Almost every schoolchild learns that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. But did he? And if he hadn’t invented it, would we be still living in the dark? Acclaimed author Matt Ridley (The Rational Optimist, The Evolution of Everything) explains that at least 20 other people can lay claim to this breakthrough moment. Ridley argues that the light bulb emerged from the combined technologies and accumulated knowledge of the day – it was bound to emerge sooner or later. Based on his 2018 Hayek Memorial Lecture, Ridley contends that innovation – from invention through to development and commercialisation – is the most important unsolved problem in all of human society. We rely on it – but we do not fully understand it, we cannot predict it and we cannot direct it. In How Many Light Bulbs Does It Take to Change the World? Ridley examines the nature of innovation – and how people often fear its consequences. He dispels the myth that automation destroys jobs – and demonstrates how innovation leads to economic growth. And he argues that intellectual property rights, originally intended to encourage innovation, are now being used by big business to defend their monopolies. Ridley concludes that innovation is a mysterious and under-appreciated process that we discuss too rarely, hamper too much and value too little.
Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley, is a British science writer, journalist and businessman. He is known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics, and has been a regular contributor to The Times newspaper. Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period it experienced the first run on a British bank in 130 years. He resigned, and the bank was bailed out by the UK government; this led to its nationalisation. Ridley is a libertarian, and a staunch supporter of Brexit. He inherited the viscountcy in February 2012 and was a Conservative hereditary peer from February 2013, with an elected seat in the House of Lords, until his retirement in December 2021.
The Ridley speech is rather pedestrian and inconsistent in regards to innovation funding or tax grants. On the one hand he rightly laments governments trying to pick winners and failing, but on the other hand he wants research grants and handouts in relation to innovation which doesn't strike me as terribly wise or considered. The Davies rebuttal and follow-up is exceptionally good though, which redeems the book in my eyes.