Creative Destruction was a phase coined by economists to describe the process by which radical new innovations sweep away companies that had built value, adhering to the old ideas.
It seems to me that this phrase has been hijacked and misapplied to all manner of fields.
For example, when is creative destruction just a term used to disguise plain old destruction? The world seems to be full of people in power with highly destructive tendencies and agendas, who nevertheless justify their actions to themselves and to others by hiding behind the rubric of creative destruction.
Some creative acts do involve destruction, but the key to this is that the net effect is creative. If the balance goes the other way, it’s not creative destruction. It’s just destruction.
I am all for preserving some things from the past. The old timers were not entirely stupid. I am also a huge fan of innovation and radical innovation at that, but only where it creates a benefit to mankind and the environment. Developing a radically innovative form of synthetic life, which is in reality a sexually transmitted disease which causes infertility and which is resistant to antibiotics, is not creative in any way.
All things considered, my preference is for creativity, without the destruction, if possible. It’s a false dichotomy to always believe that something must necessarily be destroyed before something else can be created. And even when some destruction is inevitable and even necessary, in order to allow something more beneficial to exist, the consequent casualties of the destruction cannot and should not be left to bleed. That’s just inhumanity. A failure to take care of those that suffer loss because of creative destruction is a huge failure of creativity.