Innovation at any cost The dimished invention of the lightbulb
Innovation at any cost The dimished invention of the lightbulb
A lot of people have heard the story of the light-bulb, one of the most revolutionary technologies for it's time. Imagine being in the room when the first filament bulb sparked up, and realizing you might never have to waste money or time with oil lamps or candles ever again.
Lots of jobs were going to be displaced by this. Candle, lamp oil, and lamp makers come to mind - not to mention the custodians who did this for a living. But jobs can't be displaced until an industry dictates it, either through automation or changes to the market. Someone, ideally with economic power and business prowess, will take a technology; and figure out the easiest way to maximize it's adoption. Those are the same people who (intentionally or not) "dictate" the industry they are in. It's almost like a superpower...
Until you realize most of these industry "dictators" are people who are just a bit off their measure. Thomas Edison, the "inventor" of the lightbulb - was actually a businessman who took the nice way of saying stole) and banked on other people's ideas, driving them as quickly to market as possible - with no regard to improving the technology first. Make it work, ship it fast, and ship it first.
I picked the lightbulb story specifically because of Edison. He's an unsavory character who legitimately stole took lots of ideas from people who, in my opinion, would have likely nurtured their technologies making them more efficient, or coming to the conclusion that there's a better way to do things, and that the technology should be developed more.
But that's the thing, Edison pushed technologies he "took" for no regard for their current state. Better versions of telephones, light-bulbs, electric-motors, stream turbines, and of basically everything else were developed around or shortly after these inventions were pushed to market. But people like Edison, Ford, and other stooges were always first, and that was more important to their success.
Even if one could make a better bulb than Edison's, unless it was cheaper and you had a name behind it, good luck. Designed a more efficient car than Ford's, but the engine is more expensive or slower to produce? Didn't stand a chance. Once these undeveloped technologies reached market, assuming they were cheap to produce, they became almost untouchable - except by people with absurd amounts of "luck," or an equivalent pocket size or reputation.
If first-to-market technologies can create economic giants like Edison, then these corporations that live in their shadows should have the same amount of affluence on their markets. And if they don't regard the implications of the things they send off, at least, until someone or something challenges their status (by competition or enforcement), then what does that mean for anyone who can compete?
What does this mean for the rest of us who occupy the same realms as these corporations founded on the principle of undercutting everyone else, no matter the cost?
The cost of being first to market - accountability
When you're the first to ship a technology (and to clarify, I mean, purveyors of new technologies who care more about tossing something out the door than refining it or considering it's implications): you're also the first corporation to hold the keys to a given technological kingdom. Even if you aren't directly in the business of selling a product, if you're giving people access to a technological ability nobody has the equivalent of - that's guaranteed to result in the same outcomes.
And the distinction is important. You don't have to be the first to create a new technology, you have the be the first to mass produce it. Patents aside, that's what grants you these "keys."
Every single person or entity that you sell your new technology to becomes a new path in history you've just opened up. What your customer chooses to do or implement with that given technology is obviously, and inevitably - out of your control now.
And from a lot of perspectives, this is where the argument starts, as well as ends. Many people will argue that corporations should be accountable for what customers choose to do with a product. These people desire for governments to step in and "protect the people," putting heat directly on the producing party to "make things right" (I.e pay a small fine and move on). Likewise, others will argue inversely that corporations should probably hold their customers accountable if a specific technology is used for a misaligned or unintended purpose (corporate policing anyone?)
But I'm not stopping there. I believe that both of these arguments are focusing on the wrong aspect of the problem: the "after market" of a technology. I think the real issue, is that these corporations who hold the keys to these technological kingdoms do not have the "before market" accountability.
Maybe these technological "keyholders" shouldn't have had access to the lock in the first place. If their primary concern is simply to get to the top of their respective markets as fast as possible, it's almost clear that making sure a new technology has been properly evaluated considered, and potentially retracted or replaced is out of the question.