Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should

Technology has always promised progress. Faster. Bigger. Smarter. Every generation believes its innovations will finally lift humanity into a better future.

And yet, here we are in 2025, surrounded by planet-scaled data centers, evaporating rivers to cool servers, burning staggering amounts of energy to generate… cat memes. Infinite scrolling. Disposable content that will be forgotten as quickly as it was created.

We have built more computational power than any civilization before us, and we are using a significant portion of it for entertainment, distraction, and short-term novelty.

It raises a question that should sit uncomfortably with every technologist, executive, and leader:

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

This is not a new dilemma. It is a very old one.

Humanity has always gained capability faster than it has gained wisdom.

The Pattern: Capability First, Restraint Never

Every major technological breakthrough in history follows the same arc:

We build something astonishing. Power concentrates among those who can adopt it first. Society scrambles to keep up. Externalities, ethical, social, environmental all surge. We eventually attempt reform, regulation, and restraint. By then, the technology has already reshaped the world.

We celebrate innovation because it expands what we can do. But restraint is what determines what we should do.

And too often, restraint arrives late, if it arrives at all.

History Has Already Warned Us

The Printing Press: Knowledge for All - Except Not Really

The printing press democratized learning, but the first major use case was not universal education, it was centralized control. Those with the money to print dictated what knowledge spread, and what knowledge did not. The press expanded literacy, yes, but it also amplified propaganda and strengthened the power structures of the time.

Restraint was an afterthought.

The Telegraph: Instant Information Without Instant Wisdom

For the first time in history, news outpaced comprehension. Markets panicked in minutes. Rumors circumvented geography. Sensationalism became a business model.

We optimized communication speed long before we optimized truth.

Industrialization: Prosperity at the Cost of the Planet

Economic growth soared. Human labor transformed. But coal-blackened cities, child labor, dangerous factories, and species extinction followed. Humanity charged ahead, intoxicated by what was possible, not what was responsible.

The Early Internet: Openness Turned Surveillance

The internet promised free information for all. It delivered that, along with a surveillance economy.

Data became the new oil. Privacy was sacrificed for convenience. Human attention became the commodity of the century.

In every case, innovation outran wisdom.

Today’s Version of the Same Problem: AI and Endless Compute

We now stand in the largest technological leap since electricity.

AI systems require:

gigawatts of energy thousands of tons of minerals river-scale water consumption industrial-sized cooling systems

yet we often use these resources to generate synthetic influencers, trivial entertainment, shallow content, and ad-driven engagement loops.

Human creativity has evolved. Human restraint has not.

And IT leaders feel this tension acutely: The tools we deploy today will shape the world our children inherit.

The Moral Dilemma for Modern Technology Leaders

Executives and IT leaders now face decisions that were once reserved for governments and philosophers:

Just because we can automate entire workforces, doesn’t mean we should. Just because we can collect everything our users do, doesn’t mean it's ethical. Just because we can train models with planetary-scale compute, doesn’t mean the outcome is meaningful. Just because we can scale infinitely, doesn’t mean the planet can support it.

We don’t just implement technology anymore. We shape societies, economies, and environments.

For the first time in history, an IT department can unintentionally cause or prevent real ecological harm. That is the weight of modern leadership.

What Responsible Leaders Must Do Now

Restraint is not anti-innovation. Restraint is what protects innovation from becoming harm.

Here are the questions modern leaders must ask:

1. Is this technology solving a real problem?

Or is it chasing novelty or market hype?

2. Who benefits, and who pays?

If the benefit is internal but the cost is environmental, that is a moral tradeoff.

3. What are the unintended consequences?

Data, privacy, equity, and well-being must be part of the decision.

4. Is the impact proportional to the cost?

Training a massive model to automate trivial tasks is not efficiency. It’s waste.

5. Will this make humans more capable, or more dependent?

Technology should elevate us, not replace our agency.

These are not technical questions. They are leadership questions. They are ethical questions.

A Moment That Demands Wisdom Equal to Our Tools

As someone who has spent more than 25 years building IT departments and leading digital transformation, I believe this moment requires something new from us:

Principled leaders who can say “no” when innovation outpaces responsibility.

History is full of brilliant moments where humanity unlocked powerful tools. It is also full of moments where those tools were used without foresight, compassion, or restraint.

Today’s tools are more powerful, more global, and more consequential.

The world does not need more innovation. It needs wiser innovators. It needs leaders willing to ask:

“Just because we can - should we?”

And then have the courage to act on the answer.

Share

If this essay was useful, share it with someone who’s carrying a similar problem.

Link copied.