Unbridled innovation, implosions and slow-motion catastrophes

Over the last week we have witnessed the unfortunate events aboard Titan, the undersea exploration vessel that imploded, presumably because of massive water pressure as it descended towards the Titanic.

Oceangate, the company that designed and operated the submersible, deliberately avoided regulatory processes designed to ensure that submersible innovations are safe.

According to Oceangate , the classing process (i.e. the process that tests submersibles and assesses their operating limits) slows down development and acts as a drag on innovation: “Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation,” it said.

Similarly, our current infatuation with social and economic innovation may be propelling us towards social and environmental implosion, slow-motion catastrophes that also stem from moving fast, breaking things, and avoiding regulation at any cost.

But whilst Oceangate (and others directly involved) directly bear the consequences of their (too rapid) technical innovation, those who drive social and economic innovation can move forward with impunity: costs are borne by others, whilst benefits are concentrated in their hands.

The value of slowing down submersible innovation is obvious

The submersible’s failure, whilst tragic, is incontrovertible and immediate. An investigation will occur, lessons will be learned, and the same mistakes (hopefully) won’t be made again.

Furthermore, the value of regulation, of slowing down innovation and carefully considering its advantages and risks, has been made obvious for submarines.

What about slowing down social and economic innovation?

The Ubers, Metas, Googles, AirBnBs, Ciscos, Amazons of this world also like to “move fast and break things”. They are also impatient with anything that may crimp their capacity to innovate and disrupt.

Furthermore, their failures are neither immediate nor catastrophic. Their failures are slow, insidious, and largely irreversible.

The unfortunate effets of social media, the gig economy, unregulated platforms, etc… on society are visible: people die, livelihoods are lost, working conditions deteriorate, facts dissolve and polarization prevails. Yet very little is done to meaningfully regulate these innovations: we hide behind the fig-leaves of market processes and of innovations’ presumed inevitability.

However, just as rapid submersible innovation should be slowed, so should social and economic innovation. This would allow for more careful assessment of their short- and long-term costs and benefits. This would also acknowledge that there is no such thing as a “private” innovation: when innovation’s consequences spread beyond the innovators’ private sphere, externalities are imposed on others, and valuable social norms and institutions are dismantled without debate or thought.

Since this dismantling is not immediately catastrophic, and since deaths (through civil unrest and fanning of extremes), loss of human rights (as employment law, for instance, is ignored), and poverty (gig work, human Mechanical Turks…) are not directly attributable to specific innovations, then this slow implosion is tolerated.

Shoving innovation off its pedestal

Innovation in-and-of itself is not inherently desirable; nor is it undesirable.

Some innovation is widely beneficial, whereas other innovation is essentially destructive, only serving the interests of those who propel it.

As a society – hopefully by way of our politics and sensible deliberation (!) – we should quell our infatuation with innovation. There are increasing (though still muted) calls to more carefully assess the consequences of change. There is no simple way of doing this – it requires debate, persuasion, thoughtfulness, and a bias towards caution.

For the time being, innovation is typically considered successful if it makes a short-term profit for those who own rights to it, wider consequences be damned.