Tech Innovation has stagnated?

I read a fascinating article on CNet featuring Peter Thiel's opinion that tech innovation has stalled. When I first read the headline, I thought this must be yet another crackpot tech journalist that is spouting off some new nonsense. But after reading the article, I agree 100% with his opinions.

He is basically stating that while electronics related tech (Computers, the Internet, etc.) is still expanding at a rapid pace, the rest of the tech world is not. We are still using petroleum based fuel way too much. Space innovation is very slow compared to 40 years ago. Our governments still use ancient processes and 'technology' to get things done, for the most part.

Peter Thiel is postulating that we live in a society that has lost interest in science and technology. I think I agree. And I think I know why.

I think today's people are less altruistic than in years past. People are more interested in what is happening here and now, and only in their own lives for the most part. I know I am generalizing, there are definitely exceptions. But I thing the majority of the population is more selfish than we used to be. And I'm not the only one that thinks this (The Me Generation, NY Times.)

Most scientists are not paid very well. I think you have to be interested in leaving a legacy...in helping other people on a grand scale, if you want to be a scientist. And these values are largely missing in the general population. So science is suffering.

I also believe this is happening in business. In the old days, one company would innovate and the rest of the industry would benefit. In today's world, a company that innovates will aggressively defend their "territory" with patents and lawyers. Thus general innovation suffers.

Also, companies today are hyper focused on growth and revenue (largely due to the stock market, IMO.) Companies are very reluctant to innovate if they can't comfortably predict a return on their investment. They are not concerned with "doing the right thing", it's all about money.

I think this is all sad. I would really like to see more scientific/tech innovation than we have today. I think many of the world's problems could be solved if people were more willing to do something for the greater good, even if the result wouldn't offer them an immediate benefit.

So what about YOU? Which attitude best describes you? "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Or, "Ask not what your [world] can do for you - ask what you can do for your [world]." (JFK)

Comments
Yes, there is a cycle of flow in creative processes. One concept is follow the money. This explains whey tech evolves and why it stagnates. Jake, you and I are the work for pay but share along the way type of people. Most people don't work in fields where they can share like that so I find no fault there of course. Yet, there are far to many who all they can see is how much money they can make. To that regard I agree with the concept of when is it enough? When do I have "enough" and want to start building the resources of others? When do we start to give back? (BTW... I don't think this is something the government should dictate. Wanted to go on record there.)
# Posted By John Farrar | 11/1/11 8:14 AM
I agree, John, the government shouldn't dictate this. I just wish more people were willing to give back, and less people would sue others for "stealing" their ideas. A perfect example is the guy in the 60-70s that figured out how to use fractals to do computer graphics. He worked for IBM at the time, but soon left to consult for others on this revolutionary concept. What if IBM had tied this innovation up in patents and aggressively defended those patents. Where would the computing industry be today if IBM had done that? And yet this is what is happening all around us today. Apple suing everybody for infringing on their smart phone patents, for example. Tech innovation is suffering.
# Posted By Jake Munson | 11/1/11 10:24 AM
I don't think the concept is universal. I would not want someone to copy a commercial app and resell it. The Apple issues are not the same as a fractal graphics solution. Somehow the impact of fractal graphics is not the same as Apple technology. This does not mean I agree with every decision Apple makes but certainly this fails a valid comparison to illustrate right or wrong. On the other hand when Microsoft attempted to sue "Lindows" for the name being too close to Windows that is valid. Apple thinking they own everything that starts with an i(name) is also a good example.

There is a balance though that to come out with technology we must have a return on investment. Without it people will not put the creative energy into moving the idea from the mind to reality. So simply doing away with idea protection will not push us ahead in technology on it's own. Like most things in life it just is not that simple.
# Posted By John Farrar | 11/1/11 10:57 AM
I think your assumption is that a competitor selling idea will put you out of business. Why should that be so? If it was your original idea, you are always going to be one step ahead of your competitor. Sure, you won't sell as much, but you can still make money from your idea. And if you are smart, you will always be innovating faster than your competitors.
# Posted By Jake Munson | 11/1/11 5:27 PM
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.9. Contact Blog Owner