I've been always curious about these relationship that arises when someone disrupts an existing ecosystem. I'm all for innovation,and finding ways to make thin

I've been always curious about these relationship that arises when someone disrupts an existing ecosystem. I'm all for innovation,and finding ways to make things, environments and habits, better, more efficient, safer and more intelligent. This, however, raises an interesting moral dilemma. In these ecosystems, prior to the disruptor, agents live and thrive. After the disruptor, these agents must adapt or otherwise, be gone. When you think these agents are actually human beings, with issues, dreams and families, a new variable is added to the discussion. Is it OK to disrupt an ecosystem if you find a way to make everything better? Is it moral? You found a better way, so surely it must be implemented, and there are few arguments against that. The agents in the ecosystem had almost all what was needed to find the new way, to enhance their ecosystem: time, experience, imagination. And for one motive or another, they failed to do it. What is their argument when someone else comes along and provides a better solution? I'm not trying to sound Randian or anything, but I truly believe that 'we have families to feed' or 'will lose job' is not a very good argument. Is the ecosystem supposed to be kept in the previous state just for the agenda of a subset of the agents? Under that argument, we shouldn't have cars in the first place. Nor bronze age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M) Is this a testament of the inherent cruelty (cruelty in a poetic way, just as natural selection can be thought of cruel) of the free market, or just a testament of the importance of innovation as a way of survival? Maybe both? I can't help but notice heavy analogies with Natural Selection.