Consistent with the belief in rugged individualism is the way we think of what drives innovation. The popular belief is that the development of an innovation such as the smart phone or the light bulb is contingent on the creative genius and determination of gifted individuals. It is the conditions leading up to those innovations, however, which would have ultimately have resulted in their creation, regardless of the individuals who are credited.
In the book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation American media theorist Steven Johnson writes about an idea called “the adjacent possible”. He writes that what really drives and limits possible innovation at any particular time is what already exists at that historical moment. Hence without innovative research in electricity that developed in the early 19th century, the key inventions of incandescent light, the telephone, and the refrigerator would not have been possible. Similarly, without the proliferation of steel fabrication, the mass production of automobiles also would not have been possible. More complex technologies such as television couldn’t have been realized without numerous previous breakthroughs including progress in physics, and research on radio waves and cathode ray tubes.
Once all of the necessary components are present, the next set of breakthrough technology is likely to be achieved regardless of the particular individuals who may be positioned to deliver them.
Rather than emanating from gifted individuals, key achievements which move human progress forward result from the collective contribution of every human that has ever lived. We might imagine such pivotal figures as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Guglielmo Marconi, and Philo Farnsworth, being raised and living in an environment that was outside of the influence and knowledge of their contemporary societies and then try to envision what they might have come up with. Had these pioneers not been connected to what was the adjacent possible in their time, it clearly would have prevented them from making their contributions.
Looking back at the major breakthroughs of the past 150 years such as the telephone, radio, television, and the computer there is ample reason to believe that as all of the necessary constituent components came into existence these innovations eventually would have emerged, even without the individuals to whom we attribute them.
This process may be easier to recognize looking forward. While we do not know exactly when a major leap forward will occur, we can make educated guesses about what is reasonable to expect in ten years, twenty years, and so on. We do not know who will be the parties that profit from a virtual reality generator that is fully immersive and can mimic reality with 100% verisimilitude. We can however be reasonably assured that such a break though will happen and that it will almost certainly happen within the next few decades.
If a person destined to become a multi-billionaire from their involvement in developing the software, or the hardware, or even the marketing of such a virtual reality breakthrough were to die today, long before such an achievement was realized, it would not stop such an innovation from occurring. While it could take a few extra years, or perhaps decades, sooner or later the necessary steps will be taken regardless of the individuals involved.
At various times in human history certain individuals like Thomas Edison, Guglielmo Marconi, or Steve Jobs become the proximate agents through whom countless transgenerational contributions become synthesized into something new generating unprecedented value. To think that such people individually caused these innovations is a misconception. Creating the conditions that result in ongoing innovation has been a characterizing feature of human history for thousands of years.
While tool use and technological innovation has long been a fundamental aspect of being human, for evermore rapid innovation humans had to make several profound changes to their earliest way of life. As humankind transitioned from hunter gatherer groups to settled agricultural societies the conditions necessary for ever faster technical innovation emerged. High yield crops made it possible for many more people to live in close proximity. People living close to one another facilitates the exchange of ideas. This Neolithic Revolution made possible supporting specialists who could concern themselves with innovating.
The innovations which resulted set the groundwork for all that followed — including ever improving irrigation and agricultural techniques, written language, mathematics, geometry, improved tool making, metallurgy, astronomy, and oceanic navigation.
The conditions facilitating this progress, however, came at a considerable price. For the average human being a member of a settled agricultural society meant that daily life became worse. More people crowed together and in close proximity to animals resulted in frequent incidences of infectious disease. While food supplies were more reliable for feeding a larger population than in hunter gather societies, they were highly vulnerable to crop failure due to factors like drought, and pestilence. Diets lacked diversity and caused serious nutritional deficits. For the average person the work day became longer and the work itself became repetitive and dull in a manner that hunter gatherers had not known. To most who work in the field of bio-archeology it is generally assumed that after the Neolithic Revolution overall average human health declined as did overall human height, and life expectancy.
And the problems associated with the Neolithic Revolution were only the beginning — for countless generations of our ancestors the conditions making it possible for our innovative capacity to soar came at a very high cost. Throughout our human journey danger and drudgery, have been common features of the mines, factories, distribution systems, and work places primary to the deployment of innovation.
Innovative breakthroughs are not isolated anomalous events — they are inextricably connected to all of the preceding progress essential to their inception. The environment supporting innovation has required the transgenerational, pan-regional effort of humans laboring in harsh, and often exploitive conditions.
We can therefore reasonably regard all innovation as belonging to all of humankind — our common human inheritance.
To believers in the myth of the rugged individual, any significant human progress hinges on the rare person who is both talented and highly motivated by the prospect of significant personal gain. And certainly any individual who is lucky enough to be at the right place and time and to have the necessary determinants to be regarded as an innovator deserves to be respected, admired, and financially well compensated for their contribution. But because any innovation is so contingent on everything preceding and adjacent to it, regarding it as the product and sole property of any one individual, specific group of individuals, entity, or entities is unjustified.
There are better ways to support innovation than dangling the prospect of limitless reward for a fortunate few. If a significant portion of the profits from new innovations were directed toward benefiting the general public — providing more resources for better schools, libraries, nutrition, housing, and healthcare, along with a universal basic income, vast amounts of unrealized human potential would activated. Once we accomplish this goal we will expand the boundaries of ever-greater innovation, receiving contributions from our entire human gene pool.