This is again an exceptional conversation. For a long time, I looked forward to speaking with Prof. David Edgerton. He is currently a Fellow at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin and Hans Rausing Professor of the History of Science and Technology at King's College London.  He is a noted historian of the United Kingdom as well as historian of technology and science. In the latter field he is best known for the book “Shock of the Old” which has been translated into many languages.  He is also known in the UK for his commentaries on political and historical matters in the press.  He is also a Fellow of the British Academy.
I read this book some years ago, and it left quite an impression on me. We talk about technology, or rather, why the word should not be used, about progress and stagnation; what role technology plays in societal change, if we really live in an age with an unseen pace of innovation, and much more.
We start with the question of how the book title “Shock of the Old” came about. What does the term “technology” mean, how does it relate to other terms like “technium” or the German terms “Technologie” and “Technik”, and why is it a problematic term? 

“Technology is a very problematic concept, and if I would write the book again, I would not use the term. […] Technology is a concept that macerates the brain as it conflates multiple concepts.”

What is creole technology? Did we experience 50 years of unseen progress, or rather stagnation? How can we understand the reference of David Deutsch comparing the Solvay Conference 100 years ago with the current state of physics? Are we rather experiencing what Peter Kruse compares to a crab basket:

“There's always a lot of momentum in a crab basket, but on closer inspection, you realise that nothing is really moving forward.”, Peter Kruse

Can the 20th century be considered the playing out of the 19th century? What about the 21st century? Is technological change the driver of all change, or is technical change only one element of change in society? Does the old disappear? For instance, Jean-Baptiste Fressoz describes the global energy consumption in his book More and More and More.

“There has not been an energy transition, there has been a super-imposition of new techniques on old ones. […] We are living in the great age of coal.”

What is the material constitution of our world today? For example, Vaclav Smil makes it apparent, that most people have a quite biased understanding of how our world actually works.
How can change happen? Do we wish for evolution, or rather a revolution?

“The world in which we find ourselves at the start of the new millennium is littered with the debris of utopian projects.”, John Gray

Can technological promise also be a reason for avoiding change?

“Technological revolution can be a way of avoiding change. […] There will be a revolution in the future that will solve our problems. […] Relying only on innovation is a recipe for inaction.”

Do technologists tend to overpromise what their technology might deliver? For instance, the trope that this new technology will bring peace can be found over centuries.
Is maintenance an underestimated topic in out society and at universities? What role does maintenance play in our modern society in comparison to innovation? For example, Cyrus W. Field who built the first transatlantic cable between the US and UK proclaimed in an address to the American Geographical and Statistical Society in 1862

“its value can hardly be estimated to the commerce, and even to the peace, of the world.”

What is university knowledge, where does it come from, and how does it relate to knowledge of a society? How should we think about the idea of university lead innovation?

“There is a systematic overestimation of the university.”

Is there a cult of the entrepreneur? Who is actually driving change in society? Who decides about technical change? Moreover, most innovations are rejected:

“We should reject most of innovation; otherw