Continuity versus Disruption

Disruption at all cost?

Technology-driven "disruption" of existing business/economic/societal/political models has become a popular theme among a small but influential group of technology & business leaders, most notable concentrated in the Silicon Valley.

And amongst its fervent supporters, it seems to have become a religion of its own, the technology-driven business model "disruption" movement. Suddenly every problem is merely a technology solution away from being fixed. An obsessive focus on technology often forgets our roots in the humanities, especially history. Among this self-proclaimed elite, status-quo is unilaterally considered bad and must be unquestionably subject to change, no matter of whether previous methods actually work, and without appreciation for the historic context that motivated past and existing methods. And as a result we often end up re-inventing the wheel.

Whether something works is now unilaterally determined by a small group of people who seem to have a rather undemocratic view on what justifies change and what broader society should need.
What is masked as a pragmatic progressive spirit really seems more a a self-justifying zeal that is less receptive to pluralistic examination.

The bigger challenges, wicked problems, get less attention. The ones that could really stand better tools to understand and manage their complexity. Instead yet another website for mundane tasks, or another "social" app is hyped and valued out of proportion to its actual economic impact.

In reality, the ideology of "disruption" is used for extracting value from the masses into the pockets of the few, the disruption cult. It is more destructive than creative destruction, to the benefit of a few, at the expense of most - a zero sum game, winner takes it all. The larger phenomenon of economic inequality is strongly affected by this trend. Instead of progress, it feels more like "value extraction" (a.k.a. theft, just a new form of it).

But we must be careful about the consequences of this "disruption" mantra. How far do we want to go with destabilizing society & the economy? What is the end game? So far we've only heard about the means. The story how we all are truly better of is fuzzy and unconvincing.

A generation of act-first-think-later folks ignore (if they have ever learned) the lessons from the past.
The troublesome trend is in the disruption movement having become more change for change's sake then broadly and pluralisticly justified beneficial outcomes, that have the endorsement of the broader populace, as it behooves a democratic society. What's missing is the sense of involvement from the affected.


At the core, most humans desire stability. When broad masses of people suffer "future shock" (Toffler, 1970) there is the risk of a societal backlash, possibly akin to what happened in the early 1930s. The more radical change is imposed to people, or sneaks up upon them without them initially realizing it, the more people will be opposed to change.

In general, people are actually quite tolerant to change - as a species we have always adapted to changing circumstances, or we wouldn't have come this far in the history of the earth. The issue is with too abrupt of change, that people don't understand, can't relate, and most importantly, the kind of change that leaves them with loss (of income, of housing, of identity, of social empathy).

Change aversion is usually rooted in bad experiences where change lead to loss. And the more people with such sensitivities are dismissed un-empathetically, the more of a counter force to progress they will become, in somewhat of a vicious cycle. Class warfare entrenched.

Disoriented people who feel they have nothing left to lose make for the most dangerous of a society, one that will be "disrupted" in the most explosive ways from which it usually takes a generation to recover. People will become overly territorial, tribalization gets empathized, discrimination and persecution increases of those being different (often as proxies for the real culprits)

An a qualitative difference in modern change is that it is human-caused, not by the natural environment. Nature's changes don't plot against humans, they just happen, and therefore are more predictable. Modern societal & economic changes area often engineered. The add an element of game theory that requires anticipation of the motivations of others, which ends up in a reciprocal rat race spiral, an economic/social arms race, so to speak.

The human-engineered change poses two levels of risk....
The rate of change, due to its reciprocal nature, is exponentially speeding up. And much of the imposed change perceived as destructive, it therefore erodes the trust and goodwill needed to function as a society (protectionism leads to hostilities and oppression of those being different than one's chosen tribe, even if those aren't the cause for the destructive change)


I propose to focus more on CONTINUITY, not rigid sticking to status-quo, but making change more gradual, harmonic, with smooth transitions allowing to bring people along, allow them to find a role for themselves in a changing world.

Ever more accelerating change, driven by and benefiting a few, while leaving the masses behind, will eventually cause a massive back lash, from which even the original beneficiaries won't be safe. So it should be in even their interest to consider how sustainable the current trend of obsessive disruption actually is.

Historically, disruption was called revolution, and it was hardly ever the least painful human experience. As smart as we are today, our brightest minds should really solve the dilemma of facilitating change for the better (true progress) in the least destructive fashion.

Yes, in nature's realm, often the old must die before the new can flourish. But isn't one of the hallmarks of humanity that we transcended raw nature in it's primitive mechanisms? Isn't what makes for our humanity the ability to solve complex problems that threaten our species survival in the long run?

With our increasing understanding of natural mechanisms, why don't we strive more for "evolution" instead. Change emerging that way may be far more effective and sustainable. Part of that would be a bit more recognition of the "shoulders of the giants who have come before us" and on whom our progress stands. A bit more historic context appreciation instead of singular futurism. Mindfulness of whence we came, so as to avoid running in the circles of repeating previously made mistakes.

Continuity - in a sense of moving forward, instead of just keeping busy (with destroying). The focus should be on enhancing, improving, not "disrupting". For most of us, the notion of destroying stuff doesn't sound as promising compared to making things better, gradually, convincingly.

As it is, the current trend of Disruption may cause more problems than it aspires to solve.

Continuity seems a good compromise between non-functional status-quo, and blind disruption for change's sake. It gives room for improvement where needed and opportune, and it honors time-tested methods that have been working and which provide the stable backbone supporting the change needed to adapt to contemporary challenges.