RSS

Climate change, current geopolitics and the US's Wall Street bailouts have a common theme: the world's desperate need for leadership into a new technological era. President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize has created an excellent platform for this.

If the US can find billions to rescue inept companies, it can finance a global campaign for technological innovation. This could transform the international economy.

For decades America and the world have made do with stagnant technology, confusing hyperactive financial trading with the genuine prosperity that only new inventions can bring. In the early 20th century the US was the world's engine of technological innovation. Its relaxation of this role has had severe global implications.

Global politics are powerfully influenced by technology and are likely to be increasingly so in future. Environmental management, trade, energy, security, information and knowledge management, poverty, urbanization, agriculture and worldwide health issues are all now heavily technocentric.

For example, Iran has argued that international complaint about its nuclear program is an excuse to prevent it from developing an optimal energy industry. Whatever one's position on it, this issue powerfully illustrates the technocentric basis of contemporary geopolitical stability. Energy independence is a heavily technological matter, as is the detection and monitoring of nuclear weapons programs.

Intellectual capital is a powerful form of political currency. The US could be dispensing much more of it, not only to its legitimate strategic advantage but to universal advantage - if it were producing more. Unfortunately, America is not doing all it should to usher in a new technological era. In last year's presidential election neither John McCain nor Barack Obama credibly championed technological renewal across the board. President Obama has recently shown some encouraging progress in increasing scientific and technological research budgets, but he remains far from doing what is necessary to re-energize America's innovative leadership. This is disquieting not only domestically but also from a global stability perspective.

The US desperately needs a new political movement to take it and the world into a new technological era in all fields, not only a few that happen to be in the current political spotlight. If you think it's unrealistic to wish for a head of state who's passionate about linking leadership to new technology, think again. Abraham Lincoln's legacy is dominated by his role in preserving the unity of the American Republic, but future historians may praise him equally for his resolve to unite America infrastructurally via the transcontinental railroad, which in those days was as new-fangled an idea as you could get.

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, supporting technological change. Putting a railroad advocate in the mid-19th-century White House was like electing an ardent magnetic levitation, nanotechnology or Mars colonization proponent today. Historian Stephen E. Ambrose calls Abe "the driving force" of a railroad system that was the century's greatest building project.

Lincoln intuited the dynamic of history when he perceived that if you weld seemingly disparate regions and peoples into a whole through shared technological infrastructures that improve their lives, you're well on the way to bringing them together on other levels. Of the options available to us to develop a more closely knit world in the 21st century, few are as potentially powerful and achievable as the prospect of new, exciting and globally shared technology.

For this to happen, the US must launch a concerted, government-led push to create a new generation of technological innovation, not only for itself but for the world. It's no overstatement to say that global survival depends on its will and ability to do so. President Obama's Nobel Prize provides a fine opportunity for the US to announce, and commit itself to, a global peace initiative based on a determination to bring a new age of technological development to all nations.

Melissaratos and Slabbert are authors of the book "Innovation, the Key to Prosperity: Technology & America's Role in the 21st-Century Global Economy." Melissaratos is senior advisor on technology enterprise to the president of Johns Hopkins University. Slabbert is an internationally award-winning writer whose articles have appeared in publications ranging from The Washington Post to The Harvard International Review.

October 16, 2009

Maggie Halley, NYU, Bronze Contributor (12)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I think part of the problem is that people attach themselves to ideas about the way the world functions and how they can be successful in a particular era. Once the landscape changes (as it always does) it is not always difficult to recognize the need for new solutions and innovations, but it is often difficult to implement them. We are living in a revolutionary age, for sure, and things are changing very quickly. What can the US government do to make sure we take full advantage of this period of enormous opportunity? A new generation of technological innovation would certainly create new fortunes and new heroes and would prove that we are still capable of leadership by example and setting the bar for the rest of the world despite the frantic speed with which things are changing across the board. But how can President Obama precipitate this innovation when our natural instinct in the face of unpredictability is fear and reluctance to abandon our old way of doing things without really knowing what comes next? And without a solid system of social services to fall back on should these enterprises fail?

