P.115 >The adoption of strictly linear evolutionary models of progress in mathematics of the sort discussed [previously] tends to be highly attractive to many mathematicians in light of the intoxicating simplicity of such strictly linear evolutionary models, by comparison to the more complicated point of view discussed [previously]. This intoxicating simplicity also makes such strictly linear evolutionary models — together with strictly linear numerical evaluation devices such as the “number of papers published”, the “number of citations of published papers”, or other likeminded narrowly defined data formats that have been concocted for measuring progress in mathematics — highly enticing to administrators who are charged with the tasks of evaluating, hiring, or promoting mathematicians.
> Moreover, this state of affairs that regulates the collection of individuals who are granted the license and resources necessary to actively engage in mathematical research tends to have the effect, over the long term, of stifling efforts by young researchers to conduct long-term mathematical research in directions that substantially diverge from the strictly linear evolutionary models that have been adopted, thus making it exceedingly difficult for new “unanticipated” evolutionary branches in the development of mathematics to sprout.
I also recommend reading page 114 where he lists some 14 breakthroughs made in his paper, and how many years earlier they could have been made. The audacity of this guy!
[1] ALIEN COPIES, GAUSSIANS, & INTER-UNIVERSAL TEICHMULLER THEORY (http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Alien%20Copies,%20...)