Are present-day innovations not beneficial to humanity? - Sanjit's Weekly Notes #15
Sanjit Misra
Sustainability Consultant at Seven Clean Seas | Innovation | Strategy & Development
I love mobility and convenience. I would be lying if I said Netflix does not make entertainment more easily accessible to me. But, I also love going over to my favorite theatre in Singapore (Shaw Lido, Orchard) every Sunday to watch a film - any film that seems most appealing to me.
It's the environment within the walls of the theatre that most excites me. And, the fact that everyone in the theatre shares a mutual intent of just watching the content together is one of the most human-ish things out there. And, I make it a point to keep up with that tradition.
This Sunday, I walked myself into a bit of a conundrum. I had to choose between 'Avatar 2', which has garnered a lot of positive feedback, and Damien Chazelle's 'Babylon', which has been met with the exact opposite. After reading feedback for both films, this was no more a game theory simulation - I knew exactly what I needed to watch - Babylon. And, it was worth it.
Read More: I Quantified Emotions for Two Weeks?
But, I am not going to share my critique here. This is loosely related to what I watched in the film. Without spoiling it for anyone, one component of Babylon comprises the transition period from silent films in the 1920s to films with sound. They show how infuriating and puzzling that transition was for the actors and the sound technicians back then.
And, right after watching this film, I happened to read this article posted by the Financial Times, which talks about the "return of life-changing innovations". The article highlighted economist?Robert Gordon's argument of the 1920-1970 period being the last most impactful period of radical and "life-altering" innovations.
I connected Gordon's argument with what I saw in Babylon. Moving over from no sound in films to films with all kinds of sounds - today, that seems like a huge leap in science and technology. So does the introduction of the steam engine right around that timeframe.
The article then goes on to dismiss today's innovations like the introduction of social media, and delivery and logistics services. Moreover, the author states, "these innovations haven't benefitted humanity".
While I regard Financial Times as one of the better news outlets out there today, this, to me, is an entirely preposterous statement. Do I not think the introduction of the steam engine was important and conducive to a lot of the developments we see today? I do, I absolutely do.
领英推荐
Read More: I think I know how to fix Journalism
Social media has forever changed how we interact with our own kind. Some loathe social media behemoths for their addictive use cases. However, it would be simply ignorant to dismiss the fact that social media has tied the world together. Back in 2005, the thought of me speaking to someone in Spain openly for hours would have just blown my mind. The world is closer than it has ever been. Communication has become more fluid, more transparent, more auditable, and more open in general. And to say that social media hasn't benefitted humanity is just insane to me.
Perhaps, the level of importance we place on innovations of all time varies and is relative to the timescale. In Babylon, when the silent movie stars had to make extra efforts to match sound requirements during the transition stage, Margot Robbie even says out loud, "this is bulls**t". Similarly, maybe our qualms and concerns about social media are just the equivalents of the world transitioning from closed communication to open communication, and from being virtually disconnected to being virtually connected.
One hundred years from now, perhaps we will revisit the importance that we place on the origin of social media. Currently, we perceive companies like Meta and Twitter through a fairly negative lens. Will that narrative turn on itself in 2123? Time will tell.
Apart from social media, we've got something called Climate-tech today, whose entire purpose for existence is to, quite literally, help corporate behemoths make the world an actual better place to live in. Is that also not beneficial to humanity's development? All the tech developments in medicine, agriculture, mining, banking, construction, etc - are none of these beneficial to humanity?
Being unsure about the relevance, necessity, and importance of innovations in the present stage is perfectly fine because there is no way for us to recognize their future value just yet. However, being dismissive of all those that have contributed to the development of this world that we all call home could be disrespectful to those that could be eternally remembered for typing up codes in their dorm rooms that would eventually shape the world in 100 years.
That's all I have for today. Thanks for your investment into my rant for the day, and thanks for reading!