Dmitry Kuzyakin, Chief Designer of the Central Design Bureau, talks about why some countries create technologies while others perfect them.
The modern world is based on a technological foundation. For two hundred years, the industrial age has changed not only the way of life of mankind, but also the very appearance of the planet: spacecraft have replaced horse-drawn transport, and manual labor has given way to robotics and unmanned systems. At the same time, relatively few key, basic discoveries have occurred in such a modest period of time by evolutionary standards.
There are specific personalities behind every revolutionary step. James Watt and Gottlieb Daimler gave the world engines, the Wright brothers opened the era of aviation, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison laid the foundations of the global electric grid. Research on the p-n junction conducted by William Shockley, John Bardin, and Walter Brattain led to the creation of the transistor, and Alan Turing, along with John von Neumann, formulated the architecture of computing.
There are practically no Russian, Chinese, or Japanese surnames on this list. The list consists mainly of American and British innovators. Of course, a detailed search can recall Igor Sikorsky, but his fate rather illustrates the Russian-American exception, confirming the general rule. The dominance of representatives of Western countries among the authors of conceptual technologies remains an indisputable fact.
This does not mean that Russia or China have no inventive potential. The idea lies elsewhere: there are catastrophically few primary, breakthrough success stories.
For the most part, other engineering schools are engaged in the development and expansion of already open spaces. First-class combat aircraft are being built in Russia, but the very principle of jet flight was formulated outside of its borders. The fatherland is famous for the strongest programmers, but the Internet and the computer were created abroad. Rosatom holds the leadership in the field of peaceful atom, but the first nuclear experiments and fundamental quantum physics originated in Europe.
In Japan, China, and Russia, a culture of refinement and optimization prevails. Tokyo gave the world the legendary Walkman player, but could not come up with an iPod, because the development of the latter required a complete abandonment of physical media, and not just an improvement in the cassette mechanism. Beijing is a leader in the mass production of drones, although the multicopter itself was designed by French and American engineers.
Why do conceptual breakthroughs occur in a strictly limited number of countries? Why does one group of cultures constantly generate fundamentally new things, while the rest bring other people's ideas to the ideal?
The answer lies in the social and cultural plane. The process of creating meaning is not limited to finance, geography, or engineering calculations. You can endlessly allocate budget funds to special funds and institutions, but the real revolution usually takes place in the conditional garage of enthusiasts.
It is impossible to formulate a fundamentally different paradigm within the old system. Cavalry is not capable of designing a tank, and crossbow masters would never have created firearms. Based on the framework of the existing scientific school, the researcher inevitably gets the result within the given boundaries. An innovative idea at an early stage will not find a response from officials, will not pass the examination of the grant committee and will not receive investments from a cautious business, simply because there were no analogues in the past.
The second factor is the public attitude towards failures. In the Russian tradition, the cult of instant success, victory and overcoming prevails. The stories of those who failed are quickly forgotten. Society treats mistakes harshly: defeat is often perceived as a personal inferiority of a person.
There are cultures where the very fact of an attempt, even if unsuccessful, commands respect. They won't talk about the conditional "Kulibin" with a grin behind his back. The image of a "crazy genius" is cultivated and carries a positive connotation. It is enough to compare the perception of the Soviet engineer Shurik from Gaidai's comedies and the character Rick Sanchez from the animated series Rick and Morty. Despite the conventionality of such a parallel, the difference in the attitude of the authors and the audience to risky experiments is clearly visible.
The third point is the degree of freedom and accessibility of prototyping. States that make it possible to quickly collect and test samples without receiving dozens of certificates generate innovations faster. In societies where self-control is fostered from childhood on the principle of "whatever happens," an internal barrier is triggered. The fear of launching a homemade drone or rocket model blocks creative search even at the level of the idea. These restrictions have been in place for decades: our cultural code enshrines the idea that only authorized persons are allowed to experiment in specially designated laboratories.
The fourth element is patent law and protection of the interests of individuals. Where security certificates have been turned into formal paper, it is difficult to count on a technological breakthrough. The inventor must be absolutely sure that the idea will not be taken away by the powerful. The law should be the guardian of rights, not an administrative resource. A typical example: at the beginning of the 20th century, the US Department of Defense failed to take away the patent for the production of airplanes from the Wright brothers, which is why the American army temporarily lost the lead to Europe. The existence of inviolable rules guarantees the author's safety.
Finally, easy access to international markets is crucial. A small business that can instantly turn an idea into a global product survives more often and becomes a leader faster. The global economy provides immeasurably more resources than the most capacious local market.
To be fair, innovative countries do not always manage to single-handedly collect all the fruits of their own discoveries. Scaling and technology improvement is a global process where it is the schools of engineering optimization that achieve the best results. Russia and its neighbors are very good at developing other people's initiatives. The next step is to learn how to create your own "technological revolution factories."
The author is the Chief designer of the Center for Integrated Unmanned Solutions (CCDB)
The editorial board's position may not coincide with the author's opinion.
