jump to navigation

Have We Lost the Ability to Innovate? January 12, 2013

Posted by Peter Varhol in Technology and Culture.

That seems to be the discussion de jour among futurists and economists today, and the prognosis doesn’t seem to be good.  The best thing that their collective wisdom points to is that innovation occurs in spurts, after which there is a period of consolidation that we now seem to be in.  The worst prognosis is that there are no more truly fundamental innovations to be had, and that we will spend the rest of future history refining those innovations of the past.

When I was in my formative years, circa late 1960s, I eagerly devoured the pages of Popular Science magazine, seeking out flying cars, personal helicopters, and other futuristic innovations that were just around the corner.  Clearly none of this came to pass, and the publication is now focused much more on promoting and explaining science that is within our grasp (check out the feature on artificial poop, for example).

Do we think smaller?  Have we lost those grandiose visions that enabled us to conceive of flying cars?  Are we no longer willing to risk our careers, lives, and legacies to conceive and create fundamentally new things?  Are we, well, timid and afraid?

There is some support for this notion.  I was eleven when we landed a man on the moon.  We did so a few more times in the following decade, but now, more than forty years later, lack the ability to repeat that feat.  We gave up, weary of the relatively minor cost, and weary of reaching farther than our grasp would lift us.

But that is the real artificial poop in the room.  The man on the moon was an expensive and ultimately dead-end stunt.  It was almost certainly the wrong approach, and whatever our reasons, would not have been the correct choice.  We will be back.

It’s largely true that physics can’t be done by an individual in a small workshop any more, a la Faraday or Helmholtz.  But what they did was sophisticated for their times, and was as alien to the average citizen of the day as a supercollider is to that citizen today.  Today science has to necessarily build upon their accomplishments, which are now taught to students in the eighth grade (or perhaps earlier, for all I know).

If discovering theoretical particles by smashing atoms at nearly the speed of light is the ante to pursue innovation today, then by all means we shall do so.

But science and technology aren’t economic plays, and treating them in that fashion does society a disservice.  We collectively don’t innovate because we want to make a billion dollars (which is why we can never in any sense consider things like Facebook innovative).  We innovate because we can’t not do so.  It may not look very much like the innovation of the past, but it will be recognized as such by the future.



1. Andy Clarke @leatfield - January 13, 2013

“no more truly fundamental innovations to be had” That is like saying Change does not happen. change builds innovation and it only takes someone to breakthrough in the smallest increment to create a catalyst. innovation is cause and affect over time not a breakthrough. We also have to keep a distinction between an innovation and an invention. there is a real difference. I heard something the other day on the radio and some guy mentioned that soon we will be able to backup our Mind! basically all our memories will be stored electronically. That is a crazy thought but it is this thinking that will drive our race (Good or Bad).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: