Disruptive Distractions & Dangerous Delusions

Applying radical innovation to human endurance

Within the context of exogenous change, particularly more recent experiences of radical technical advances, two entangled business ideas have arisen to capture our attention. Our quest today is for unicorns. Often prematurely proclaimed as ideas that will change everything, we are searching for products and schemes that satisfy the craving we have developed for innovation to be disruptive, and financially rewarding, at least if they are to live up to our expectations of massive change.

The oft-heard mantra of disruptive innovation as a business model in its own right can be heard intoned time and time again. Emanating from the claustrophobic world of lecture theatres, business books, and management conventions, and ending up in entrepreneurial endeavours, investment plays, accelerators and incubators, we have become so convinced of their legitimacy that these two core ideas are often confused as causal agents of change, including any necessary practices for success, as well as the new conditions created by such change.

As a consequence they receive a mention in almost every government policy, electoral campaign, corporate plan, and organisational tactics. Indeed not to incorporate the idea of a disruptive model in the context of innovation is often considered both negligent and ignorant.

I wonder whether such easy acceptance of these ideas is a substitute for thinking. At what point does the quest for disruption actually become a distraction? And is the overt quest for disruption simply a delusion – a fate similar to that suffered by Don Quixote in his obsessive tilting at windmills?

The deliberate use of innovation as the key to shaking things up in an existing global market, where established trailblazers and alliances are eventually displaced by new value networks, is extremely rare and often accidental. Because innovation is an emergent property of the creative process, disruption is more often an outcome of entrepreneurial activity rather than its root cause. This is especially the case where disruption gives rise to significant social impacts that change brings in its wake.

After the event we can easily be drawn into making unfounded and extravagant claims – typically mistaking correlation as cause, and cause for effect. But, as most entrepreneurs will recount, living one’s life in the alchemist’s enthusiasm for invention usually means that an abiding concern with early viability while ensuring sufficient provisioning to be able to grow, mature and endure, overrides most other considerations. The last thing on one’s mind is the need to be disruptive.

Very few innovations are truly disruptive - even though they might be radical or even revolutionary. Indeed disruption is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. The development of the motor car, for example, was not disruptive to what was then essentially a horse-drawn vehicle market - at least until automobiles began to be mass-produced. Nor was that Henry Ford’s plan. But at a point when plummeting costs of production converged with the demand for much rapid forms of transportation disruption of the market was guaranteed.

The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440 was disruptive as much as it was empowering. It contributed to far easier dissemination of both ideas and information, and gave ordinary men and women the license and autonomy to learn from written materials instead of having to rely upon the spoken word. Likewise the internet gave us the foundational possibility of connecting with anyone, at any time, for any reason.

Disruption, then, seems to occur as an emergent property of a system-in-transition - one that is being propelled into a new state by the deployment of a certain kind of discovery or invention. It has the capacity to shake up conventional markets, often in ways that are structurally and economically transformational. Huge social impacts typically result.

But I doubt disruption can be ordained, let alone accurately predicted. If that is the case, perhaps our obsession with disruption as a premeditated stratagem, is nothing other than an exercise in futility. Could it be a cruel and expensive delusion?

Quite possibly - at least as it is currently conceptualized and deployed. But it does not necessarily have to be like that. For a far deeper contradiction should be concerning us – one that necessitates the embedding of disruptive innovation at its very core.

Markets are a human invention. They arose out of convenience and exist only for one purpose: to facilitate exchange of one kind or another. At their core, markets and economies are really only concerned with money and materials. They do not offer up much of interest concerning human purpose, relationships, well-being or more ephemeral desires.

So in terms of disruptive innovation what would happen if we were able to shift gears up a notch or two - away from the materialistic impulses of consumerism and competition that have eroded our innate qualities of empathy, gratitude and love, and replaced them with indifference, selfishness, greed, and loathing? What might happen if we could take disruptive innovation and find ways to apply this to the renewal of a more universally beneficial worldview and world-system?

What if we could arrive at a healthier balance between our individualistic material ambitions and a greater concern for the planet and each other? More pertinently, why would we even contemplate not doing so?

Within the profoundly disturbing context of the human condition, the interminable and apparently irresolvable tension between instinct and intellect that serves only to intensify our sense of alienation, guilt, depression, anger and sorrow, a spark of hope still flickers. That hope is contained within the thought we may still be able to apply innovation to disrupt a worldview that has become toxic to the human spirit and indeed our health. Some observations…

1.     Growth. In 1945, the year of my birth, there were around two billion people on Earth. Since then the population has grown to almost eight billion, putting an unparalleled burden on systems that were never intended to cope with such numbers.

