Can a non-hierarchical, non-capitalist society promote innovation to the degree greed/narcissism promotes innovation in the current structure of society? Can an open source society exist, if so, how long would it take for society to alter its foundation?

I believe so. Because people are greedy and what not in this society...any innovation related to these characteristics will be widely accepted. However, if society is believes that all are equal, and not in a social hierarcy, then any innovation related to these characteristics will be widely accepted. An open source society could only prosper in a democratic and open minded society. And as for society changing its foundation...drastic change would be nesessary. Why don't people worship Mythological gods anymore? Why isn't this society religious centric, like it was 2000 years ago? How did clothing style change? And why? Why do people live differently than they did 20 years ago? I'll tell you. Advances in technology, new discoveries, and radical changes of thinking (mostly through violence and disasters) led to foundation changes within a society. What people are exposed to, and allowed to do and receive changes everything. We don't hunt for food, we don't live in hut, we like in an advanced civilization that's always advancing technologically. So we live differently. Because people like to see others in nice cars, or houses, etc. We just want to be noticed. We want to feel important. And because this society is so materialistic, we all give in because our ancient desire to be "somebody" still fills our minds and hearts. As for how long change would take? There's no definite answer. It's a constant variable. Let's use today's situation for example. Could a nuclear strike change the war people think? Absolutely. And Hurricane Katrina. All the people who live in the southeast United States have changed the way they live. And suppose if in the future we had a one world gov't? Would people still worry about nuclear strikes? Or would it be genetically engineered viruses, created by anti-gov't terrorists or rebels. And in the early 20th century, I really doubt that anyone even knew what terrorism meant. But now, even our children know. Or what if the United States was conquered by another country? Would the American people feel the same about the country if we took it back? Of course not. Coup d' Etats always resulted in radical change in societal thinking. So that brings me back to my point. There is no way to set a time for a foudation change within society. We evolved mentally for millenia. And so we will continue to do so to meet the current demands of our world. Oh and one more thing, if it wasn't for the information age...you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. And others would be able to read what you and I spoke. This society is techno-centric, and it's only going to get more techno-centric.

I believe that material incentives do not promote innovation. Look at the record industry. All the bands on the radio sound the same. They mimic each other to make money. Is that innovation? I think people are most innovative and productive when they are allowed the most freedom. Greed is a cage.

Unfortunately, I think history is proof that the nature of man is what it is. It sounds to me like your almost asking if a communistic, or socialistic society could ever prevail over a capitalistic system.
I think we may have to wait for the next life for that. For now, perhaps the best we can aspire to is a solidly governed free enterprise society, (meaning we tax the truly greedy enough, to take care of the truly fortunate). I think that can be accomplished.

The shift it seems would be to inovation through opportunity rather than necesity...

(requires members of society to identify with accomplishment of larger group than achievement of individual desire).

Opportunity, because of support, recognition of innate value in contribution.

Structure of society = conversive interactions of the structures of communities.

open society - ie. less dominance, more creative, conversive co-operation = more inputs.

more inputs = larger creative bank.

may or may not lead to more innovation...?

...................

conversive group = more inputs = more aparent contradictions, more points of improvement etc.

therefore, a living response would be members to become more creative (EVEN IN DEALING WITH THEIR OWN INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS)therefore high possibility of higher innovation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remember:

Innovation = creative problem solving.

technology has lead to many problems as well as opportunities... Innovation MAY involve the reduction of modern high consumption low out put 'technologies'.

````````````````

such technologies may be reflective/reflexive of high consumption low out put human desire:: Ie SELFISHNESS.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Can YOU live in an open source,relationship, family, group, community, society?

I rated you up for the challenge of the question. I'd like to separate the issue of hierarchy from capitalism. I'd also like to isolate greed and narcissism from capitalism since I do not believe any of those qualities are married by necessity. Capitalism provides incentives for innovation and rewards that are both material and individualistic as well as etherial and corporate. Response to incentives, whether monetary or recognition are intrinsically part of our nature. Altrusim in investments is also possible. One wonders what the world might miss out on without the muscle power of the Gates-Buffet alliance for creative and strategic philanthropy. Soviet communism was not capitalistic, but it certainly was hierarchical. It was neither open nor innovative. I think enlightened, responsible,and generous free enterprise continues to hold the best hope for economic prosperity for the masses.

Wow, Helluva question, can I just tackle the first part? If man wasn't so preoccupied with the struggle, he'd be free to follow his heart. Thus, in theory, the guy who is now works two shifts a day as a janitor so he can keep food on the table, would be free to pursue his calling - innovating a better mouse trap.
I can't wait to hear some of the other answers to this.

Ways to promote innovation exist in all societies, at the international, national, and corporate level.

Creativity works better with freedom. And a minimum of welfare. Even narcissism and greed could help.

Open source, non-hierarchical or non-capitalist structures can been developed as an alternative to the more traditional ones, and coexist with them.

This would be the best way to test their superiority.
Also, old structures can use this as an inspiration to evolve.

no, but it can distribute thesauruses to all of its citizens in order for them to achieve utter douchebaggery pretensions

In answer to these questions....Yes, yes,with a good wind 25 years.....A new economic theory built on a global economy. Globalism would of course be a mixed economy.But its strength and purpose would be creativity and no need for wars. Capitalism in our country needs war to grow, this is the quintessential negative of capitalism in America. We are a war economy first. Now how do we move away from that. Obviously it will take a great leap of trust. We will have to elect leaders that believe in their citizens and themselves and in the human potential for evolution. Capitalism is for the rich and the ones that wish to be rich. When we are simply products, we no longer feel compelled to act for others...
If we are to serve the world we must first believe in the world. We must all be patriots of the world....

Without a doubt, yes. A non-capitalist society will eliminate the need to control patents or keep technology secret. It will eliminate the exclusionary practices of national security (i.e. not allowing Russia to see our space program plans). This kind of society does not limit ANY individual from pursuing his/her dreams the way a capitalistic society does now. Can a poor person get the best education in the field of medicine without subjecting themselves to indentured servitude through long-term loans? No. As a middle class taxpayer who graduated with a degree in accounting afford to go back to school to do something more constructive with my life? No, can't afford it. These are the restrictions placed on individuals, with the rich getting the breaks the rest of us don't get. More often than not, the rich have gotten that way due to unethical/illegal/inefficient behavior. Just one example of that is J.D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil which supplied both sides of WW II with their product making money on both sides of the war.