I have long held the view that when alien space explorers assess Earth (or any planet) to determine its relative level of civilization, they will study fashion.

It is worth asking why fashion remains the most culturally potent force that everyone loves to deride.

It is to be driven by the dictates of desires and not needs. And yet the appetite for change so essential to fashion is a more culturally dynamic force than is generally imagined. Luxury, and not necessity, may be the true mother of invention, as the writer Henry Petroski observed. This proposition is an easier sell when the luxury in question is an iPhone, and not a Balenciaga handbag, but the same principles hold.

See also Michael Schrage on innovation pandemics:

Much as bird's nests--rather a clever bit of vernacular technology--may enhance avian reproductive fitness by better sheltering fragile eggs, might not clever technologies like Lasik surgery, hybrid automobiles, implants and--yes--even Google enhance our own by making us more attractive, effective, and desirable?

The question is rhetorical; its implications are not. Innovations that make us more attractive, more effective, and more desirable are more likely to diffuse than those that don't. Just as significant, innovations we think will make us more attractive, more effective, and more desirable are likely to be disproportionately diffusive.

Want to predict the future of innovation? Simply predict the future of attractiveness, effectiveness, and desirability. Then act accordingly.