|The proper response to this Silicon Valley disruption is to build up our social defenses. Car services on call? Build up our subways and buses. Cram hotel rooms within residential buildings? Encourage hotels and hostels of different sizes and in different neighborhoods. Install AI-empowered computers in classrooms? Add more teachers, librarians, and counselors, and invest in public education. Food delivery on call? Encourage healthy food options, and legislate to eliminate “food deserts.” You get the drift.
Because the truth is that having so much of life occur at the front door, as opposed to on the town square or the market street, is simply sad. Pathetic even. Who but a small minority would want to organize life around a siege mentality?
בראיון עם ג'יל לפור (Jill Lepore) ב-Chronicle of Higher Education לפור מסבירה את ההתנגדות שלה ל-disruptive innovation (עליו היא כתבה באריכות לפני ארבע שנים). היא מדגישה שהשיבוש איננה עוסקת ב-"התקדמות" או ב-"קידמה" שמבטאים רעיונות של השאיפה לטוב, אלא רק בזיהוי שוק שבו אפשר להרוויח:
|Disruption has a totally different history. It’s a way to avoid the word "progress," which, even when it’s secularized, still implies some kind of moral progress. Disruption emerges in the 1990s as progress without any obligation to notions of goodness. And so "disruptive innovation," which became the buzzword of change in every realm in the first years of the 21st century, including higher education, is basically destroying things because we can and because there can be money made doing so. Before the 1990s, something that was disruptive was like the kid in the class throwing chalk. And that’s what disruptive innovation turned out to really mean. A little less disruptive innovation is called for.