{"id":28187,"date":"2014-10-09T08:30:52","date_gmt":"2014-10-09T12:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=28187"},"modified":"2014-10-09T08:32:15","modified_gmt":"2014-10-09T12:32:15","slug":"political-barriers-make-it-harder-to-innovate-with-atoms-than-with-bits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2014\/10\/09\/political-barriers-make-it-harder-to-innovate-with-atoms-than-with-bits\/","title":{"rendered":"“Political barriers make it harder to innovate with atoms than with bits”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Virginia Postrel<\/a> on the barriers that slow down — or completely stop — innovation in far too many non-digital fields:<\/p>\n

… I sympathize with science-fiction writer Neal Stephenson and venture-capitalist Peter Thiel, whose new books lament the demise of grand 20th-century dreams and the optimistic culture they expressed. \u201cI worry that our inability to match the achievements of the 1960s space program might be symptomatic of a general failure of our society to get big things done,\u201d writes Stephenson in the preface to Hieroglyph<\/em><\/a>, a science-fiction anthology hoping \u201cto rekindle grand technological ambitions through the power of storytelling.\u201d In Zero to One<\/em><\/a>, a book mostly about startups, Thiel makes the argument that \u201cwe have to find our way back to a definite future, and the Western world needs nothing short of a cultural revolution to do it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Their concerns about technological malaise are reasonable. As I\u2019ve written here before<\/a>, \u201cpolitical barriers have in fact made it harder to innovate with atoms than with bits.\u201d It\u2019s depressing to see just about any positive development — a dramatic decline in the need for blood transfusions, for instance<\/a> — greeted with gloom. (\u201cThe trend is wreaking havoc in the blood bank business, forcing a wave of mergers and job cutbacks.\u201d)<\/p>\n

When a report about how ground-penetrating radar has mapped huge undiscovered areas of Stonehenge immediately provokes a comment wondering whether the radar endangers the landscape, something has gone seriously wrong with our sense of wonder. \u201cThere\u2019s an automatic perception … that everything\u2019s dangerous,\u201d Stephenson mused<\/a> at a recent event in Los Angeles, citing the Stonehenge example, \u201cand that there\u2019s some cosmic balance at work — that if there\u2019s an advance somewhere it must have a terrible cost. That\u2019s a hard thing to fix, but I think that if we had some more interesting Apollo-like projects or big successes we could point to it might lift that burden that is on people\u2019s minds.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Postrel argues that Stephenson’s fix would not work, and that our nostalgia for the early days of the Space Age blind us to the reality that most Americans in that era did not believe that the money for the Apollo missions was well spent (with the brief exception of July, 1969). She makes the point that our culture has changed significantly and those attitudinal changes are much more of the reason for today’s hesitancy and doubt about progress:<\/p>\n

We already have plenty of critics telling us that our creativity and effort are for naught, our pleasures and desires absurd, our civilization wicked and destructive. We live in a culture where condemnatory phrases like \u201cthe ecosystems we\u2019ve broken<\/a>\u201d are throwaway lines, and the top-grossing movie of all time<\/a> is a heavy-handed science-fiction parable<\/a> about the evils of technology and exploration. We don\u2019t need Neal Stephenson piling on.<\/p>\n

The reason mid-20th-century Americans were optimistic about the future wasn\u2019t that science-fiction writers told cool stories about space travel. Science-fiction glamour in fact worked on only a small slice of the public. (Nobody else in my kindergarten was grabbing for You Will Go to the Moon<\/em>.) People believed the future would be better than the present because they believed the present was better than the past.<\/strong> They constantly heard stories — not speculative, futuristic stories but news stories, fashion stories, real-estate stories, medical stories — that reinforced this belief. They remembered epidemics and rejoiced in vaccines and wonder drugs. They looked back on crowded urban walk-ups and appreciated neat suburban homes. They recalled ironing on sweaty summer days and celebrated air conditioning and wash-and-wear fabrics. They marveled at tiny transistor radios and dreamed of going on airplane trips.<\/p>\n

Then the stories changed. For good reasons and bad, more and more Americans stopped believing in what they had once viewed as progress. Plastics became a punch line<\/a>, convenience foods ridiculous, nature the standard<\/a> of all things right and good. Freeways destroyed neighborhoods. Urban renewal<\/a> replaced them with forbidding Brutalist plazas. New subdivisions represented a threat to the landscape<\/a> rather than the promise of the good life. Too-fast airplanes produced window-rattling sonic booms<\/a>. Insecticides harmed eagles\u2019 eggs<\/a>. Exploration meant conquest and brutal exploitation. Little by little, the number of modern offenses grew until we found ourselves in a 21st century where some of the most educated, affluent and cultural influentially people in the country are terrified<\/a> of vaccinating their children. Nothing good, they\u2019ve come to think, comes from disturbing nature.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Emphasis mine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Virginia Postrel on the barriers that slow down — or completely stop — innovation in far too many non-digital fields: … I sympathize with science-fiction writer Neal Stephenson and venture-capitalist Peter Thiel, whose new books lament the demise of grand 20th-century dreams and the optimistic culture they expressed. \u201cI worry that our inability to match […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,9,15],"tags":[262,140,174,661,85],"class_list":["post-28187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucracy","category-law","category-technology","tag-culture","tag-design","tag-innovation","tag-regulation","tag-sf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-7kD","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28187"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28187\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28190,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28187\/revisions\/28190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}