by Ned L. Harvey, via Rocky Mountain Institute
Over the weekend I read a blog post by author Nicholas Carr describing what he calls the hierarchy of innovation.
Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about innovation, especially about how it might spread through the global energy system. I’m especially interested in how entrepreneurs and new technologies may create disruptive innovation within the system and what that’s likely to look like.
Carr’s blog is a little off that topic, but it did get me thinking about the underlying drivers of innovation. The article is essentially an attempt to explain and to some extent lament what he and others perceive as stagnation in innovation in the last century. Carr describes what he refers to as the Hierarchy of Innovation, which is loosely analogous to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. As Carr puts it:
“The focus, or emphasis, of innovation moves up through five stages, propelled by shifts in the needs we seek to fulfill. In the beginning come Technologies of Survival (think fire), then Technologies of Social Organization (think cathedral), then Technologies of Prosperity (think steam engine), then technologies of leisure (think TV), and finally Technologies of the Self (think Facebook, or Prozac).”
I’m OK with the hierarchy concept and think it’s a fine first-order mechanism to understand the underlying social values driving innovation at any given stage in civil development.
However, I think much deeper drivers are worth considering. Obviously, the one with which I’m most familiar relates to the ability of a civilization to harness energy to drive the economic wealth and ultimately wealthy lifestyles, which push them up what I’ll call Carr’s first-order innovation pyramid.
Most of the 19th and early 20th century innovations highlighted in the article relate directly to or result directly from a radical revolution in humankind’s ability to harness energy for its own benefit. Prior to the industrial revolution, energy for economic production came primarily from livestock and human labor. By the mid-19th century, Western civilization was pushing on the very capacity of those energy-producing technologies to sustain the economic growth and wealth creation demanded by its societies, setting the stage for the Industrial Revolution.
With the Industrial Revolution, humankind harnessed the power of fossil fuels and unleashed an entirely new paradigm of production and economic wealth generation. This created the energy production “headroom” that set the stage for the massive change in human capabilities in the early to mid-20th century. In fact and quite literally, without the energy technologies and production capacity we developed 100-150 years ago, we never could have escaped the bounds of Earth and started our exploration of the solar system. However, sometime mid-century as we achieved new heights of global economic prosperity, we stopped innovating on energy and moved up Carr’s innovation hierarchy to focus on leisure and self.
Presently, 125 years later, civilization is still reliant on the core energy production technologies created in the Industrial Revolution. Economies with the mastery and control of those technologies enjoy almost unlimited access to abundant and cheap energy, and it is in those societies that we see the shift in innovation so lamented by Carr in his article.
Yet the current energy paradigm, not so unlike the one based on livestock and human power, is fundamentally based on commodity fuels and highly fragmented production and distribution industries that can be owned and controlled (usually to their own benefit) by anyone with the resources and power to do to so. As such, the paradigm is defined by energy haves and have-nots; and the energy have-nots are consistently plagued by crushing poverty and disease. This disparity is growing rapidly. On a global basis, this imbalance is likely coming to a critical point, and, like the mid-19th century, the stage is formally set for another innovation in energy production, one that frees us from the burdens and challenges of fossil fuels and unleashes another unprecedented transformation in economies and ultimately the human condition.
So in the end, I’m still left pondering innovation in the energy system. I can’t help remembering the grade school axiom that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Carr’s pyramid is interesting and maybe a cynical comment on the modern developed world, but to me its not that complicated. If he and his peers want to refocus innovative energy on Technologies of Prosperity, their time may be better served by exploring the deeper issues than simply describing the problem.
Ned L. Harvey is the Chief Operating Officer of the Rocky Mountain Institute. This piece was originally published at RMI’s Outlet blog and was reprinted with permission.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Unfortunately, for an energy starved world dependent on cheap available fossil fuels there are no real substitutes that pack the same energy density and can be as easily utilized.
We are poised to use many alternatives, of which, none appear to be cost effective enough to sustain our planet’s present growth.
Ok, so let’s deal with this ‘innovations need’ nonsense
The industrial revolution didn’t happen because the force of population demand made it so. It was the exact reverse of that. It kicked off in 1709, not the mid 19th century by the way.
Fire: Millions of neanderthals weren’t sitting around shivering, saying, “hey we need fire why don’t we invent a way of controlling it. Controlled fire came about through guys making stone tools, using a sheepskin or grass as a lap cushion. Sparks ignite the grass or sheepskin and pretty soon somebody figures out how to make fire at will.
The Steam engine: the first practical steam engines were built solely to pump water out of coalmines. We didn’t have millions of people standing around on railway stations waiting for it to be invented.
