4 ms·

Is Innovation in Human Nature? (2016)

21 points by luu 5y ago

DarylZero 5y ago
This is pretty wrong. Innovation is in human nature the same way that flying is in the animal natures of birds. The question is equivalent to asking whether the human brain is a vestigial organ, like the wing of an ostrich -- absurd. The industrial revolution didn't constitute the introduction of innovation to human behavior. All humans in all time periods innovated in order to adapt to novel environments. All human environments since pre-history have been novel environments relative to human genetic instinctual behavior, and even relative to the immediately preceding generation of humans, which was usually smaller in population, less organized, and less developed. The industrial revolution was made possible by technological and scientific prerequisites accumulated over centuries. Ob. Betteridge's Law.
- powerapple 5y ago
  so it is a result of evolution. I see innovation as a bug introduced randomly. In theory, we shouldn't pursue things do not exist already. Picking up known fruits is a good choice, try a random unknown fruit is a bad choice, but the result can be powerful. Innovation is probably the same.
  - max002 5y ago
    We have taste receptors and smell, evolution gave them to us so we can taste a bit and spit it out :)
wombatmobile 5y ago
> Their implicit claim is that, other than in mid-eighteenth century Britain, save for a few short-lived cases, choosing innovation was simply just not worth it. When I studied the industrial revolution at university, in a course on international trade, we began with the questions of why it occurred where it did, when it did. Short answer: a series of strong agricultural decades created a surplus large enough to allow a pool of Labor to mobilise away from agriculture, which hitherto had occupied 98% of the workforce. It’s not that those 98% of workers weren’t as imaginative and innovative as, for example, the people YCombinator funds today. It’s just that being serfs limited their opportunities for expression.
- someguydave 5y ago
  How did lack of agricultural surplus prevent someone from coming up with a better way to weave?
  - e9 5y ago
    You need free time to come up with it
    - someguydave 5y ago
      all of humanity was so close to the verge of starvation for millennia that they couldn’t arrange some wood and string to make weaving way more efficient (and thereby make themselves fat and happy)? this idea seems unlikely.
      - e9 5y ago
        If you had to do hard physical labor every day from dawn to dusk and then deal with family of probably 5+ children, do you really want to spend your limited free time working on improving anything?
max002 5y ago
I thought its really weird question lol i mean... Do you know the great invention of wheel? I mean its really smashing one and you can believe when i say it wasnt invented for lolz xD P.s. Come on man/girl... We're still far away from 1st april :D

21 points by luu 5y ago

This is pretty wrong. Innovation is in human nature the same way that flying is in the animal natures of birds. The question is equivalent to asking whether the human brain is a vestigial organ, like the wing of an ostrich -- absurd. The industrial revolution didn't constitute the introduction of innovation to human behavior. All humans in all time periods innovated in order to adapt to novel environments. All human environments since pre-history have been novel environments relative to human genetic instinctual behavior, and even relative to the immediately preceding generation of humans, which was usually smaller in population, less organized, and less developed. The industrial revolution was made possible by technological and scientific prerequisites accumulated over centuries. Ob. Betteridge's Law.

powerapple 5y ago
so it is a result of evolution. I see innovation as a bug introduced randomly. In theory, we shouldn't pursue things do not exist already. Picking up known fruits is a good choice, try a random unknown fruit is a bad choice, but the result can be powerful. Innovation is probably the same.
- max002 5y ago
  We have taste receptors and smell, evolution gave them to us so we can taste a bit and spit it out :)

wombatmobile 5y ago

> Their implicit claim is that, other than in mid-eighteenth century Britain, save for a few short-lived cases, choosing innovation was simply just not worth it. When I studied the industrial revolution at university, in a course on international trade, we began with the questions of why it occurred where it did, when it did. Short answer: a series of strong agricultural decades created a surplus large enough to allow a pool of Labor to mobilise away from agriculture, which hitherto had occupied 98% of the workforce. It’s not that those 98% of workers weren’t as imaginative and innovative as, for example, the people YCombinator funds today. It’s just that being serfs limited their opportunities for expression.

someguydave 5y ago
How did lack of agricultural surplus prevent someone from coming up with a better way to weave?
- e9 5y ago
  You need free time to come up with it
  - someguydave 5y ago
    all of humanity was so close to the verge of starvation for millennia that they couldn’t arrange some wood and string to make weaving way more efficient (and thereby make themselves fat and happy)? this idea seems unlikely.
    - e9 5y ago
      If you had to do hard physical labor every day from dawn to dusk and then deal with family of probably 5+ children, do you really want to spend your limited free time working on improving anything?

max002 5y ago

I thought its really weird question lol i mean... Do you know the great invention of wheel? I mean its really smashing one and you can believe when i say it wasnt invented for lolz xD P.s. Come on man/girl... We're still far away from 1st april :D