Either Way Around

There is a concept in economics called "creative destruction." While the original concept arose out of the writings of Karl Marx, and referred to the idea that economic structures (in this case, capitalism) changed from within, eventually leading to their destruction and replacement, current usage tends to operate on a smaller scale, and is roughly analogous to what is meant by the buzzword "disruption."

To take a mundane example, consider the typewriter industry. I'm old enough to remember when a number of companies made typewriters. The IBM Selectric was considered one of the best. They were monsters, to be sure, but they were durable and reliable, and one could change the font quickly. I used one throughout college. Today, typewriters are considered relics, seemingly on a par with stone tools. And this is due entirely to the personal computer (in this context, including Apple machines) and word processing software becoming ubiquitous. With tools like Microsoft Word and Google Docs in the picture, the fact that almost everyone has access to a PC, means that there is no need for anyone to own a typewriter, either for personal or business use. The creation of word processing for person computers destroyed the industrial manufacturing of typewriters.

But can the process be run "in reverse," as it were? Not in the sense of bringing back bygone industries; rather can the order of operations be changed? So if something else had lead to the demise of the typewriter, would that, in and of itself, have spurred the birth of personal computer-based word processing?

There are a number of people who seem to believe that it can. Small-government types claim that shuttering programs that people rely upon would lead to the creation of more efficient private-sector alternatives, while environmental activists insist that societies would immediately create "green" energy infrastructure if fossil fuels were banned.

To degree, this idea, which one might call "destructive creation" makes sense. After all, necessity is said to be the mother of invention. And there's always an alternative. The question is whether the alternatives are always as good or better than what they are meant to replace.

In the process of creative destruction, the alternatives are pretty much always demonstrably better in some way or another. That's what allows them to completely overtake the established incumbents. While the combination of personal computer, word processing software and printer is significantly more expensive than a typewriter was, the increased versatility of the combination more than makes up for it.

With destructive creation, the idea that better alternatives must be out there is much more a matter of faith. That, or ideology, given that such discussions can be driven by understandings of right and wrong as much as anything else. Which why I think that the concept never catches on as much as proponents might like; the advantages are never as "obvious" as they're made out to be. Still, I understand why the idea is so appealing to so many people. But for it to really take root, it needs to be more compelling to those who rely on the status quo.