IVnnovation as Crossroads

Just as markets work better than centralized planning partially because there are many voices or competing influences, we are adaptive creatures because we have so much going on within us--we're complex. When there is too much noise and too little coordination within that complexity, we end up being complicated as well. Same goes for societies and economics overall. And, just as human psychological needs can be organized into a hierarchy from survival demands to self-actualization, economies can be organized based on both capital influences and human needs. There is, not surprisingly, a huge problem when the interests of "capital" diverge too far from human needs or the needs for human progress.

(I'm moving towards making the case that one of our greatest needs--as well as capacities--is for progress, something Abraham Maslow and Charles Darwin didn't find surprising. This fits with the idea of innovation as a standard--like a language--that becomes increasingly important in a technologized, global environment.)

Kay writes, "Markets advance through the coevolution of technology and social institutions (p81)". Ray Kurzweil likes to talk about the increasing speed of technological innovation. Although this is within his field of expertise, any of us can recognize the significant rate of technological innovation. In fact, we are no longer surprised by most innovations because we are used to innovation itself. The Blackberry and iPhone were impressive for a blip in time. This raises a really important influence on society. The difference between my parents' generation's familiarity and comfort with changing technologies compared to current high-schoolers' familiarity and comfort is really significant. While employers are still asking whether I can use Excel, the next generation already expects that any spreadsheet program will be somewhat intuitively useful to anyone who has ever seen any spreadsheet program. They'll make allowances for differences as a matter of course.

Since Cro Magnon man began setting up trade networks and differentiation of professional specializations, humans have always used technological advancements as part of culture, part of life. Sometimes at the end of the last century, though, we in the industrialized-techonologized world became used to continuous technological innovation. Of course, my grandparents could use fire and wheels and so can I. They used innovations as amazing as automobiles, telephones, vacuums, and even microwave ovens. At this point in history, nanotechnology is putting thousands of cell-sized machines in people's bloodstreams to overcome the effects of chronic diseases. The symbiotic exchange between bacteria and more advanced biological animals and plants is huge--think of your farts here and know that you couldn't digest most of what you eat without the help of bacteria in your gut. Now we have cell-sized, man-made symbiots in our bloodstreams (still somewhat experimentally at this point) that help us function much more optimally. Probably within our lifetime, we will be doing things like growing bacteria within ourselves that can function as sunblock. Leonardo da Vinci and Jules Verne were able to imagine the future wonderfully, but we are moving towards a civilization where we improve not only our symbiotic relationships but also the chances for the Leonardos to meet and collaborate. What's more, most of these processes are impressively driven by human potential. By that, I mean that if it wasn't for Einstein laying out the theories of relativity, someone else would have not much later.

Anyway, all the futurists point out that sort of stuff. My point is that innovation itself becomes a usual aspect of life just as, throughout history, innovations had become usual parts of human life. You probably do not have the same agricultural profession that your ancestors did, and neither do I. And just as most folks from the 18th century didn't have nuclear fission in their plans for the future, we can't predict what effects free internet porn will have--let alone the further advances between cell-sized machines and genetic engineering.

But, if we become comfortable with the idea of innovation itself, we can influence some of the outcomes. So most folks won't argue that technologies are advancing. What has to happen with social institutions, then?