Not all innovation is progress

While I was training for this past April's Boston Marathon, multiple people recommended that I read Born to Run, Christopher McDougall's fantastic best-selling book about distance running--which I then did. The story itself is entertaining enough to make it a must-read, but the more lasting legacy of the book has been the interest it created in the barefoot running craze. Openly questioning the design of the modern running shoe, McDougall issues a stern rebuke of Nike and other manufacturers for having created a generation of injuries among distance runners. This recent Harvard study lends credence to McDougall's criticism (emphasis mine):

Habitually barefoot endurance runners often land on the fore-foot (fore-foot strike) before bringing down the heel, but they sometimes land with a flat foot (mid-foot strike) or, less often, on the heel (rear-foot strike). In contrast, habitually shod runners mostly rear-foot strike, facilitated by the elevated and cushioned heel of the modern running shoe. Kinematic and kinetic analyses show that even on hard surfaces, barefoot runners who fore-foot strike generate smaller collision forces than shod rear-foot strikers.

The study continues to suggest that by making heel-strikes more comfortable, modern running shoes are encouraging runners to run in a manner that actually maximizes the impact on their feet and legs. Running shoes make it easier to run improperly, rather than training runners to run in a manner that makes injury least likely. Therefore, despite all of the technological advances of the last 30 years, injury rates have remained stubbornly high, and in fact by some measures increased.

"Innovate or die" is a common refrain in the business world, and in many ways it is accurate. But from the consumer's standpoint, it is important that we understand that just because something is "new" does not necessarily make it "better".

Not all innovation is progress--some innovations simply make it easier for us to do things improperly. This cannot be considered a net positive for us as a consumer or for society as a whole. I'm reminded of the many "innovations" that car companies have made in recent years--the self-parking Lexus, the self-stopping Mercedes--and I wonder if these are really good things. Do we really want our roads to be filled with people who don't know how to park, or who have a built-in excuse not to pay attention to the road?

These kinds of "innovations" can indeed be good sellers, and huge money-makers for the companies who create them. But they do not necessarily drive our society forward. Does this mean I'll be going out tomorrow and picking up a pair of Vibram FiveFingers? No, probably not. But I certainly won't be shelling out $125 for a pair of AirMax shoes that will end up causing an injury.