I didn't ask for all this stuff, did you?

Disruption shouldn't be a singular goal

Much of what we buy and use - the made world - has come about via disruptive innovation. Alas, all but the best of this stuff we could live without. ~JRC

Image by Dimitry Vechorko via Unsplash.

For a decade or longer, we've heard a lot about "disruption" and the culture surrounding it. (Disruptive business in Silicon Valley, the cradle of the tech revolution, is undoubtedly a cult-ure.) To succeed in such an arms race - a race to innovate for profit - one must find a niche and exploit it before someone else does. The more such innovations flip the status quo on its head, the more disruptive they are, the more lucrative they can be. 

Many idolize the ostensibly “genius leaders” who amass incredible wealth and tremendous power through disruption. As is oft said, everyone wants to be the next Steve Jobs. And so, too, with Elon Musk. (Although Musk's recent shenanigans on Twitter have raised doubt about his particular brand of "genius.") Indeed, entrepreneurs of all shades clamor to create the next big thing. But as with many products, little of it we truly need. No matter. The self-styled disruptors swoop in to push their innovations on us, unclear benefits notwithstanding. Where successful, the new shiny whatevers become mainstream, consumed by all.

---

Outside of business, disruption in many contexts is still a very bad thing. 

Disrupted sleep. Disrupted plans. Disrupted family dinners. None of these are ever a good thing. The core of what we do before disruption is the good stuff, the endeavors that give us health, fulfillment, and connection. The disruption of such things is always a net negative to be avoided at all costs. And yet, disruption continues to be praised in business because profit, not the thing, is the goal. 

In a 2020 article, Forbes Business Councils member Kevin Leyes describes disruptive practices as "the ability to move out of existing business activities to make way for the generation of new markets and to set a new standard in the face of established competition." Disruption is good business because it’s about business over everything else. Indeed, it's a time-proven way to capitalize on society. But look closely at what isn't said in this description of disruptive business - the why.

What's missing is why we create all this stuff in the first place. Instead of asking if a disruptive innovation has an intrinsic good, many innovators look primarily for returns. Instead of asking if a disruption will improve the quality of life for many, they only ask if it will be self-preserving for a few. This isn't disruptive business. It's disruptive exploitation. 

---

Without a doubt, disruptive technologies have, for ages, improved the human condition. From antibiotics to electricity, airbags to pasteurization, innovation has made things better. And it still does. But the same can't be said for most of what is made in the name of, well, in the name of nothing more than profit. 

How much of that stuff sold on TV back in the day for "$19.95 plus shipping" was ever worth it? And more recently, the tech boom and proliferation of gadgets great and small - how much of all that is making life better? Not all are disruptive innovations. Not by far. But most start out as if they one day could be, or at least their originators bill them as such.

Disruption is not simply a result for a select few innovations, but a cult following, born as much of hype as substance.

Consumer advocates tell us to steer clear of much of it; smart appliances, for example, are about the stupidest idea given their paltry reliability and abysmal longevity scores. (As a maker, I love technology, but I loath embedded tech for its unnecessary complexity.) The turnover in such devices is a never-ending string of - yes - disruptions driven by the next, newest, biggest, best, shiniest shiny thing on the market (or programmed obsolescence, whichever comes first).

---

And it's not just all the material of this gadget-centric century that's a problem. It's also the way we share and consume information through technology. Social media was initially touted as a revolutionary way to connect people in the digital age - a true disruption if there ever was one. While family and friends, isolated by actual distance, made up for it in virtual proximity, something was lost, and a new breed of disease emerged in the expanse of this digital awakening. Think “disease” is a strong word in this instance? Think again. 

Last week, the US Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, formally recommended limiting social media exposure in children thirteen and younger. He stopped short of saying so for all ages, but many other experts have said as much in recent months. The problems range from instilling poor self-image to promoting hyper-radicalization via harmful, misleading, and false content. Social media is an innovation the world could have done without but now can't seem to live without, which sounds a lot like addiction on a societal scale. 

That's the dark side of disruptive business - the exploitation of people and the creation of need where a need never actually existed. Just because something is captivating doesn't mean it is good. On the contrary, the reasons for something's creation more often tell of its value, not how much people clamor for it once it's here.

---

A disruptive innovation made for selfish gain, while not exclusive of the common good, is a red flag warning worth heading. Some such innovations are indeed of value, and pursuing new good-for-all disruptive opportunities will always be part of the solution to humanity's ills. But to ignore the scourge brought forth by disruptive exploitation is to risk inundation, and ultimate collapse, under a pile of stuff none of us ever asked for. 

---

Until next time.

JRC