I feel like everyone and anyone is capable of creating innovation– especially if we all have the same access to the same time and materials. However, in order for progress and innovation to even occur in the first place those in power choose what innovation is deemed ‘good enough’ in order for advancement to occur. The best can be quantifiable but ultimately subjective in terms of mass practice. The best can be cheap to make and sell, ethical to produce en masse, with a net benefit and little to no detrimental impact to the environment. It can still be deemed subjective as it needs to compete with many other innovative ideas that are en par in terms of its quantifiability.
In order for innovations to even be given the opportunity of consideration, the one presenting it needs to be socially acceptable in terms of physical demographics and culture – one must be commodifiable to gain social and subsequently physical influence and recognition. By choosing to push this single innovation, society and humanity functions at a net loss of ideas come to life. With one invention being made, there are at least 100 that could be better but not come to fruition.
Those that are rejected from presenting their innovation could not have the time or courage to present their ideas, they could be immediately rejected because of external bias, or their idea simply does not benefit those in power as much as it could be. No matter how beneficial or innovative an idea is, if it does not benefit those in power, if those in power do not approve of it or its creator, it does not come to fruition. Human society advances with a net loss of ideas.