The theory of disruptive innovation is like a great advertising campaign idea. It takes what we know, turns it on it’s ear, and finds a fresh new approach that no one else has thought to use before (within our culture). Examples of companies that have shaken things up in their own markets are Netflix, Google, Skype and Apple. But all this innovation is causing a surplus of technology in our landfill sites. Is necessity really the mother of invention, or is the mother of invention creating a necessity that is destroying our future and the future of our planet?

I challenge you to take this simple quiz and tell me if you have all the answers.

How many hours of work for the average American household does it take to spend on new electronics each year?

a) 21
b) 80
c) 55
d) 107

Consumers are really good at weeding out the things they don’t want. But we’re spending on an ever-increasing scale. Last year the average American household spent around $1,200 on new gadgets, meaning b) someone in that household had to work 80 hours to afford those electronics. It’s great news for a handful of tech companies, retailers and ad agencies. The downside? Our voracious appetite for the latest and greatest technology means that our beloved smart phones, tablets, iPods, televisions, computers and other gadgets are collecting in landfills faster than iTunes downloads. Is marketing fuelling my desire by playing on my fear of getting left behind? Much of that innovation has been driven by technology that is only 80% worked out before it’s rushed to market. A whole generation of consumers are growing up with the idea that fixes are just part of the purchase process. Do I really need to be first in line to receive my innovation? Is my fear that of technology being out of date, or do I fear for my own sense of security in a turbulent, unstable world? 

How many millions of tons of eWaste are put in US landfills each year? 

a) enough to fill 10 Grand Canyons
b) enough to fill 7 Yankee Stadiums
c) enough to fill 4 Houston Astrodomes
d) enough to fill 6 Macy’s Department Store

Am I supposed to feel stupid if I don’t have the latest smart phone or iPad? Am I any less of a businessperson if I choose to not have a Facebook presence? Does it make me any less of a successful human being if I step off the technology ride? Americans are throwing out 3.5 million tons of eWaste each year in a vain attempt to keep up with technological innovation. That’s b) approximately the equivalent of 7 Yankee Stadiums filled to overflowing with eWaste. What might the impact be if we actually had to wait until after Alex’s return from Antarctica to hear about his adventures, or send our content to the Fearless Revolution Blog via carrier pigeon? Remember when? Would we, could we, can we trade immediacy and accessibility for a healthy plant? Should we? Does innovation improve things? Make it better? Has this need for more, better, faster, NOW created a society of competitive narcissists who have lost the ability to wait? Or is waiting a game for schmucks?

How many television sets will Americans purchase this year based on last year’s figures? 

a) 16-miles worth, if placed in a row
b) 21-miles worth, if placed in a row
c) 19.5-miles worth, if placed in a row
d) 28-miles worth, if placed in a row

Our so-called disposable consumer society has become a critical driver of the American economy. At the end of the day, disruptive innovation helps keeps consumers wallets open. In the case of the television purchase, the switch to digital, and consumer fear of being left behind drove the enormous statistic of 34.5 million television set purchases for 2011. That’s c) over 19.5 miles, or 32 kilometers of television sets. Does the fact that digital is new, not entirely necessary, yet highly desirable, put part of the onus on consumers to own the problem? Is it enough for consumers to point their fingers at the manufacturers and say they’re the ones not doing their bit for the environment?

Which two electronics manufacturers are considered to be the greenest according to Greenpeace International?

a) HP and Toshiba
b) Apple and Dell
c) Dell and Nokia
d) HP and Dell

eWaste contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals that cannot be disposed of or recycled safely. Electronic junk pollutes our water, and our air. Industry leaders d) HP and Dell were rated the number one and two in the Greenpeace ratings. They score well in some areas such as stainable operations and energy criteria, and not so well in others. There is still a huge gap that is rapidly being filled with the discards from a consumer-driven, fear-of-getting-left-behind society. As consumers, do we have a responsibility to pull the plug on our desire to purchase innovation? Or at the very least to scale back?

In the US, out of 3.5 million tons of electronics, how much gets recycled each year? 

a) weight equivalent to a modern oil tanker
b) weight equivalent to the Great Pyramid of Giza
c) weight equivalent to one of Australia’s BHP iron ore freight trains
d) weight equivalent to 21 elephants

“Silicon Valley is starting to take over the pace of innovation in every single industry, whether it’s the auto industry or agriculture or credit cards,” says Jim Carroll, a global futurist and trends and innovation expert. “Like in the early days of the Internet, it can be seen as good and bad.” Well, the good answer is a) … 565,000 tons – the weight of an oil tanker in eWaste, will make it into recycling programs. The bad news is it’s not enough. One solution to this growing global problem is ensuring that your e-waste is recycled properly. Companies such as uSell and Recellular offer cash in exchange for older, working cell phones. Most electronics can be refurbished and used to meet consumer demands to buy technology at a discount. And older technology can be stripped of its valuable precious metals, including copper, silver, gold, platinum and other rare minerals. But real solutions need answers to the really tough questions. eWaste is still being shipped and landfilled to third world countries. I mean … WTF? It’s all the same planet we’re destroying here, people.

Maybe the answer lies in society’s adjustment as a whole. This technology and innovation thing is kinda new to us. And we still have a lot of kinks to iron out. But innovation seems to be coming at a very steep price. Does its environmental impact outweigh its benefits? Or maybe innovation is a just a 10-letter word, the original sense of wonder lost to a generation who acknowledge it via the technological fixes that litter the virtual highway. I’m back to the original hypothesis: do we own innovation or does innovation own us?

What’s the answer?

by Jill Atkinson