I recently attended Internet Solutions' annual Internetix conference in Cape Town, the theme of which was disruptive innovation. This concept denotes the creation of entirely new markets, which disrupt existing ones and displace existing technologies. According to Deloitte, disruptive technologies are emerging technologies that have the potential to change how work is done, how businesses grow and how industries evolve.
At the event, speaker after speaker detailed with somewhat Machiavellian glee how technological innovation is decimating entire industries. Unpacking how society will be revolutionised via real-time analytics, social business, telekinesis and the digitisation of the human body, among other things. Speaking to a South African audience, much of this rhetoric was framed around the perception of Africa as a hub of new ideas; with a common thread being that the continent is a powder keg merely in need of a spark to ignite a wave of innovation.
Well, colour me a sceptic but I'm just not so sure about all this. Do I think that Africa has incredible potential? Of course. Do I think that we have the right idea when it comes to how best to assist her in unleashing this disruptive capacity? Not so much. The way I see it, is if we are having discussions under the guise that innovation stands to truly change the lives of people in the developing world, I fear we may need to shift our focus a little.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying global innovation and disruption are a bad thing. I guess my issue lies with the fact that all of this mental capability and money is being used to develop things like smart contact lenses or robot surrogates to cater to the whims of a select few, when the same time and resources have the potential to really make a difference in the lives of people who could really do with a helping hand.
Meeting real needs
If you ask any of the top dogs at large conglomerates looking to cash in on the proverbial cash cow that is the developing world, most will regale you with noble notions of getting locals involved in development and expansion efforts so as to really tap into the needs of the people on the ground.
Well, if people actually did this, they would find out some of the developing world's most fundamental needs include stable food supplies, improved education and access to adequate healthcare. In low-income countries, four in every 10 deaths are among children under the age of 15 and most of these deaths are due to infectious diseases, according to the World Health Organisation. Roughly half of the global population is living in poverty or extreme poverty. And in Sub-Saharan Africa alone, over a third of adults are illiterate.
Thus, if we are genuinely setting out to empower regions like Africa, should we be thinking about creating robots that can travel into space and driverless cars, or should we extend our gaze to finding outcomes to stamp out inequality, alleviate the strain of epidemics like HIV and TB, or to digitise learning material for use in under-resourced school systems. Yes, the latter is not as sexy as the former, but whose needs do the aforementioned gadgets actually fulfil?
This isn't to decry the efforts of some who are already doing their fair share to improve the lives of people in impoverished communities. One has to applaud those behind projects like Google Loon, the low-cost Inye tablet and various m-health solutions that bring much-needed medical advice to the underprivileged.
If we are genuinely setting out to empower regions like Africa, should we be thinking about creating robots that can travel into space?
And when looking at Africa specifically, should we be glad that entire industries will collapse or that certain jobs will cease to exist when we consider that much of the continent is riddled with rampant unemployment? I can't help thinking of Mr Bucket from Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory who loses his job screwing the caps on tubes of toothpaste when the toothpaste factory he works in mechanises its production line. Poor Mr Bucket is left out in the cold - literally, he is forced to shovel snow to make a living.
While I do realise that with new industries, come new opportunities and that the nature of the great capitalist machine means it is inevitable that certain slow adopters will be left behind, I have to wonder if these developments, which will undoubtedly make life more efficient for some, may just further marginalise the disenfranchised. Those groups of people who actually stand to benefit the most from smart innovation in the first place.
And so I can see how technological innovation has changed global marketplaces and how it can revolutionise industries but I am left questioning if truly ground-breaking disruption is too often earmarked as a means for us to chase fantasies the likes of which we had only ever imagined in sci-fi films? Or could more of this mental muscle be channelled into creating things that have the potential to improve the lives of millions? You decide.
Share