If an inferior product/technology/way of doing things can sometimes “lock in” the market, does that make network effects more about luck, or strategy? It’s not really locked in though, since over and over again the next big thing comes along. So what does that mean for companies and industries that want to make the new technology shift? And where does competitive advantage even come from when everyone has access to the same building blocks of innovation?
This is a wide-ranging conversation
on the history of technology (mainly in Silicon Valley) and the subsequent impact on society. If you’re interested in technology in a general sense, rather than specific applications or platforms, then this is a great conversation that gets into the deeper implications of technology at a fundamental level.
This weekend I came across an interesting TED talk by Steven Pinker, where he identifies a decreasing trend in violence, which is somewhat surprising when you think about how violent the world is. He supports the idea with some examples which seem reasonable, although some of the comments highlight that the evidence seems to have been purposively selected to make the point.
After watching the video I found this EDGE essay, also by Steven Pinker, on the declining levels of violence in society as a trend over time. Pinker is not just talking about the magnitude of death as a percentage of the total population but also the general prevalence of cruelty (and the social acceptance of cruelty) in society. He suggests that recent examples of abuse and torture are evidence of how high our standards have risen, rather than how low our behaviour has sunk.
The last thing I read on the topic was this alternative perspective from Christian Davenport on the idea that violence is decreasing. Davenport suggests that the form of violence is simply changing, especially where government is concerned. He argues that the threat of violence is still present, but that it is simply more subtle and implicit.
While I agree that it’s a difficult argument to make considering the lack of real evidence the further back in time we go. The bible is an example of a historical record that, while useful, is definitely limited. However, while I do think that Pinker is probably guilty of cherry picking some of his data to support the conclusion, I do think that he makes a valid point. Maybe it’s just because I want to believe that, as a species, we’re not completely stuffing things up for our children.
Update: Here’s another link to an article in The Guardian, discussing Pinker’s latest book “The better angels of our nature”