When Was The Last Time Marc Andreessen Talked To A Poor Person?
Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen posted a manifesto on a16z calling for “techno-optimism” in a 5,000-word blog post that somehow managed to reinterpret Reaganomics, propose space colonization, and respond to QED that rhymes with the phrase “QED.”
Andreessen's take on technological optimism may seem inspiring. Imagine a libertarian world where technology solves all our problems, poverty and climate change are eliminated, and noble virtues prevail. Although Andreessen calls us “communists and Luddites,” his dreams are unrealistic and based on the false assumption that technology alone will make the world a better place.
First of all, we need to be aware of the bias that Andreessen displays, especially since he is incredibly rich (worth an estimated $1.35 billion as of September 2022) and his ridiculous wealth is largely due to his eponymous technology and equity company. risky. So he's basically going to promote his optimistic view of technology because the success of tech companies means he'll get richer. When you have a financial interest in something, you become biased. For this reason, we, as journalists, cannot buy Netflix stock and then write an article about why Netflix had a great quarter.
But money can be blind. At the beginning of his article, Andersen wrote: “We believe that there is no physical problem created by nature or technology that cannot be solved by complementary technologies.” . Is war the problem these companies solve? What does “solution” mean in the context of conflicts like the ongoing war in Israel and Gaza? Ultimately, the true solution is the end of the conflict.
Another contradiction is Andersen's claim that “technological innovation in a 50:1 market system is inherently human.” Economist William Nordhaus is quoted as saying that the creators of technology retain only 2% of its economic value, while the remaining 98% "flows back to society."
Andersen asks, "Who benefits more from new technology, the one company that makes it or the millions or billions of people who use it to improve their lives?"
We're not going to lie and say that tech startups haven't made our lives easier. If we are late and the subway doesn't run, we can use Uber or Lyft. If we want to buy a book and have it delivered to our door at the end of the day, we can order it on Amazon. But denying the negative impact of these companies is like wandering the world without blinders.
Furthermore, what is implied but unstated in Andreessen's argument, these platforms have turned large portions of society into tenants and the platforms into landlords. Maybe you need a refresher on the evils of the “rental economy” and how it conflicts with innovation and entrepreneurship.
When was the last time Marc Andreessen walked the streets of San Francisco, where the tech rich pretend not to see a homeless encampment near their headquarters?
When was the last time Marc Andreessen spoke to a poor person or an Instacart customer struggling to make ends meet?
Andreessen's argument is a modern revision of bottom-up economics, the notorious Reagan-era idea that as the rich get richer, some of that wealth is "left" to the poor. But this theory has been refuted several times. again. Do Amazon warehouse workers really get their fair share?
Andersen once claimed that free markets “prevent monopolies” because “the market is inherently disciplined.” Any Amazon seller or anyone who has tried to buy Eras Tour tickets will tell you that this point is easy to refute. Andreessen might argue that the US market is not truly “free,” in the sense that it is regulated by authorities and legislatures that empower those authorities to make policy. But the United States has its share of technological controls, each of which has produced, not stifled, tech giants determined to stifle competition.
Andersen's motives become clearer when he compiles a list of people he considers his enemies.
In this section he recounts what he believes is a "massive frustration" for society. This list refers to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 17 goals created to inspire countries to strive for peace. According to Andreessen, these are the so-called enemies “against technology and life”: environmental sustainability, reducing gender inequality, eliminating poverty or hunger and improving employment opportunities.
How do these 17 goals relate to technology and life, when technology is already being used to create more life, provide clean water, reduce mass production, and generate clean energy? He has a vague and empty writing style, which leaves more questions than answers; This suggests that he may have never read "The Seventeen Permanent Fates" and is instead using it as a symbol for something else. Andreessen then denounces stakeholder capitalism, technological ethics, trust and security, and risk management as enemies of his cause.
What do you really mean, Mark? This organization and accountability is bad. That we should continue to advance technology at the expense of everything else in the hopes that the world will be a better place when Amazon stock surpasses $200 per share.
Andreessen often has a cryptic way of speaking, so it is not surprising that he is so dismissive of the UN's goals of supporting the most vulnerable. He talks about the planet being “extremely sparsely populated” and specifically mentions how “advanced societies” are reducing the population, which seems to confirm one of the fundamental principles of reproductivity. He wants Earth's population to be 50 billion (and then some of us will colonize space) and says "markets" can generate the money needed to fund social welfare programs. (The question is worth repeating: Has this person visited San Francisco recently?) He also notes that universal basic income will “turn people into zoo animals raised by the state.” (Sam Altman certainly wouldn't agree with this.) He wants us to work, be productive and “proud.”
The missing link here is how we can use technology to care for people; How we feed them, how we clothe them and how we protect the planet from the extreme heat that melts us all. What's missing here is that San Francisco is already the technological center of the world and one of the most unequal places in the universe, both socially and economically. What's missing here is that the technological revolution has made it easier to order an Uber ride or order a food delivery, but it has had no impact on how these drivers and delivery people are exploited and how some live in their cars to earn a living. .
There is line after line of analysis in his statement, but what it all boils down to is that there is no life, no living element with all its nuances. To truly harness productivity to improve lives requires a “you're either for technology or you're against” approach. It talks about the economic wheels around which life revolves without talking about its real impact on people.
Many technology giants talk about creating a world that does not belong to them. We see Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg “move fast and break things” and then testify before Congress about election interference. We see OpenAI founder Sam Altman compare himself to Robert Oppenheimer without considering whether pushing the boundaries of technological innovation at any cost is a good thing.
Andreessen is a product of the tech bubble and an engineer who doesn't understand the people he's supposed to serve.
![Attack On Titan Evolution Codes [New Update] (March 2023)](http://img.youtube.com/vi/LlxVfEp3594/default.jpg)
