Innovation for Society. Joëlle Forest

      1 Chapter written by Joëlle FOREST.

      2 1 Scientism is an ultra-enthusiastic attitude towards science, according to which science can do everything: it develops knowledge, is capable of solving all problems and ensures maximum happiness for mankind (“I believe in the future of Science: I believe that Science and Science alone will solve all questions that make sense” [LED 12, p. 55]) in an age when innovation is thought of as a pure product of science [FOR 17].

      3 2 We might agree here with the observation made by Thierry Ménissier: “Before 1914, Westerners could believe that thanks to their scientific discoveries, their technical inventions and their political decisions, they were the subjects of history, this indefinite process within which their mastery and their happiness increased together. After this date, as Alain Finkielkraut suggests in an observation on the beginning of the twentieth century compared to the beginning of the previous century, history seems to be something to be endured” [MEN 11].

      4 3 Literally, chamber pots were emptied through the windows directly into the streets!

      5 4 The author concludes that the technology behaves like “nature” which has “in some way become wild” [JON 90, p. 224] and should be domesticated.

      6 5 This observation will lead Hans Jonas to plead for the elaboration of an ethics that is commensurate with the new modalities of human action.

      7 6 Or the Glorious Thirty Years, which refers to a three-decade period that began with the reconstruction of post-war France in 1945.

      8 7 Note the acceleration in the rate of diffusion of innovations to the point of almost vertical curves since the 1990s, as was the case with television sets.

      9 8 This paradox takes up the hypothesis of Van Valen’s Red Queen: the ongoing evolution of a species is necessary to maintain its aptitude following the evolution of the species with which it co-evolves.

      10 9 Objectively, do we really need a deodorant with proven effectiveness for 72 hours? Is not this the symptom of companies trapped by the permanent innovation syndrome and subjected to the imperative to innovate even if it means proposing useless innovations and gadgets?

      11 10 Remember that the appetite for novelty leads to the purchase of products (TVs, smartphones, etc.), while those we own still work. At a time when more and more consumers are outraged by the industrial strategy known as “planned obsolescence” (the batteries in our smartphones are designed to last 300–400 charge cycles and our washing machines are programmed to break down after 2,000–2,500 washing cycles (European Consumer Centre, 2013)), what should we think of planned obsolescence caused by the consumer?

      12 11 This corroborates the results obtained by a study led by Lab42, according to which “84% of respondents say it is somewhat or very important that the company they buy from is innovative” (New study reveals importance of innovation to consumers, July 17, 2015, http://customerthink.com/new-study-reveals-importance-of-innovation-to-consumers/).

      13 12 It can be assumed that this relationship was partially true in the early “glorious thirties”. Does it still play today among the humblest consumers? This is highly doubtful, since an innovation sometimes acts as a decoy that, with a great deal of publicity, leads consumers to sacrifice basic needs (e.g. healthy eating) to the consumption of new objects (smartphone, TV subscriptions, etc.) or to act in an even more extreme manner.

      14 13 What about the fact that a middle-class household in the United States today owns about 300,000 items? [MAC 14].

      15 14 Many purchases are not essential (we can live without them) but respond to a desire largely generated by advertising, which today no longer boasts the satisfaction of needs but of desires.

      16 15 Can we not hypothesize that this lack of meaning is not unrelated to the increase in inequalities, the decline in solidarity, etc.?

      17 16 French households had an average of 5.5 screens per household in 2017 (since households would no longer only consume audiovisual content from their TV set, but also on their telephone, tablet or computer).

      18 17 Note that this finding is limited neither to mass consumer goods nor to product innovations. It is valid for all types of innovations.

      19 18 It should be noted that the ideal function of an innovation for tomorrow relates to the collective rather than the individual.

      20 19 Likewise, we have never been more connected, yet loneliness and isolation are constantly on the rise.

      21 20 While the Brundtland Report of 1987 contributed to the popularization of the concept of sustainable development, the premises of this ideology had already been put forth in the 19th Century in the work of G. Perkins Marsh in 1964 and in the report Halte à la croissance [MEA 72].

      22 21 It should be noted, however, that many studies emphasize that it is the ecological cost of the entire life cycle of green technologies that should be measured and not that of the finished products alone [PIT 18].

      23 22 For example, the question of urban security can be answered by video surveillance, community policing or the development of an associative coalition with a socio-educational and inclusive aim.

      24 23 Frugal innovations are a perfect illustration.

      25 24 A company that makes sensors will naturally tend to propose solutions linked to the technology it controls.

      26 25 The spread of hygienist theses in the mid-19th Century had a major impact on the design of cities. The same applies to the definition of technological priorities (which was the case of nanotechnologies under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy; today, it is artificial intelligence).

      27 26 We will go into more detail on the question of the meanings of product in use in Chapter 3.

      28 27 The effects of filiation are thus highlighted.

      29 28 A total of 44% of respondents in the CSA survey (2016) consider the connected home as “a threat to individual freedoms”.

      30 29 Overall, 47% of French people believe that the connected home “dehumanizes relationships” [CSA 16].

      31 30 This is not a new idea; it was first posed by Herbert A. Simon: “For example, the criterion for a new automobile design may require that it can be manufactured at less than a specified cost, that its gasoline consumption be less than a specified amount per mile, that it exhausts gases meet legal standards for emissions, that it incorporates safety belts, that it have a ‘streamlined’ appearance and chrome hubcaps, and so on. The list can be as long as we please, and there is no need to specify how much one of these requirements would be traded off for a given improvement in another. All have to be satisfied in a satisfactory design” [SIM 92, p. 30].

      32 31 It should be noted that this compromise depends on the knowledge and technologies available at time “t”. It should also be remembered that the good designer, or the ideal designer, is not the one who seeks to express his ability in perfection,