October 16, 2009

N.J. SLABBERT

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

It is true that our natural instinct in the face of unpredictability is fear and an impulse to cling to the familiar. But that is precisely why we need the encouragement of a leader, and one of the functions of the US presidency is to provide this leadership through the resources and moral authority that flows from the office and such recognitions as the incumbent receives, such as the Nobel Prize now awarded to President Obama. History shows that innovation can indeed be precipitated and nurtured through positive and determined leadership. London's Great Exhibition of 1851, promoted through the vigorous efforts of Prince Albert, played an important role in ushering Britain into a new era of technological creativity. A similar contribution was made to American innovation by the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago. As for a solid system of social services to fall back on if innovative enterprises fail, there is always risk in innovation, just as there is risk, and arguably even greater risk, in failing to innovate. But an important point to bear in mind in regard to social services is that these, too, stand to be greatly enhanced by intelligent and concerted innovation. Most recent debate on health care reform in the US, for example, has largely ignored the fact that the best way to improve public health is through the promotion and expansion of research aimed at obtaining new information and technologies to prevent illness, eradicate disease, prolong healthy life and cure the many physical afflictions that continue to plague us. We tend to speak, act and think as if health care solutions are to be found exclusively in the drafting of new regulations, whereas in fact it is in the medical research laboratory that our best and most far-reaching health care advances are likely to arise.

Tags: | health care | science | innovation | Obama | n.j. slabbert | technology |

October 17, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

A very nice article, which in my opinion comes close to the core problems of western societies. However I'm a little bit pessimistic: even though Obama is open to innovation, he will not be able to govern against the establishment. I think he acts quite smartly, and I'm afraid the change he's offering is the maximum innovation we can get.

The "youth bulge", which Heinsohn convincingly identified as a source of conflict, is also a source of innovation - and can probably directly be connected with the enormous technological progress of the early 20th century.

Most western societies increasingly consist of old people, who are busy guarding and maintaining their wealth and lack the energy and flexibility to embark on new concepts. And this will even increase, since we pursue happiness individually, and have created a work environment which is largely incompatible with family life and educating our children. As well, we have entered a path where the gap between rich and poor widens. One part of the population is unemployed or busy just surviving, while the other part is either working tirelessly or busy maintaining its wealth. All not suited to try something new.

Currently the human future lies in countries with low educational standards and strong conflict potential, which is a dim perspective. I'm sure that future history books will not blame single western leaders for the opportunities which they missed, but the elites - which seems in general more appropriate for democracies. I guess our age will be labeled "Age of Stupid", or just "decadent".

October 23, 2009

Member deleted

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The Industrial revolution provided huge advances that were transformational in the development of society. It seems as though development in some of the Industrial Revolution successes since then has only been incremental, with telecommunications being a clear exception. For example, many years have passed since the first automobile, but the majority of automobiles today are still based on the initial technology of the internal combustion engine (unless Renault has their way with electric cars - http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=...).

In some respects, the current infrastructure has existed for so long it has been accepted as the norm in society, perhaps acting as an inherent bias that restrains innovation beyond these aging foundations (e.g. “dumb” electricity grids, network of gas stations). Attention is turning to innovations, such as smart grids and electric car plug-in stations, but it can be such a confrontation to the accepted comfort zone, the magnitude of the challenge can seem completely overwhelming.

I believe this is where fear and reluctance needs to be met head-on. The huge challenge innovation faces in such regards needs to be appreciated, but not at the expense of pursuing it and recognizing the immediacy some demand. I agree with N.J. Slabbert’s subsequent comment that this is “precisely why we need the encouragement of a leader”, who can provide the right motivation and resources to stimulate innovation. JFK managed to direct motivation and resources that got man on the moon. Now only if politics can do the same for some of the modern day challenges.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org