How should we think about innovation, progress, and new technologies? The prevailing idea is that newer, faster, and more efficient technologies inevitably replace or displace what came before. However, this perspective overlooks a crucial point. Historian Daniel J. Boorstin (1914-2004) challenged this view, coining the term “Displacive Fallacy” to refute the false belief that new technologies completely eradicate their predecessors. Boorstin argued that, rather than replacing older technologies, innovations often complement and add to them.
When television emerged, many predicted the demise of radio. Yet, radio continues to thrive alongside television, each serving unique purposes. Similarly, the advent of recorded music was feared to signal the end of live performances. Today, however, tens of thousands of people flock to live concerts, drawn by the irreplaceable experience that recorded music simply cannot replicate.
The automobile, too, was expected to render the bicycle obsolete. Yet, bicycles remain popular worldwide, not just as a means of transportation but also as a source of recreation and exercise. And what about printed books? With the rise of e-readers like Kindle, many predicted the end of physical books. Yet, printed books continue to hold their ground, cherished by readers who value the tactile experience and the permanence they offer.
Innovation, in fact, adds to the field of human wealth. Each new technology builds upon the old, expanding the options available to us and enriching our lives in ways we might not have anticipated.
This is a breath of fresh, rational air—a reminder that progress does not come at the expense of the past but enhances it.
Carl B. Barney
8/12/2024
Carl, so true! When I was a middle-manager at a railroad headquartered in San Francisco, just after the beginning of the “personal computer” wave, I suggested to management that we purchase a dozen personal computers with word processing and spreadsheet programs, and scatter them through the various “bureaus” as see what happened. (Amazingly, my suggestion was implemented.) Within a few weeks, various adventurous individuals had used the new tools to improve productivity and devise more efficient means for developing and presenting information. By the next year, the company was buying many more personal computers. I should note that the company was very advanced in its use of main frame data processing, so (perhaps) there was more openness to such ideas than I had expected. Of course, the railroad itself, 100 years previously, had been a breakthrough technology.