2.     Collapse. That burden is now palpable. It is leading to the imminent collapse of our most life-critical systems and a consequent decline in the ability of the planet to support the human family. Food and energy production, health, education, and governance, for example, are all at risk of sliding into a bleak decline from which it will be almost impossible to recover. The original aims of all these systems have been corrupted; they now spawn inequality, injustice, crime and poverty that seems unrelenting. We need to lift the veil of ignorance from our eyes in order to recognize that we are all culpable – the wealthy more than the poor. Our outrageous hubris, harnessed to an intolerably competitive worldview, still biased in favour of the wealthy and focused compulsively on economic growth, technological development, and serf labour, must be totally redesigned if we are to avoid the failure of the human experiment and the potential collapse of our civilization.

3.     Rivalry. This is easier said than done. Competitive behaviours are now so ingrained, and social media so pervasive, that we effortlessly leap to blame anyone for our current state of affairs who does not immediately share our beliefs or cultural values. Organized crime is rampant. The wealthy are reluctant to relinquish their fortune. Corruption is ingrained at all levels in society. Religious groups fear each other, basing their hatred on trivial differences and isolated incidents. Radical ideological proponents clash and do battle. And all the while our so-called leaders eschew amity in favour of anomie, resorting to killing in favour of dialogue.

If this is not insane I am unsure what is. Biologically speaking human beings are identical. We are all part of a single family. We are born with the same number of genes and a similar impulse to survive, achieve happiness, and create a secure and loving situation for our family and friends. A Palestinian family on the West Bank will have similar feelings and desires to the Jewish family a few kilometres away. Muslims in Pakistan and Iraq have almost identical hopes as Christians in Australia or France. A wealthy industrialist in the US is not too dissimilar to a peasant farmer in Cambodia. We all want the same things in life. Not that you would know that judging from our bullying and intimidating behaviours towards each other.

4.     Separation. The most appalling outcome of this widespread culture of fear-driven blame is a generation of psychologically and neurotically anxious, despairing, alienated and depressed individuals who no longer have hope in a dystopian future at odds with their most sacred human instincts. In the end the ethos of separation is the most callous expression of the human condition and the world-system it has initiated. Yet it is still one we refuse to face up to.

Applying innovative disruption to this state of affairs is potentially the most courageous course we can now take. Such a strategy, however bloody, is likely to be far more benign than the constant and unending warfare we prosecute based upon primitive superstitions and the irrational fear of others. And yet it also has the potential to heal our ills more effectively.

So many possible scenarios, initially encouraging, are now well past the point of no return. Some, such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals unwittingly simplify, misrepresent and trivialize the extent of the problems. Others, tried perhaps half-heartedly, are depleted. We now need to apply disruptive innovation to humanity’s views of itself in order to deal with a pathological condition that, without dramatic surgery, will devour us.

At an absolute minimum the evolution of a new all-encompassing and inclusive worldview that better serves a majority of humanity will require upgraded design criteria. These are corrective schemas for each of the four experiential domains outlined above, and each has a material and a psychological component.

1.i. Although we must find ways to cater for the needs of possibly 9 billion people by mid-century, the global population must decline in sheer numbers. Paradoxically this is actually a local problem. Essentially the birth rate needs to be tackled as a priority, but appropriately. That means voluntarily. By educating people and empowering women - especially in fecund countries like Nigeria, where there is a lack of even the most rudimentary elements of sex education and birth control – the population will drop.

1.ii. The other factor in this domain is the need to tackle our emotional addiction to spending money in order to strut our stuff. Alleviating the stresses on manufacturing and global supply chains can be achieved through local and peer-to-peer production, allocating greater resources into the circular economy, using communications and information technologies more effectively, embracing non-monetary exchange, and valuing nature for what it provides aesthetically and emotionally rather than an economic resource, will all help shift us away from the precipice of excessive consumerism and towards zero growth.

2.i. If we can identify the systems that are failing us, a forensic interrogation of those systems will quickly reveal why, what constraints in the system need to change, and how best we can achieve that. An acupuncture-like approach to whole systems design and intervention will lay bare a simple truth: in spite of what we have been taught to believe, 2nd-order change does not need to disrupt social aspirations or well-being, even though it might well disrupt, and even demolish, the old model that benefitted very few people.

