It's a nice article, but he chose the wrong comparison: The pyramids are hardly a bunch of limestone blocks piled on top of each other. The more you understand them, the more you appreciate the accomplishment they represent. For example, we're still trying to figure out exactly how they did it.

I think he used pyramid building precisely because it was such an astonishing achievement. Similarly with the space programmes. His point was that accomplishment wasn't enough; that innovation requires a transformative effect on people.

His examples of innovation all had a multiplicative effect on human labour, knowledge or communication. Pyramid building and space flight were impressive and inspiring but didn't have a lasting effect on how people live their lives.