Innovators

My name is Fred and I am an innovator. I have innovated for close to 10 years. It has impacted my family, my friends, my personal life and my employees. I have not innovated for 40 days [applause]…

Anonymous Mindless Innovators, might be the next twelve step program out there. We are currently more interested in what we can innovate, rather than looking on how to best use, what we have or how to lessen the impact on our planet. Especially in the technology world.

Interesting part is that multiple technologies, that would actually improve something in our lives, are either suppressed or plain ignored/ridiculed, like secrecy-ordered technologies by US government, abiotic oil theory (probably because it wasn’t American) or biophoton detectors.

What is important in innovation today? First being seen as an innovator. There are probably millions of dollars pumped from technology industry to psychiatric/psychology industry for the stressed CTO’s and developers, that need motivation, to continuously innovate. It does not even matter, there is no need to innovate, from the end consumer.

Why the push? We need to sell. There is only business background to most of the innovation being introduced in the world. Monetising the invention is more important, than any potential benefits or environmental costs.

We pray to our innovation god, to produce and sell faster, also to support another god – ‘economic growth’. This is nicely pointed here. As every god, these have their negative counterparts.

Growth that leads to environmental damage may lower the sustainable rate of growth. Examples include the destruction of rain forests through deforestation, the over-exploitation of fish stocks and loss of natural habitat and bio-diversity from the construction of new roads, hotels, malls and industrial estates.

For technology, we usually think on how faster can I access data, what else can it do for me, or how much k’s I can add to my screen resolution? We don’t think about data centres consuming energy like small to mid sized cities.  Or that increasing internet availability, causes 1.5 gigaton of green-house gasses emissions. The biggest innovations in this area, mainly support multitude of social platforms (see my post on Loneliness) or quality internet porn (30 percent of Internet content is porn).

What are the end results of innovation employed this way? If you look at the software world, you will have multiple ‘innovation projects’. This can be easily pictured, by the scale of budgets, the world’s companies spend on R&D. Most of the numerous, massive R&D teams are out there, just to keep on innovating, so they can sell more. But there is a dark side to it.

I have not found a study on how much money goes to waste. I doubt, I would find one, even if I tried. In the end, it would be transparent reporting on unnecessary cost. To picture it, try imagining you are in place of a CTO. You have a budget and business pressure to reduce it. Let’s say you have 500 people working for you. Would you ever report 50% of your cost is avoidable and you potentially could lay off 250 people? No. You will say it was spent on innovation. From my experience it is.

While we talk on this innovation, there is usually no other goal to innovation, than to sell more. If you object to this statement – stop being stressed, if Tesla equity takes a dump again.

The environmental impact is usually not mentioned at all. Why worry stakeholders and the general public? So they would stop buying our products?

In this respect we innovate, by artificially creating demand (whether it is internal or external customer), to support economic growth, while defending and hiding the ever-growing waste cost. And you need to over-produce on waste, to be able to sustain economic growth (99% of what we buy is trashed on average within 6 months).

From this perspective, drive for technology innovation, I define as a dangerous religion. Like Apple. If you don’t follow it, people will laugh at you, point fingers at you and say they don’t understand you.

Can there be actual environmental factors, that push our brains to expect faster, better, useless innovation? The interesting point is, there can be.

There are very insightful books by Dr Becker and Dr Marino. They have pioneered in the effects of artificial electromagnetic fields on biological organisms. They proved one point. Even if there is an ongoing discussion on negative health impact from human-made EMF, the fact is, they can have impact on biological organisms. Other examples, can be found anywhere. Like this pub-med publication on ELF (extremely-low-frequency) EMF. […]Exposure to nonthermal RF radiation has been reported to influence the electroencephalograms (EEGs) of cats[…]

The one factor for most of the innovation in technology world, is that it is all connected to electromagnetism. And when I say electromagnetism, the spectrum includes visible, infrared and ultra-violet spectrum of light. All in non-ionising range on non-thermal levels.

I have asked an open question in the past. It was in one of my philosophy thesis, during my university education. We are developing as a society, but from within our development process, we can’t easily establish, whether the direction we are heading to is positive or negative. With my current understanding of technological development and innovation, I would say, we are certainly heading into the negative.

Multiple neurological disorders are on the rise. They can be linked to the increase of the use of technology. Examples here and here (Based on an analysis of the death certificates, it was found that among people professionally exposed to electro-magnetic fields (e.g. power plant operators) there is higher ratio of death because of neurodegenerative diseases than in other professional groups). The quote might be about power-plant operators, but nowadays we are all exposed, whether we like it or not.

Can we then create a thesis that continuous, reckless innovation, without thinking on the real cost of innovation, is a threat to humanity? In my opinion it is.

To conclude. I stopped thinking on ‘innovation’ in the technology world. We have more than enough to satisfy our day-to-day needs. We should start thinking on innovation that tackles the problems of the existing innovation. In other words how to reduce innovation and start thinking on the dark effects, the technological revolution has created. We should also start thinking on how to be non-innovators, but more like people, who think on environmental impact of the innovation and whether all should be solved, by radiation-based technologies.

Environmental degradation is a growing concern as continued industrialisation is being witnessed mostly in developed countries. There are three major negative impacts of technology on environment discussed in this essay. First, environmental pollution resulting from waste output is a resultant factor of technology. Contribution to global warming is the second effect of the growing technology. Lastly, depletion of natural resources and ecological imbalances experienced today result from technology. [Link]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s