When Was The Last Time Marc Andreessen Talked To A Poor Person?
Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen published a manifesto on the website a16z calling for "technological optimism" in a 5,000-word blog that somehow managed to reinvent Reaganomics, propose space colonization, and answer the question with " QED".
Andreessen's view of technological optimism may seem inspiring: he imagines a libertarian world where technology solves all our problems, poverty and climate change are eradicated, and a just meritocracy reigns. While Andreessen may call us "Communists and Luddites," his dream is unrealistic and based on the false assumption that technology alone will improve the world.
First, we must consider Andreessen's stated biases, specifically that he is extremely wealthy (estimated net worth of $1.35 billion as of September 2022) and that his extravagant wealth is largely due to his fund investments technology entrepreneur. So he's basically going to promote his Bulgarian approach to technology because the success of his tech companies means he's getting richer. If you have a financial interest in something, you're biased: This is why we journalists can't buy Netflix stock and then write a story about why Netflix is going to have a great fourth quarter.
But money can be blind. At the beginning of his essay, Andresen wrote: "We believe that there is no material problem—neither natural nor technological—that cannot be solved by new technologies." develops autonomous weapons. Is war the solution for these companies? What does "solution" mean in the context of conflicts such as the ongoing wars in Israel and Gaza - wouldn't a real solution end the conflict?
Another contradiction is Andreessen's assertion that "technological innovation in a market system is predominantly philanthropic, by a ratio of 50:1." the value is preserved so that the remaining 98% "flows into society".
"Who benefits more from a new technology: the individual company that produces it, or the millions or billions of people who use it to improve their lives?" asked Andresen.
We won't lie and say that tech startups don't make our lives easier. If we arrive late and the subway is not running, we can use Uber or Lyft. If we buy a book and want it delivered to our house at the end of the day, we can order it from Amazon. But to deny the negative impact of these companies is tantamount to turning a blind eye.
Furthermore, it is implied (but not stated in Andreessen's argument) that these platforms have in fact created many tenants outside of society, and that these platforms are owners. Perhaps he needs a refresher on the downside of the "tenant economy" and its hostility to innovators and entrepreneurs?
When was the last time Marc Andreessen walked the streets of San Francisco, where rich tech people pretended not to notice the homeless encampments outside their corporate headquarters?
When was the last time Marc Andreessen spoke to poor people or Instacart shoppers trying to get by?
Andreessen's argument is a modern take on trickle-down economics, the famous Reagan-era idea that as the rich get richer, some of that wealth will "trickle down" to poorer communities. However, this theory has been disproved several times. Once again: Are Amazon warehouse workers really getting their fair share?
Andreessen once said that free markets "prevent monopolies" because "markets are inherently disciplinary." Any third-party Amazon seller — or anyone trying to get Eras tour tickets — will tell you it's easy to argue with that. Andreessen might argue that the US market is not truly "free" in the sense that it is regulated by institutions and legislatures that give these institutions the power to make policy. But the US has begun to exercise questionable technology oversight, and both countries aim to stifle competition rather than stifle the tech giants.
Andreessen's motivation began to emerge as he made a list of his enemies.
In this piece, he mentions what he believes caused society to experience "genocide". This list is called the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 goals designed to motivate countries to work for peace. According to Andreessen, these are the so-called enemies of "technology and life": environmental sustainability, closing the gender gap, ending poverty or hunger, and improving jobs.
How do these 17 goals conflict with technology and life when technology is used to create more life—used to create clean water, reduce mass production, and produce green energy? His letter is vague and empty, leaving more questions than answers; This suggests that he has never read the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and is instead using them as code words for something else. Andreessen later identified ESG stakeholder capitalism, technology ethics, trust and security, and risk management as enemies of his cause.
What exactly do you mean, Mark? Are controls and accountability weak? That we should push technological development at the expense of everything else in the hopes that the world will be a better place when Amazon's stock breaks $200 a share?
Andreessen has a habitual way of speaking in code, so it is not surprising that he aims such attacks to support the most vulnerable members of the United Nations. He calls planet Earth "grossly underpopulated" and, in particular, points out that "advanced societies" are becoming more and more overpopulated, which seems to confirm one of the basic tenets of the births. He wants 50 billion people on Earth (and then some of us can colonize space) and says that "markets" can generate the money needed to fund social welfare programs. (We should rephrase the question: Did this guy recently move to San Francisco?) He also noted that universal basic income would "turn people into government-bred zoo animals." (Sam Altman would disagree, of course.) He wants us to work, be productive, and be "proud."
The missing link here is how we can use technology to truly care for society; How to feed them, clothe them, and how to prevent the planet from reaching temperatures so high that we all die. What's missing here is that San Francisco is already the tech capital of the world and one of the most socially and economically unequal places in the world. What's missing here is that while the technological revolution has made it easier to call an Uber or order food delivery, it has done nothing to combat the exploitation of these drivers and couriers, nor the way some people live out of cars theirs to live. life. changed.
There are lines in the manifesto that need to be analyzed, but they all boil down to the fact that there is no life here: the essence of life and all its nuances. To improve life, he takes a "you're for technology" or "you're against" approach. It speaks to the economic structure that is the basis of life, not to mention how complex it affects people.
Many tech giants talk about creating a world they don't understand. We saw Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg "fix the problem" and eventually testify before Congress about election meddling. We've seen OpenAI founder Sam Altman draw parallels between himself and Robert Oppenheimer, repeatedly questioning whether pushing the boundaries of technological innovation was a good thing.
Andreessen was a product of the tech bubble and was an engineer who didn't understand the people he sought to serve.
