There are good reasons, why more people these days feel as though the odds are stacked against them. What's more, governments scarcely seem worth the tax dollars required for their upkeep, when they tell citizens it's time to give up on continued growth. Amazingly, this odd tactic has not been questioned to the degree one would expect. Perhaps some take comfort in "who needs growth, it's time to get back to a simpler life". Hmm...except what's "left" isn't exactly simple or reassuring. Meanwhile, others have a different story: "Innovation "isn't what it used to be. All the big, important stuff is already done."
How would anyone really know? I'm more inclined to think "innovation for me but not for thee". Did everyone wake up one morning and just decide: hey, this is as good a stopping place as any, for further progress? The person who is ready to kick back and put their feet up, is not the same person who is still hoping for a meaningful career - or life for that matter.
If no more innovation is "necessary" (except perhaps that latest chronic illness treatment or tech gizmo), how is present day production supposed to maintain the circumstance and populations of the present? Who would still commit to further education, if the job market does not improve? Is anyone really comfortable with the thought that humanity could easily "make do" without the use of three quarters of its mental capacity? I don't think so. Just the same, modern day versions of guilds control much of the ideas, research, new production definitions and process methods which are allowed to see the light of day.
Excessive regulations are cited as problematic. But how to dig through the quagmire, to determine where the worst problems exist? Structural circumstance needed to be faced squarely, before they get any more out of control than they already are. Sure, some money will continue to be spent on innovation if nothing gets changed: the kinds of innovation one hears about on the evening news. But much of what is heard in this regard, has little chance to benefit populations as a whole.
What about the innovation funded by governments? Many nations seem to be growing more reactive and defensive by the day, making it more likely that U.S. dollars for innovation will ultimately end up in defense related areas. Given the costs of research and development, private interests mostly want "sure thing" innovations. For pharmaceuticals, that means resources are geared primarily for ongoing needs of chronic illness, rather than acute illness and its related conditions. When research for medical needs was more broadly shared and dispersed, the latter was also well represented, particularly in alternative care.
Hence, if innovation for broad based societal gain remains likely in the near future, the possibility of making it happen rests with individuals, instead of present day public or private interests. Populations as a whole, need to restructure so that a wider and stronger net can be cast to capture innovation potential. Knowledge use systems are needed, which can be internally coordinated to support citizens in mutual time use pursuits. With ongoing calendaring for production and services proposals, costs for new forms of research and development could be internalized and greatly reduced.
Innovation networks are still strong, but much too thin and with too few connecting points, to really capture human potential. One could say that while the "long tail" applies online, it has few local economic equivalents thus far, in knowledge use terms. Unique services and production structures are mostly concentrated in cities, but this need not be the case. There is a world of knowledge and information which is just waiting to have relevance in local endeavor, and the digital realm needs to be put into motion so that populations can once again regain confidence for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment