If the number of undiscovered ideas remaining today were significantly lower than in the past, how could people know? This is far from a idle question. Unlocking the secrets of the natural world—from electricity to the structure of DNA—has empowered humanity to reshape nature to their will and accumulate wealth. However, if the reservoir of potential breakthroughs is indeed shrinking, it would inevitably limit future progress—a rather dismal scenario. Worryingly, there are indications that our creative reservoir may be nearing depletion. Despite a growing number of researchers flagging.
But is this really the case? A recent study by Nicholas Bloom, Charles Jones, and Michael Webb from Stanford University, along with John Van Reenen from MIT, offers compelling evidence. While the researchers stop short of claiming that humanity has exhausted all its «eureka» moments, they do argue that the cost of generating new ideas is rising significantly.
Today, advancing knowledge and technological progress requires significantly greater resources than in the past for several reasons. First, many of the «low-hanging fruit«—the foundational discoveries and breakthroughs—have already been made. Early researchers were able to unlock major scientific principles with relatively modest tools and funding. Now, however, pushing the boundaries of knowledge often means working at the cutting edge of complex systems, such as quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, or genetic engineering. These areas demand highly specialized equipment, interdisciplinary expertise, and vast computational power.
Second, the problems we face today are more intricate and less easily solved by simple experimentation. As a result, researchers must conduct longer, more detailed studies, often involving large teams across multiple institutions. This naturally increases the cost and logistical demands of innovation.
Lastly, as the bar for innovation rises, so too does the competition. With more researchers worldwide pursuing similar goals, it becomes harder to achieve breakthroughs that are both original and impactful. All of this contributes to the growing need for time, talent, and investment to produce each new idea.
But focusing solely on the supply side of innovation can be misleading, as it overlooks a crucial element: demand. The appetite for new ideas—and the motivation to address complex problems—also plays a significant role. Today there is still a strong appetite for new ideas today, though the nature and drivers of that demand have evolved. In many fields—such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, clean energy, and space exploration—there is intense global competition and substantial investment aimed at pushing the frontiers of knowledge. Governments, corporations, and individuals continue to seek innovation as a way to solve urgent problems, from climate change to healthcare challenges.
However, some scholars argue that despite this demand, the returns on research efforts have diminished. That is, it takes more time, money, and expertise to achieve breakthroughs, and the incentives to tackle truly bold or long-term questions may be dampened by short-term pressures—like the pursuit of profits or academic metrics.
So while the appetite exists, especially in high-stakes or high-reward sectors, the conditions under which ideas are pursued have become more complex and sometimes more constrained.
A lack of competitive pressure can stifle innovation across many companies. When firms operate in environments with little threat from rivals, they often feel less urgency to adopt new technologies or to commercialize the results of research. High profit margins may allow them to fund R&D, but without the push to outperform competitors, there’s less incentive to translate discoveries into practical innovations. In essence, comfort breeds complacency, and in such conditions, the pace of technological progress can slow—even when the raw ideas are there.
Yet there’s a silver lining in the fact that much of today’s existing knowledge remains underutilized. This underuse suggests that humanity is not constrained by a lack of ideas, but rather by not reaching its full potential—both in how current insights are applied and in how new discoveries are pursued.
On a smaller scale, individuals—especially those without access to substantial resources or support—may be less inclined to pursue innovation. The barriers to entry, such as the need for specialized knowledge, advanced tools, and connections to other experts, often deter those who might have entrepreneurial ideas. Without the infrastructure or incentives to push ideas forward, the number of entrepreneurs is limited.
Additionally, the incentives for labor-saving innovation are reduced in economies with slow wage growth, making it less appealing to invent solutions that could increase efficiency.
Furthermore, the accumulation of knowledge can paradoxically hold back progress. As the body of existing knowledge expands, researchers are required to invest more time mastering complex fields before contributing new insights. This can create a bottleneck where innovation is stifled by the sheer volume of information that needs to be absorbed. Also, many ideas and technologies that could spark new breakthroughs are simply underutilized, suggesting that there is untapped potential in existing knowledge.
Ultimately, the key to unlocking further progress lies in improving how existing knowledge is applied. Investments in education, training, and better management practices could ensure that more individuals are capable of leveraging current ideas effectively. By fostering a more innovative mindset and providing the tools and incentives needed to turn ideas into action, we could see a resurgence of creativity and entrepreneurship across industries and people.
Sources:
Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?By Nicholas Bloom, Charles I. Jones, John Van Reenen, and Michael Webb.
The cost of innovation has risen, and productivity has suffered. Article from The economist newspaper. 2017
@Yolanda Muriel 
yolandamuriel.com 