Thought-Provoker: does Capitalism always drive effective innovation?

In a word, NO. In a Capitalist economy, the commercial interests of individuals, groups and businesses, can actually drive competing innovation that might increase societal and technological complexity, but not lead to an effective outcome.

Take for example the ubiquitous home computing gadgetry that westerners are forced to purchase in order to function in today's world. By this I mean that more and more of what we need to do requires some type of computing or online presence.

Individuals and business entities/groups the world over are in fierce competition to manufacture computer hardware, software and services for profit. This results in a gamut of complex, yet, incompatible products and services making their way into the market place for the unwary consumer. Contrast this with a social and economic model that might task a single, select group of savvy and qualified individuals with the goal of creating and manufacturing the computing products. In this case hardware, software and services would all work in synchrony, resulting in a much more effective product. Any technological problems would also be much easier to identify given that consumers are using almost identical products.

For another example, lets turn now to the research environment. Specifically, lets focus for the moment on biomedical research looking at Alzheimer's Disease causing dementia (Alzheimer's Dementia is a consequence of Alzheimer's Disease). Symptoms include memory loss, confusion, and unpleasant behavioral changes in people. Note that although I've selected Alzheimer's research as the example, the following is not an uncommon occurrence in research generally.

Research groups the world over are busy researching ways to understand and curb the advance of Alzheimer's. But because of vested interests (the need to make money) and the fierce competition for research funding, these groups are often competing with one another. Therefore, there is little transfer or sharing of important information until it's formally published in a journal. This is very unfortunate as it severely undermines the capacity of these groups to achieve the focal aim. Instead, they are merely working on the immediate and isolated project aims, instead of working together toward the common goal.

Now enter a social and economic model that encourages information sharing by having a unifying body that tasks groups according to respective resources and expertise. This way, research work is not being duplicated and is best allowed to serve purpose. No doubt a much more efficient way forward in understanding the Alzheimer's problem.

Are changes such as these likely to be made? Returning now to the opening sentence of this blog---in a word, NO.

Capitalism and commodification forcing vested economic interests and, therefore, less than functional innovation, are here to stay.