[“For everything is a solution, but whether it is the most optimal solution, that actually always remains the question. That drives innovation.
Some people think it works so: there are problems and solutions are found, preferably the most optimal solutions.Then there is progress. It sounds simple, but whether it really works like that, I dare doubt. That starts with what is considered most optimal: the cheapest? The smallest? The lightest? What is the least energy used? What is the easiest accepted by most people?
There is a lot of fundamental research, the results of which will not directly lead to an application.Also there are discoveries (or sometimes even finds) that are as it were on an application waiting. And then there is suddenly someone who connects the points and invents a product on the basis of one of those two. Innovation rarely takes place directly: from problem to optimal solution. A lot of innovation leads to non-optimal solutions. Meanwhile, there is a lot of innovation that does not succeed or is not being picked up. Horses for the boar or just not fitting, overpriced, etc.? Who knows it may say. Every innovation is different again.
Meanwhile, we also tend to take the world around us as it is and assume that ‘ ie ‘ is largely good. But that is just a thought, because who actually determines what a perfect world is?Racism was once very common; Now it’s a deviation.
That does not preclude a lot from changing, but how much and how fast, is difficult to determine.More people with more money lead to more innovation. Improved communication leads to faster dissemination of innovation.
I am thinking of a few examples.Language for example. We do not see this directly as a subject for innovation, but it is, like other utensils, subject to development. New words and concepts are emerging and old ones disappear. It is generally known that language is not optimal. There are different letters or letter combinations for the same sounds. Each language is full of irregularities. Why do we use uppercase if a point is enough to define a phrase? And-oh yes-it is of course not at all useful that so many peoples on Earth speak different languages. That hinders understanding and is an obstacle in peace, if you believe in it. High time for a good dose of innovation. And then what is no longer obvious than replacing all those languages with one new? This is also an excellent opportunity to get rid of all these irregularities. That makes a language easier to learn.
So many advantages, that has to lead to something beautiful?
With that idea, Eliezer Zamenhof went to work when he invented Esperanto.
It was not a success, although the language was well put together.Why it didn’t work? Not because there was no need for it (although the target group was at that time very small: a handful of diplomats, students and professors with international contacts and trade people). Not because one rejected the idea. Not because it wouldn’t work. Not because it was expensive. No, all the benefits seemed obvious, but it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t picked up. There were no schools that thought: Wow, this we are going to do!
Something similar happened to the explosion engine, the engine that is in every car.After his original success, further innovation continued. It is well known that ‘ IE is far from optimal and yet we continue to use ‘ em. There are millions of cars and other vehicles and vessels every year, even though they make noise, smell and air pollution and are complicated in each other, which makes maintenance expensive and takes a lot of time. However, there is a need for encrypted, over the past hundred years, but the concept is still the same: a (small) explosion pushes a cylinder down; The cylinder is attached to a crankshaft and which floats the wheels. Because of the effect of the explosion (or actually the continuous series of explosions) you are going to damn fast. Compare it to a steam engine-the direct precursor-and you understand what I mean.
The biggest problem of the explosion engine is the loss of energy and that is sin.But oil is inexpensive, so that has not been seen as a problem at the moment. But now that climate change (CO2 emissions) and the finiteness of the oil wells are throwing a soot into the food, the shortage of innovation is breaking us up.
The alternative, the electric motor, brings back its own problems: Also not clean (electricity must be generated and if that is not done sustainably, it also causes CO2 emissions), heavy batteries, filled with expensive and sometimes poisonous raw materials .And because the energy is added in steps, a lot of energy is lost here too.
And so you can still think of more situations where innovations either don’t work or linger too much without eliminating negative side effects, so you can ask yourself if a totally new concept is not to be devised.
The reaction is often: ‘ It is so. ‘ That exudes a certain defaitism.But often the harsh reality is that there is nowhere, really nowhere, anything of fundamental research that could develop a better innovation. And then it stops.
In the meantime, we know that there are still enough problems in the world and more are coming up.Humans increasingly pollute their own food and water sources and ensure a strong decline in nature. There is hardly any solution to this pollution, although it would be a solution if we simply do NOT choose it in nature. (Yes, so few innovative solutions can be sometimes.) And then there are the antibiotic resistance, the climate catastrophe, the run-up of essential raw materials such as Potassium (for fertilizer) and the relentous population growth that makes all the problems already existing more serious.
These are great questions that are expected to be great answers that can actually be solved not only by innovation, but sometimes also require legislation and international cooperation.
I observe that these problems are clearly localized and defined, and also that solutions are being put in, but they are hardly applied.Why that does not happen could lie to reasons similar to that why Esperanto failed: without precise cause. But perhaps the problem was not yet big enough or did not recognise it. Perhaps there were other unforeseen circumstances. It can also lie on reasons similar to why we still use the explosion engine: habit, or perhaps laziness.
A point that is often mentioned is lack of money.However, this is often a fallacy as a cover for other reasons. Finally, there are other things that have been spent for centuries without anyone asking why. Religion for example. Not everything is continuously tested for its usefulness.
Many problems remain until the last minute.That could be the reason that the so bitter-needed innovation comes too late or-in case it has already occurred-is not accepted. Not only man pushes problems endlessly for himself, humanity as a whole is doing it too.