I think it's plausible, but unlikely. Correlation does not imply causation.
Advancement begins with a conceptual idea in a field of expertise...
While I agree that competition creates the foundations by standardization, if you notice with advancement: Every time a new advancement is made, a new standardized model is thereafter released...and that this is fundamentally true with most fields from technological, to medical, to financial, to architectural, and even that unto the arts themselves (for example: Without Bach, we would not have gotten to Chopin, etc. ...)
Innovation is the result of a creative mind in a conceptual trance or focus, whereas industrialization is the aftermath of that creativity wherein new standardization is released in the format of competition.
Nobody that ever got anywhere worth noting did it out of competition. They did it out of creative ideas and conceptual thoughts within their field. For that matter, the computer scientist and doctor are just as much of artists as painters, sculptors, and musicians. It's just a different kind of art, a different expression of art.
The general public, I feel, doesn't like looking at it this way because it doesn't fit the comfortable little box of tightly-knitted feelings and societal directional paths...but if you think about it: No actual innovative path ever actually begins inside the box, because that's not how advancement happens.
Somebody creates an idea, runs that idea into the ground until it works, and the box of standardization adjusts itself accordingly as a result. Therefore: Competition is just the aftermath of innovation, not the driving cause of it.
__________________
"Like whispers in the dark..."
|