2.ii. All systems are designed to work the way they do. Industrial economism, for example, is calculated to benefit the wealthy while keeping the poor in their place. Starting as a joke, the core notion of trickle-down economics was proven to be fraudulent years ago. Charities are designed to reconcile our feelings of guilt within a domain made ‘deficient’ by prevailing economic systems, rather than changing the conditions or design criteria that would obviate the need for that charity in the first place. Likewise, the industrial military complex is designed to keep war and conflict active and peace difficult to come by.

To create a new civilizational model it will be necessary to consign these and many similar schemes to history. I include among these, for example:

• The capturing of the food chain by multinational corporations that then hold farmers to ransom, sustain agrarian monocultures, and stifle innovation where it is most needed

• The marketing and sale of products from extractive industries that do not directly benefit local communities, endanger life, cause widespread environmental devastation, and poison the soil, water and air we need to sustain life on the planet

• Political systems that are corrupt, manipulative, or that deny people a voice in how they live their lives and suppress the freedoms enjoyed by others

• Devices that intentionally siphon financial capital from those who make goods and provide services by virtue of the labour to those who own or horde it

• Arrangements that knowingly perpetuate war while hindering peace.

3.i. Competitive rivalry results from conditions where a resource needed to survive becomes scarce. In markets the concept of competition can be positive. It results in lower prices and higher quality as the competing parties attempt to sell their goods. But pushing competitive behaviour recklessly into every crack and crevice of society generates a divided society with fierce envy, greed and frustration evident in one faction, alongside extreme fulfillment in the other.

There is little need for rivalry to spread into every corner of our lives in a world of true abundance. If adequate provisions are available to us all the problems of poverty and injustice will disappear. This is why some states are trialing a basic living wage for their citizens as a substitute for a raft of costly government grants, benefits and wage supplements. It is why China is attempting to put a cap on the acquisition of personal wealth with laws mandating that any additional wealth be used for social impact and community building.

3.ii. The blame game is corrosive. It fuels enmity and erects barriers that stand in the way of empathy and compassion. If we are one family, concerned with one another to the extent that the concept of what it means to be human hangs on that single thread, then blaming each other for the ills of the world is blindly ignorant and offensive. In the end we are all culpable.

It is obvious that in order to counter such alienating attitudes we need to consciously inculcate a vital sense of appreciation and diversity in our communities. That has to start with education. For it is only when we are able to stand side by side, as curators of each others’ destiny, inspired by the desire to improve one or more aspects of the human condition, that we will be able to loosen the shackles of the past to evolve a more empathic and enduring worldview.

4.i. Finally we have to deal with a legion of disillusioned, alienated and outraged individuals who for whatever reasons, only sense the futility and sterility of a future to which they cannot relate, and in which they have no sense of authentic joy in belonging. Eradicating systems that no longer benefit a majority of the human family is one thing. Engaging individuals in crafting a revitalized purpose, for themselves and the community in which they live, is quite another. It requires putting aside bigotry in order to deal with the uncomfortable realities of the world-system we have created and sustained for so long.

4.ii. Ultimately we must restore purpose and meaning in our interactions with each other, the planet, and other forms of life. In a world bereft of meaning there is little we can do apart from wallowing in self-pity and guilt – hesitant victims in a world-system we no longer want, have little to like, but lack any coherent strategy for doing anything about it.

For much of humanity the largest and most significant missing piece is that of narrative. We lack both personal and collective stories that make sense, restore hope, and concede the inescapable truth of the human condition. Our destiny story, comprising life-affirming principles, hopes and desires we can and should hold dear, is presently absent. In its place is a void, empty, dark and cold – a shriek of agony echoing into the abyss. This story is not to be found in the banal visions of our so-called leaders whose only concern, or so it seems, is to lull us into a belief that the financialization of every aspect of our lives should be our highest goal - a pitiable psalm of birth, learning, work, retirement and demise.

So swallow the blue pill. Quickly. Slouch off into the darkness and security of Plato’s cave before you awaken to the terrible agony that is today's reality. Or venture into the sunlight. Seize the opportunity to disrupt the prevalent worldview, shaping a future world-system that benefits all of humanity and gives birth to a fresh concept of the divine in all of us. What a wonderful use for disruptive innovation!