I just did a fireside chat with Stanford President John Hennessy and Eric Schmidt (who is now on his was to LA to announce the Android music deal).
Brilliant minds with a similar longing for a respect for data and truth.
Here are some of the questions I prepared that we did not get to as even bigger issues loomed in their minds:
On the topic of meaningful innovation — where does it come from, how can we foster it, what can we learn over time about the process of innovation vs. the product of innovation (e.g., tuning the parameters of communication and team size vs. target setting and visionary leadership).
The topics could naturally turn to globalization and competitiveness – the fractal fates of people, companies and nations. Do they embrace the primary vectors of change and growth or retreat to atavistic comforts? For how long can someone opt out of progress and still catch up? In an era of exponential change, the sea change of history has become the drumbeat of decades… with a ever-quickening cadence.
I am personally very interested in the dynamics of accelerating technological change and the societal implications on the education imperative (and adult reeducation imperative, as careers no longer last a lifetime) and the rich-poor gap in modern economies like the U.S. (network effects -> power law in income distribution).
I am also interested in disruptive entrepreneurship, the change agents of society. To the extent that all good ideas are a combinations of prior ideas (Stuart Kauffman, Matt Ridley, Kevin Kelly), the combinatorial explosion of possibility space may explain accelerating change, and the disruptive power of interdisciplinary idea-pairings could be compared to the differential immunity of epidemiology (islands of cognitive isolation — a.k.a. academic disciplines — are vulnerable to disruptive memes much like South America was to smallpox from Cortés and the Conquistadors). If disruption is what you seek, cognitive island-hopping is good place to start, mining the interstices between academic disciplines.
When we consider the combinatorial explosion of possibly interacting ideas as the fountainhead of innovation, it not only creates the economy and explains accelerating change, it also subsumes biological evolution (raising the primary vector of progress to a higher level of abstraction) and nurtures a rational optimism for the future.
And some quotes form my talk this morning:
“All technologies are combinations of technologies that already exist.” — Brian Arthur
• Combinatorial Explosion (explains accelerating change in technology)
• Creates Economy
“Science quickly became the greatest tool for making new things the world has ever seen. Science was in fact a superior method for a culture to learn.” — Kevin Kelly
“The average standard of living in London went up 50% from the time of Pericles to 1820.It went up another 50% in one lifespan from 1820 to 1865, and we saw the power of the Industrial Revolution.And now, the standard of living goes up 50% every five years in China.” — Larry Summers
“Throughout history, the engine of human progress has been the meeting and mating of ideas to make new ideas. It is our habit of trade, idea-sharing and specialization that has created the collective enterprise which set human living standards on a rising trend. The human race will prosper mightily in the years ahead, because ideas are having sex with each other as never before.” — Matt Ridley
• Urbanization (cities are more innovative per capita)
• Interdisciplinary Disruption (differential immunity is a benefit for disruptors)
• Globalization (global idea sex facilitated by the Internet. Unveiling pockets of isolation)
“Computing is undergoing the most remarkable transformation since the invention of the PC. The innovation of the next decade is going to outstrip the innovation of the past three combined.”
– Intel CEO Paul Otellini, Sept. ‘11
Leave a Reply