Extract from “Fooled by Randomness” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

The argument in favor of “new things” and even more “new new things” goes as follows: Look at the dramatic changes that have been brought about by the arrival of new technologies, such as the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, and the personal computer. Middlebrow inference (inference stripped of probabilistic thinking) would lead one to believe that all new technologies and inventions would likewise revolutionize our lives. 

But the answer is not so obvious: Here we only see and count the winners, to the exclusion of the losers (it is like saying that actors and writers are rich, ignoring the fact that actors are largely waiters — and lucky to be ones, for the less comely writers usually serve French fries at McDonald’s). Losers? The Saturday newspaper lists dozens of new patents of such items that can revolutionize our lives. People tend to infer that because some inventions have revolutionized our lives that inventions are good to endorse and we should favor the new over the old. 

I hold the opposite view. The opportunity cost of missing a “new new thing” like the airplane and the automobile is minuscule compared to the toxicity of all the garbage one has to go through to get to these jewels (assuming they have brought some improvement to our lives, which I frequently doubt).

– end of extract

SPARK OF THE DAY

It is a must to indulge yourself with opinions outside of your (entrepreneurial) bubble from time to time… it keeps your mind sharp and your actions in check. Not all progress comes from innovations and not all innovations should be blindly endorsed… 

Some food for thought: are we/you really relevant?