Technology, by its very nature, is disruptive. It shakes up routines, threatens old ways of working, and sometimes just seems too wild for the world to take seriously—at least at first. But why do so many world-changing inventions get dismissed, doubted, or downright ridiculed when they first appear? In this article, I’ll walk through not just why this happens, but how it plays out in real life, complete with my own (sometimes embarrassing) experiences trying to convince skeptical colleagues. I’ll also back up the story with real-world examples and expert opinions, and even compare how different countries treat “verified trade” standards—since international skepticism about new tech often has a legal dimension.
If you’ve ever felt like the only person who “gets” a new gadget or platform, or if you’re trying to get buy-in for a new system at work, read on. Maybe you’ll find a little comfort (and ammo for your next debate).
Picture this: it’s 1994, and I’m sitting in a stuffy conference room, clutching a printout of something called an “email.” My boss, a cigarette dangling from his lips, squints at me: “Why would anyone send mail on a computer?” No joke—he genuinely thought it was useless. Fast forward a decade, and that same guy was giving me hell for not answering an email fast enough.
This isn’t just my story. Human beings are hardwired to trust what works and be wary of change. The OECD’s report on innovation diffusion highlights that skepticism is often a rational response to uncertainty and risk. But sometimes, this caution leads us to totally underestimate transformative tech.
Let’s dig into a few examples that show just how often we get it wrong at first.
I’ll admit it—when a junior analyst on my team first brought up blockchain for customs verification in 2017, I thought it sounded like a buzzword. “We have secure databases already, why bother?” I said. Turns out, I was wrong. By 2020, the World Customs Organization was piloting blockchain for “verified trade” records to reduce fraud and speed up cross-border shipments.
It took seeing a competitor’s real-world results—faster clearances, lower costs, fewer disputes—to get me on board. Sometimes, you need the data to override your gut.
Let’s get nerdy for a second. The way countries define and implement “verified trade” reflects how willing—or reluctant—they are to embrace new tech. Here’s a table comparing key differences:
| Country/Region | Standard Name | Legal Basis | Enforcement Agency | Notes on Tech Adoption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | Union Customs Code (UCC) | Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 | European Commission, national customs | Progressive on digitalization, piloting blockchain (see EU Customs Digital Transformation) |
| United States | Trusted Trader Programs (C-TPAT, ISA) | 19 CFR Parts 101–192 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) | Cautious on blockchain, heavy on data analytics (see CBP C-TPAT) |
| China | AEO (Authorized Economic Operator) | General Administration of Customs Order No. 237 | China Customs | Leads in pilot use of blockchain for trade finance (Reuters) |
| WTO (Global) | Trade Facilitation Agreement | WTO TFA, 2017 | WTO, national customs | Encourages digital best practices but leaves tech choices to members (WTO TFA) |
Here’s a real-world scenario that played out between Port A (in the EU) and Port B (in Southeast Asia), both handling high-value electronics shipments. Port A had rolled out blockchain-based “verified trade” documentation. Port B, on the other hand, relied on traditional paper and manual checks.
When a shipment got delayed due to a documentation mismatch, Port A’s customs officers were able to verify the goods’ provenance in minutes using their digital ledger—while Port B spent days chasing paper trails and calling brokers. Eventually, Port B had to accept the digital records after losing a major client to a port that could process shipments faster.
A local industry rep I interviewed (who asked not to be named) put it bluntly: “We laughed at all this blockchain hype. Now, we’re scrambling to adopt it so we don’t get left behind.”
Dr. Lina Wenzel, who works with the OECD trade division, told me in a recent call, “Most breakthroughs look underwhelming at first because they don’t fit current needs—they create new possibilities we can’t see yet. Regulators and businesses need sandboxes to test, fail, and learn, rather than betting the farm all at once.”
That matches what I’ve seen in practice. The teams that win aren’t always the first to try something—they’re the first to keep trying after the first version flops. The trick is to set up pilots, track real metrics, and stay open to being proved wrong. (Trust me, it’s humbling, but it works.)
The history of technology is a string of “impossible” ideas that became essential. Whether it’s the telephone, the personal computer, or blockchain in trade compliance, the experts and institutions who laughed first often end up scrambling to catch up. My own experience—missing the boat on blockchain until the data convinced me otherwise—taught me that being skeptical is natural, but staying stuck is optional.
For anyone navigating international trade, it pays to keep an eye on how different countries are updating their “verified trade” standards, and to experiment where you can. If you’re pushing for a new system and getting “that’ll never work,” remember: the future always looks ridiculous... until it doesn’t.
If you want to dig deeper, check out the OECD and WTO resources linked above. And next time you hear someone dismiss a new technology, maybe ask: “What if it works?”