- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
— Arthur C Clarke
Hazards of Prophesy: The Failure of Imagination (1962)
Clarke (1917-2008) worked most of his life in a genre known as “hard science fiction”. Hard SF is pretty well-defined by the “Second Law of Prediction” cited above. Its exponents conceptualise stuff that is somewhat beyond the limits of the possible and speculate as to how and why those things may become possible.
In their time, hard SF practitioners have conceptualised colonies on the moon and beyond, genetically engineered test-tube babies, sentient computers, cellphones, nano-technology and other bits of magic (vide the Third Law). Well within Clarke’s lifetime, the global satellite communications network he dreamt of came to pass. So did a lot of other hard SF magic. Clarke’s space elevator may become a reality once new materials like graphene go into industrial production.
The barrier of the imagination is also obvious when we look at sports and endurance records. When Captain Webb swam 34 km across the English Channel in 1883, it was considered to be an impossible feat. There have since been many two-way crossings.
It took three decades and a multitude of fatalities before Hillary and Tenzing made it to the top of Everest. Over 2,000 people have “summit-ed” since — some like Meissner, without bottled oxygen. Once Roger Bannister broke the barrier of the four-minute mile, a multitude of runners followed in his wake. Ditto for so many other records.
Once some pioneer busts the psychological barrier, others follow. If people realise something is possible, they can put a great deal of effort and ingenuity into making it happen. There may be daunting barriers to be overcome. But once people knew it can be done, whatever “it” may be, they find ways to do it and to do it better.
The same principle works in business. The pattern is always similar. All it takes is one big breakthrough by one individual, who doesn’t suffer a failure of the imagination. It takes a pioneering entrepreneur to prove a business case for something.
After that, others will analyse the business model, tweak it to meet specifics and improve upon it. That was the case with the Model T Ford; the PC, the iPhone, discount airlines, Walmart, and cheap mobile telephony, to pick a few examples at random.
But one place where this doesn’t seem to work appears to be governance and policy formulation. Examples of excellent governance, and good policy-making abound. So, of course, do examples of bad governance and malign policy-making.
Given widespread access to information and reams of analysis, the good governance models should be relatively easy to adapt and tweak. And, if the same rules that worked in other spheres of life worked in this one, eventually the good governance models would supersede the bad ones. This does happen sometimes, but all too rarely.
One stumbling block in this respect is, of course, vested interests — poor governance creates rents for the undeserving and they fight to retain them. However, with every business or scientific breakthrough, as creative destruction occurs, vested interests are placed at risk. Eventually the breakthrough wins out.
The difference is that good governance requires mass support to be implemented. Until and unless the governed believe that positive change will occur, it cannot occur. Unfortunately, one inevitable effect of poor governance is that it leads to mass failure of the imagination. How does one get around that?
