This is my first post here on Rodinhood. Love the energy. To start off, here is a mail that I had written to my college alumni community a little while back. I am mustering up the courage to share it here.
—
As some of you go about building your companies, or are thinking about building your notions, I thought of sharing this with you. This something that has been on my mind for a while now. It is also not directly related to start-ups, though I hope reading it will help shape a perspective which will affect the type of business we want to run or work for.
Obsolescence is all around us. We have experienced it, and in fact even endured and in this process have contributed to it. It drives our decisions, not only the large public policy ones, but also the minor ones that deal with our day to day existence such as the technologies we want to adopt or the type of music we want to hear. And, often, we don’t even have a choice, our favorite products are just removed from the shelf because they are “passe”. Some might bring in biological factors to explain this (such as survival of the fittest) or some might view it from a more cultural, sociological angle (such as zeitgeist viz “the spirit of the age”).
Thomas Kuhn explained in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions how Science progresses; promoting newer paradigms that lead the way, with the old ones ending up on a shelf as vintage lost art (by a process of communities battling it among themselves). I was going through a list on Quora (which I check every couple of months) called : What professions or careers have virtually disappeared due to disruptive or innovative technologies. The list is turning into becoming a massive cesspool of history.
At the heart of economics (and hence business) is the belief that value can be extracted from utilities (whether it is a service or an object) and this is achieved through trade. And that this is in turn essential for the progress of mankind.
Is obsolescence the necessary price one pays for progress? Darwinism would think so.
Massive choice plus herd mentality plus looking into the future than living in the present seems to me to only lead to obsolescence.
Some of the questions it raises:
1) One of the tenets of progress is that, it seems to take a utilitarian view. This results in a situation where things good for the majority makes things easier for them where as it makes things harder (relatively) for the minority and these sections are asked to keep up with the pace, or adapt to the changes. This is such an important point in my opinion, which often get sidelined. There is talk of too much choice (choice fatigue?), but seldom talk about how choice often gets restricted due to the supply side.
2) It plays a huge role in educating the future generations. The way we learn. While focusing on the concept is indeed important, the role of looking at concepts to solve problems is a popular view (in fact many will argue that it is the only way, knowledge will advance). However focusing too much on the method of these particular problems is also a challenge worth noting. Let me illustrate: Many colleges in India still teach engineering drawing to students on sheet of papers, where as most universities in the developed world have moved onto CAD softwares. Rather than the concept, one is focused on the method (and calculations). When these students go out, the companies say that they aren’t employable and lament that they have to teach them the skills required all over again.
3) Is progress just about making life better? And if it is, how inclusive is it? Often, new products or services that are introduced into a market, make it a point unto themselves to create demand for it. An executive once said, don’t bother asking the public what they want, they clearly have no idea, it’s our job to tell them what they want. And they will want it.
Some of the questions which I can see would be raised about this blog post:
1) Too preachy.
-I can empathize with that.
2) Doesn’t apply to the “real” world. There is competition all around, if you don’t exploit, someone else will. Also, there’s the bit about the responsibility towards one’s share holders.
-That’s fine baba. Important part is to own up to one’s stand (I have been guilty of finding it tough to do so myself at times). To clarify: I’d say you can’t call yourself a social enterprise, if all you are doing is giving microloans. Using that logic, every business is a social enterprise, because it has customers, which form part of the society.
3) What is the point of writing this?
-To see if people resonate with this or some part of this. Also, to bring up several points, one of them being that a majority is what it is, a majority.
4) Is there some socialist or Conservative (or communist?) agenda behind writing this?
– Not that I can think of. Just one of autonomy.
-Rishabh
Anika Mehta
GST sir, very well written! Liked how everything’s been explained in detail. Thank you for sharing 🙂