—so we can keep an open mind to many different things. We’re not trying to predict a singular future. We’re trying to consider possibilities so we can shape it to be more like the future we want.”

Is work a means to an end or something more meaningful? Who benefits from technological progress? And, is the future something we have to get used to or something we shape?

We’ll explore these questions with Barry, Simon, and Jane in late August and early September. The dates and times of the conversations will be finalized and announced soon.