Should We Be Worried About Innovation?
The cult of quantification misses the point of innovation
In a Dec. 1 article in the Atlantic, Derek Thompson claims that “In film, science, and the economy, the U.S. has fallen out of love with the hard work of ushering new ideas into the world.”
Is he right? Having grown up at the end of the 20th Century, back in the late 1900’s, I can attest that my son lives in a completely different world than the one that I brought him into 25 years ago. People are living in space and we all are connected through tiny hand computers. When I was growing up- we didn’t even have plastic grocery bags!!
Aside from the argument of whether Thompson is right or not, I find his approach to writing about innovation, somewhat last century, ie lacking in innovation. He focuses on statistics about the number of new products and institutions, ie quantity, instead of the aim of innovation, ie quality.
Thompson decries the lack of innovation in Hollywood based on the endless reboot of “franchise” movies (another thing that didn’t exist in my childhood. Star Wars was just getting us started on the idea of a three part series). Where has all the innovation gone, he asks?
But Thompson is looking in the wrong place. In Hollywood, the characters may be familiar, and the never ending plot to save the world seems to be endlessly rehashed, but there are things in these reboots you would not have seen 25 years ago. Lets start with main characters who are gay, trans or have a disability. Stories of men and women in middle age, and old age. Multi-generational plots with kids, parents and grandkids all playing key roles.
Has Thompson seen a Disney movie this century? Princesses are saving themselves, sisters are saving sisters, men are emotional, team work is key and different cultural heroes, holidays and themes are featured.
The innovation in Hollywood is not in the franchise packaging, but in the characters, values and plot twists.
But looking for innovation in Hollywood is also the wrong question to ask. It is so 20th century, ie not innovative. Innovation in film is even broader in indie films. Unlike 25 years ago, making a decent quality film can be done with an iphone and some free editing software. The indie film scene has exploded. And it comes to you not through studios, but through You Tube and Tik Tok.
But entertainment is not just about movies. Today millions are immersed in choose your own adventure entertainment through video games. And the level of virtual reality in some games makes entertainment today more like a trip to the Star Trek holodeck than a trip to the theater.
You can see my point. Applying 20th century thinking to 21st century innovation gives you the wrong conclusions.
But the most pernicious of 20th century thinking is the idea that more is better.
Most of Thompson’s analysis compares the number of studies, the number of universities, the number of sky scrapers and so forth. This obsession with innovation and production for the sake of innovation and production, is part of the problem that now threatens global health and survival. The idea that more is better, bigger is better, has created global warming, the 6th great extinction, climate disruption, resource depletion, microplastics in our water and food, toxic waste everywhere…
We do not need to try to recreate the pace of innovation in the past. Instead we need to pause, and consider the direction of innovation. How can we solve problems in an equitable and sustainable way?
And this is exactly the type of innovation we are starting to see. In every area from economics to science, our attention is turning away from innovation as a tool for the creation of wealth and into a tool for the creation of a better world for all.
What was holding up this flow innovation?
Thompson points to three things: the short attention span of consumers, the rising number of old people in power positions, and bureaucracy (called vetocracy).
Again, I find these reasons steeped in last century thinking.
The short attention span of consumers is cover for the unchecked ability of corporate power to turn every human need and interaction into a product. We know that the whole cult of consumerism was created by industry to increase wealth production. We have been trained to have short attentions spans through a lifetime of nonstop marketing.
While CEO’s are getting older (ten years older, not really the same as ancient) the thinking of CEO’s is innovating. Not too long ago it was considered illegal to put people and planet on the same level as profits. Judicial precedent suggested that any move that did not maximize profit could end up in court. Today Benefit Corps have circumvented that judicial risk by creating a legal structure for corporations that mandates social good.
Even traditional corporations are rejecting the judicial risk in favor of listening to consumers who are demanding fair trade and sustainability. Look at the symbols on your chocolate bar- Fair Trade, Sustainable Harvest, Organic, non GMO- that is all innovation.
Traditional corporations are also competing with the many more small start ups who now have access to the global marketplace through the internet, forcing change.
The age of the CEO has so little to do with this.
Vetocracy, a round about way of attacking bureaucracy is another outdated way of thinking. The number of regulations is not as important as their impact. Do organic standards make it more difficult for small scale growers to comply and therefore favor the large corporate players? New views on regulation are creating space for small scale farmers, farmers of color and regenerative agriculture, pushing innovation.
Even the broader sense of vetocracy- a propensity to reject new projects, has an innovative side. Rejecting pipelines and fracking forces innovation into new energy sources.
All three of Thompson’s reasons for this supposed innovation lag can actually be more accurately boiled down into one big source of stifled creativity. Big Business. Corporations want to minimize risk from new ideas in their own business and from competitors. They want to make as much money as possible using the equipment they have already invested in, and the values they have already created through advertising.
There is no need to blame consumers, old people or regulations. As we break free from the homogeny of the Corporate profit model based in 20th century ideas, our natural innovation will become more visible, and get a chance to create an even better world.