FWIW, I remember the question well. I was too busy to respond in the
way I wanted to. My lack of response wasn't because it was an
uninteresting question. I didn't respond because the reasoning seemed
fallacious. I still can't respond the way I'd like to, with a full
explanation of what's wrong with the implication. But, since you
inferred an identity between lack of comment and lack of interest, I'll
throw a few inadequate words at the subject.
The most irritating part lies in the rampant equivocation around
"innovation". Qualifiers like "genuine" and "copycat" set off alarm
bells in my head. But the problems they cause pale in comparison to the
confirmation bias embedded in the term "innovation".
It also relates deeply to the recent thread about "surviving" across
infrastructure changes and the desire for zero-intelligence-tools ...
this concept that you should not need to understand how a tool works in
order to use the tool.
To me, all innovation is privately funded. It's the bringing-to-market
that is "funded" in the sense I think you mean. Every innovator I've
ever met devotes their _self_ to their inventions. They take
un-quantifiable risk and commit unquantifiable resources to the
development of that thing/process. Am I equivocating on "private"?
Perhaps. Maybe "personal" is a better word. But my point survives my
fallacy.
The people who devote their _selves_ to the construction of innovative
tools/methods, are the funders of the innovations. The bags of money we
usually refer to as "funders" follow quite closely with demand. And in
a world of zero-intelligence-tool-users, are we really surprised there's
little intelligence embedded in the tools brought to market by the money
bags?
We can consider http://healthcare.gov a fine example. Is it innovative
to socialize the risk pool in a way that "enlightened" capitalists can
tolerate (if not profit from)? I'd say, yes, absolutely. Socialized
risk is not novel. Websites aren't novel. "Esurance" isn't novel.
Etc. The money bags (governments and NGOs) brought healthcare.gov to
"market". But are we really going to say that they're the innovators?
No, I'd rather blame/credit the small cadre of socialized medicine
advocates peppered through our public citizenry (as well as many outside
the country). I also consider blaming/crediting the "capitalists" who
recognize our economy for the ecological complex system it is, yet
understand that _people_ are the innovators (as well as everything
else). And if the people are sick and dying, then our economy is sick
and dying.
But more specifically re: what I think you want to talk about -- In my
arguments with liberals, they often assert that there is no such thing
as a "free market". I agree. But there's a flipside to their argument.
It means there is no sharp distinction between public and private
money bags. E.g. Yes, Bill Gates has near autocratic control over how
his fortune is spent. But our governments were absolutely critical to
his fortune. Without our government, his fortune would not exist (as it
now exists, at least, perhaps not at all). Similarly, without the NGOs
that help build things like airplanes or semiconductors, our government
would not exist (as it exists, at least, perhaps not at all).
Every innovation is brought about from a complex interplay between the
private and public sectors. To even make the distinction is enough to
mark one as a "libertarian".
On 03/03/2014 09:42 AM, Pamela McCorduck wrote:
This was my original message on February 22.
Begin forwarded message:
*From: *Pamela McCorduck <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject: **Re: [FRIAM] WhatsApp ... Death of SMS?*
*Date: *February 22, 2014 at 5:14:43 PM EST
*To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
The Internet was conceived and first implemented by a small group of
government and university researchers: J. C. R. Licklider, Bob Kahn,
Vint Cert, and several other pioneers. (So when I hear Silly Valley
Libertarians go on and on, the best I can do is laugh.)
My question to this august group is: now that the momentum for
innovation has moved to the private sector, are we going to see
nothing but these trivial, mostly copycat apps that make your eyes
glaze over? Is the private sector capable of genuine innovation?
Pamela
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
--
⇒⇐ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
