This was to be the summer of
innovation at the lake.
Long desired transformations would
bring the place into the modern age. Wi-Fi cameras to monitor security and to
keep an eye tuned for any damage from the latest storm. Electronic peeks from
afar to see the depth of snow gathered on the roof.
Wi-Fi thermostats to turn up the
heat so the place is cozy on arrival. And Wi-Fi controls to unlock doors for
children et al who forget their cottage keys.
None of that innovation took
place. Other things got in the way, like fixing a broken septic pipe, and
keeping roof gutters clear and water courses flowing freely in the record rains.
And, of course, dealing with downed trees and wave-battered docks.
Instead of a summer of innovating,
it was a summer of patching up.
As summer now shifts into autumn,
a realization dawns. It is a light-bulb moment being experienced by more and
more of North American society: Is modern day innovation overrated? Does it deserve
the veneration we pile upon it?
Our society worships innovation
and abhors maintenance. We treat innovation as an unquestionably important
value like goodness and love.
That despite the fact that a far bigger
chunk of our time is spent maintaining and fixing existing things than
designing new things. There are studies that show 70 per cent of engineers work
on overseeing and maintaining things and not inventing them.
Yet our society honours the
inventor-innovators far more than fixer-maintainers. We celebrate Bill Gates,
Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Michael Dell and other white-collar wizards as heroes. We
pay them the really big bucks, dress them in suits and ties and assign them
higher social status. We see them as
artists who make our lives more efficient.
Meanwhile, the maintainers – the
plumbers, electricians, mechanics and janitors – wear workaday clothes, earn
less and generally have less social status. They keep our world humming but we
consider their efforts run-of-the-mill work.
We have given innovation a
venerable place on the altar of change. Seldom do we question hard an
innovation’s real value - who it benefits, exactly how and at what cost?
For instance, studies have shown
that the medical community often overestimates the benefits of
disease-screening tests while underestimating their potential harm. It is an
example of our tendency to put much hope and faith in innovations while not
asking enough tough questions.
The world arms race is another
example. Innovations in technology have made possible targeted kills instead of
massive invasion or widespread bombing. Thousands of lives are saved through
pinpoint strikes. Another result, however, is an ever-increasing arms race in
which more countries try to develop or obtain more innovative weapons.
A more down home example comes
from the American historian Ruth Schwartz Cowan. She has written that in the
past couple hundred years technological change has shifted the burden of
domestic labour from adult men and children to mothers and wives.
Washing machines and vacuum
cleaners, she writes, “which promised to save labour, literally created more
work for mother as cleanliness standards rose, leaving women perpetually unable
to keep up.”
Politicians contribute much to
sustaining the reverence for innovation. It is much easier to lure voters with
the shiny and the new rather than the dull and practical. Announcement of a new
bridge sells much better than repairing of an old, rusty one.
Also, one way to hold government
budgets in check is to follow the ancient saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Much of North America’s
infrastructure – roads, dams, bridges – is suffering from lack of preventive
maintenance. Too much of the maintenance we see now is simply reactive – fixing
something already broken.
There is a growing movement saying
that society can be much better served by putting more emphasis on preventive
maintenance and giving less adulation to
innovation.
Innovations at the lake,
meanwhile, remain on hold. Maybe it’s better that way. We’ve gone years without
the electronic wizardry and perhaps we are better off without it. Besides do we
really need something else that needs to be maintained?
No comments:
Post a Comment