The unquestioned axiom here seems to be that innovation is, per se, always and everywhere "good" (for some value of "good" that is itself mostly implicit, I think, though I admit I haven't followed the entire thread carefully), or at least "good" for those in the immediate locale (physical, social, economic, virtual...whatever) of the innovation.
If I had to choose an axiom, I'd prefer Paul Goodman's: "Innovate only to simplify, and then sparingly." But that axiom presupposes a lot-- at a minimum, that "innovation" is a choice, that its consequences are transparent, that simplification is good (same caveats as above), that the impact of a given innovation on simplification vs. complication is transparent, and probably much more. Of course, so does the previous axiom presuppose a lot. Lee Rudolph ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
