You will note two things:

1. She notes that there are things that were invented in Africa that are often assumed to have been invented elsewhere.
2. She gets very emotional about it because of the effect it can have on people when they are told (even if only implicitly) that they are from a less inventive race.

This brings us to the topic of how the way technological history is taught to you. And how that could affect the way you assume (maybe even only unconsciously) your race affects your inventiveness – or how you might assume others’ inventiveness might be affected by their race.
You can imagine how someone not from the stereotypically inventive race would have limiting beliefs about their own inventive ability. Further, you can imagine how people would assume others could be less inventive if they themselves are from the stereotypically inventive race.
Both above assumptions are anathema to being a global engineer. And neither assumption is actually supported by reality.
If you read How we Got to Now by Steve Johnson and Guns, Germs and Steele by Jared Diamond, then you will realise two things:

1. Invention is limited by your environment more than it is by your ability.
2. Each invention is a result of prior inventions and often shows up in multiple places independently, but under similar conditions.

That means, effectively, we are not the bold inventors driving innovation forward – as we like to think we are – but the mechanism by which one technology provides the need or opportunity for the next.
When you take on this perspective, you no longer think of some latent ability within us (one that could be more common in some races than others) that brings about innovation. Instead, you think of us following a process that is the means by which technology evolves form one invention to the next.
With this perspective, where we see innovation as a product of the situation (including prior innovations), we no longer have to worry about our race – or even our sex, nationality, or any other innate properties of a person – as an indicator of inventiveness. Instead, we simply focus on the processes that allow for ingenuity in ourselves and others. That’s the expectation a global engineer has of themselves and others.
Get the 10 minute audio summary of the book here.

​The recent tariffs announced by the Trump administration—imposed on pretty much every other country in the world—have drawn a lot of criticism from economists.
And from other countries.
And from his domestic opponents.
But could things look different from an engineering perspective?
In this piece, I’m going to cover why economists are so opposed to tariffs—and then explore whether there might actually be an engineering opportunity we have not yet noticed.
​
Why Economists Hate Tariffs
Tariffs are supposed to protect local industries and jobs. Intuitively, that seems great—cut out foreign competition, and locals get to keep their jobs. Or, in Trump’s case, bring jobs back.
But in the current U.S. context, two things complicate that picture:

1. Low unemployment
2. A strong currency with high purchasing power

That means if jobs are going to be brought to the U.S., then companies need to do two difficult things:

1. Pay more than they would in another country, to match U.S. dollar purchasing power; and
2. Pay even more again to lure people away from the jobs they already have—because most Americans already are employed.

So any product made in the U.S. under this model comes at a higher cost. And those higher costs get passed on to customers.
And there is evidence of how tariffs do actually put prices up. But not in living memory for many. One of the few places where people in a developed economy can recall the effects of tariffs is Australia. In the 1970’s Australia was only just introducing colour T.V. But this was stifled by tariffs. The tariffs were there to protect the local radio and television manufacturing industry – but the effect was that a colour T.V. would cost around 9 weeks’ pay. Australians were not impressed, but they still wanted their colour T.V. Tariffs dropped from around 180% to 35% to 5%. A lot of industries were lost, but a lot of things became affordable. You can watch a 17 minute video on this topic below.

Adam Smith, almost the first of classical economics, argued over 200 years ago against tariffs — even retaliatory ones — because they only hurt your own citizens.
 
Can Engineering Offer an Alternative?
All of this assumes that the technology of production stays the same. That’s a key point. It’s essentially a zero-sum view.
But what if innovation could shift the game entirely?
In my book, I argue that engineers—when thinking about economics—should be Schumpeterian. Joseph Schumpeter believed that real economic growth doesn’t come from reshuffling jobs or trade balances. It comes from innovation. From finding ways to do more with less. That’s how societies get richer. Fewer people needed to make a car, a fridge, or a bag of doughnuts. More output per person.
But innovation doesn’t just happen. It needs a driver.
And unfortunately, fear has often been one of the most effective motivators.
Take WWII. It produced radar, jet engines, penicillin, and kickstarted the computing revolution. Or the space race—another fear-fueled scramble—gave us satellites, advanced materials, and a cascade of spin-off technologies we now take for granted.
Even in peacetime, we’ve seen what can happen under pressure. During COVID, I was part of a project that turned an empty office space into a factory. And thousands of ventilators were built in a matter of months.
So here's the question: what if the fear of tariffs and economic stagnation could be channeled into a national innovation push? Could the U.S. become dramatically more productive—not by avoiding the cost of labour, but by needing less of it?
 
Why Hasn’t This Happened Already?
We have the tools. Automation, AI, robotics—these technologies exist. As an engineer, you’ve probably noticed just how much day-to-day human labour could already be automated. Diagnosing illnesses. Servicing vehicles. Even preparing food.
So why haven’t we gone all-in?
Two reasons, I think:

1. Economists tend to default to comparative advantage
   They prefer frameworks where countries do what they’re “best” at. That often leads to outsourcing and doesn’t put much value on building new capabilities.
2. It’s just plain hard to imagine an economy without people
   Let’s be honest. The idea of a society where most of us are no longer “needed” economically is both utopian and hard to believe. I must confess, I struggle to envision how it would work.

 
The Trump Thought Experiment
But imagine the benefits if Trump rallied resources to develop this kind of innovation to make as many people as possible redundant. There would be ample people to take on these jobs he wishes to bring into the U.S. And, what’s more, there would be a huge increase in the amount of production per person. The wealth increase would be phenomenal. This would then set an example for the rest of the globe. And all would then enjoy an increase in wealth when they did the same thing.
But that would require two things:

1. Fear
2. Imagination

Not a common combination.

What’s the takeaway?
The above does seem fanciful. Like I said, I can’t imagine an economy free of people. I think it would make for an excellent challenge for economists though. But still, it helps us think about just how much we could improve things if we really focused on seriously on eliminating the need for us.
And who knows, there are times when history takes a turn no-one saw coming