In Dr. Hall’s Lecture “Where’s My Flying Car,” he argues that there is a barrier to innovation largely caused by a large need for energy for some projects. This barrier, he claims, is caused by the Machiavelli Effect. I certainly agree that the necessity of larger amounts of energy for certain innovations prevents them from becoming mainstream, and the Machiavelli Effect likely has something to do with the stagnation of energy innovation, but I also believe broader economic factors and an inability to create more energy cheaply also has an impact.
The Machiavelli Effect
The world of energy is very old school and tends to be extremely resistant to change. It is also highly protected by regulation. These things allow a strong Machiavelli Effect to take route, making it very difficult for innovation to take root in the energy industry. Dr. Hall explains that the technology to make things like flying cars possible exists, but there are barriers to these entering a wide-scale market largely due to the Machiavelli Effect. This is certainly a part of the problem. Corporations that currently profit off of non-flying cars do not want everyone to begin buying flying cars instead and possibly put them out of business. They are benefitted by the status quo and as such attempt to maintain it.
Economic Factors
While the Machiavelli Effect certainly plays a role in this problem, I believe broader economic factors may be an even larger piece of the puzzle. People do not have anywhere near the amount of disposable income today as they did before the “stagnation” in the 1970s that Dr. Hall describes. Even accounting for inflation, necessities like housing and transportation have become much more expensive and thus leave less money for people to spend on non-necessities. I believe there has been a cultural shift that has led people to spend this extra money on small luxuries rather than saving up for bigger purchases. Because of these two phenomena, it is difficult to get enough people to purchase something to make it mainstream. A flying car faces this problem even more drastically than many other innovations because of the regulations around airspace. Flying an aircraft requires a specific license that is much more expensive and time consuming to earn than just a drivers license. Many people are unwilling to undertake this endeavor, and until enough people own flying cars to justify changes in regulations to make using them more accessible, the regulations will stay the same. Flying cars cost more than just the upfront cost, but also the training cost and time required to be able to fly them. This makes this a much more expensive undertaking than simply the cost of the flying car and the fuel to operate it.
The Need for Cheaper Energy
I believe the stagnation in the 1970s was also largely a result of hitting the ceiling of the potential on the current energy solutions that we have in the mainstream. If something can be operated using fuel out of the oil and gas industry, for example, it becomes much easier to market and sell. However, something that is too high-tech to be powered by the fuel most people and corporations are familiar with becomes much more expensive. I believe in the 1970s, the full potential of our current mainstream energy was realized, and while there are other energy solutions that have been found since, they are still much more expensive and much less common. This, in my opinion, means that at some point there will be a breakthrough with a newer energy solution that allows it to be created and used more cost effectively. When that happens, I believe we will see yet another exponential curve for the decades following the discovery until another stagnation point is reached. My prediction is that this will repeat over and over. The person who makes this energy discovery will likely not be the same person that develops a flying car, but they will pave the way for things like flying cars to be manufactured and used at a cost that is more reasonable for the general population.
Why All Charts About “Innovation” Will Stagnate
While the charts of things like energy use and in particular the speed of an aircraft growing at an exponential rate are interesting, I do believe there is a scientific fallacy in them that explains why they must and always will stagnate. Innovation will always be exponential, but this innovation cannot be captured by one number. There is infinite potential for humans to innovate, but there are constraints including resources and fundamental scientific principles which prevent this innovation from being represented on just one line. For example, nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but if the exponential curve for aircraft speed were continued forever, eventually the graph would demand aircraft go faster than the speed of light. Instead, it is important to realize that a curve is stagnating and jump to the next curve where even better innovation may be possible. If our current forms of energy are stagnating in our ability to use more of them, it is important to jump to a new form of energy that will allow us to continue our exponential innovation. Eventually, phones and computers will be unable to be improved anymore because of the limitations of the technology used to create them. At that point, and some may argue we have reached that point, innovators should jump to new ideas for how to make quality of life improvements for humanity in the same realm that they did decades ago with the invention of the computer.