Once deep coal could be accessed, you could build even bigger steam engines, and drill oilwells, releasing still more energy to boost world population.
While there might have been a million years between controlling fire and putting it under a steam engine, nobody ‘invented’ energy, only changed it from one form to another.
None of the artifacts used to create our civilisation could have been ‘invented’ without access to colossal amounts of controlled heat.
In order to survive, humanity must burn energy at an ever increasing rate. The invention of TV or prozac (and a million other things) does not do that, and so have nothing to do with our ‘invention/survival’ situation. They are merely luxuries.
We are facing disaster because we are ‘waiting around’ for someone to come up with the next big idea; unfortunately no life supporting ‘idea’ can function without core energy input . Watching TV and swallowing prozac might make starvation seem unimportant but it won’t change the end result.
And once those fossil energy profits started flowing and the pollution started to become obvious, London fog, poisoned rivers, et. al., man passed laws to limit the worst of the pollution. Fossil responded by buying the court system, lobbying politicians, re-writing Laws, paying off inspectors, influencing media, buying complete media outlets, etc., to enhance those profits. All dependent on the ability to pollute the commons. Yes they even spent a bit of money to clean the worst, under duress, and dilute the remainder. They bought and continue to buy “scientist” to relabel what is clearly pollution, as a natural life process and good for trees and growth. Red herrings all. All to increase the GDP, which is first tapped by the few at the top, with a little for the masses to keep the lie alive, and the masses confused. Finally arriving at a point where money can now “vote”! Capitalism and Corporations, for the most part, are totally dependent on free or low cost pollution of the commons. How many times have you heard: “We can’t hurt the GDP!”or some variation there of. ALL FUNDED BY POLLUTION OF THE COMMONS! A failed paradigm of the first order…
I don’t understand why there are no modular vertical axis wind turbines for the home market. Make them out of plastic and allow them to be stacked on on top of the other and also in a 2D grid and you can maximize efficiency per unit of land. This could theoretically lower costs to below $1/watt. Also, these things should work out of the box. They need to have a long power strip that people can plug things into or a detachable battery. I think that might get a lot more people to convert to renewables.
Change is something inevitable; we cannot stop it. Change is something fuelled by the needs and wants of the people. We allow change to occur, and without us change will be of less importance. Our desires, needs, and everything we do affects our environment. Those things invoke change.
The “Hierarchy of Innovation” as mentioned by Nicholas Carr is: “Technologies of Survival (think fire), then Technologies of Social Organization (think cathedral), then Technologies of Prosperity (think steam engine), then technologies of leisure (think TV), and finally Technologies of the Self (think Facebook, or Prozac).”
In the early days, energy was indeed fuelled by manpower. There was no such thing as forklifts and cranes during the early days. Cathedrals and buildings were built by the need of men to socialize, and because of that need, they found a way to exploit the energy within them. The need to socialize became their drive, their motivation; it allowed the people to use up their own energy. As time passed, the need for a greater source of energy became evident, man became tired and innovations became more complex. Imagine having a large ship that travels with pure manpower, it is impossible for that to occur. Some may argue that yes it is possible, but the people within the boat will reach their destinations in years instead of mere days. It became impractical, and that is why people looked for a source of energy that could help them in their quest for greatness. The desires of man for power and wealth prompted the discovery of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel is cheap, easy to get, and easy to use. Fossil fuels allowed man to reach new heights and escape boundaries that we were once enclosed in.
Fossil fuel became one of the top commodity items and those possessing it became wealthy, and those without it suffer. For some unknown reason, we are still relying on fossil fuels. Our dreams for man grow, but our main energy source slowly depletes. As our dreams grow, we also need to constantly improve everything, and that includes the energy industry. We need to find a substitute for the fossil fuel; we need to find a larger, unlimited source, something that nature freely offers, and these are solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and others. Countries that are deprived of fossil fuel should start investing on non-renewable energy. Non-renewable sources of energy may be somewhat expensive, but they will have a great return in the future. It is like investing on a company that just started, and you know that it will surely succeed. The returns you will have are far greater than what you invested. The countries which don’t possess a readily available source fossil fuel should not go behind the shadows of countries with an abundance of fossil fuels. They should start finding ways to overtake them and move in front of them through the use of renewable sources of energy. They shouldn’t think of the use of fossil fuel as a norm, because if they do, then they will always end up behind the shadows of great countries who constantly find ways to improve in every aspect.
As our aspirations and wants become larger; we should also find ways to broaden the horizon of the energy industry, because everything we do today uses energy.