5 ms·

I think we ought to be very careful putting Uber and Airbnb in the same boat as, say, gun control and malaria. They are websites that make an existing market mo

I think we ought to be very careful putting Uber and Airbnb in the same boat as, say, gun control and malaria. They are websites that make an existing market more efficient by directly connecting two parties, but they are basically EBay: a platform for two parties to exchange services all parties opted into and agree they need. They are not developing policy solutions and they are certainly not trying to connect multiple parties who do not even agree that problems exist or may even be actively hostile to solutions because they stand to gain from said problems.

logicallee 11y ago
I bet on the whole if you compare malaria, a single disease wherein the interests of every human on earth are aligned with no competition toward any limited resource (0 people want any cases of malaria, 7 billion people are better off if the disease falls off the face of the planet by tomorrow) with something like housing where lots of people are competing for a limited resource, then housing is a lot more difficult to solve in a sustainable way than malaria is. There is some chance of eradicating malaria worldwide in the next 20 years, and then just forgetting about it, the way we have for smallpox (eradicated by vaccination - literally smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the planet through vaccination to such an extent that vaccines no longer even need to be given to anyone.) There is no chance of "eradicating" and completely solving the issue of housing for every human worldwide in the next 20 years. (It's a ridiculous thought on its face). Because it's a limited resource people are competing for, with lots and lots of overlapping interests going back thousands of years and indeed perhaps responsible for much/most of history itself. malaria is not even within an order of magnitude of difficulty. I mean we're talking about the difference between $100 billion and $100 trillion. (to completely solve the problem for everyone forever.) so yeah, I would plot them in the same boat (as you put it).
- tedsanders 11y ago
  But interests aren't aligned. Most people would rather have $3,000 in their pocket than have that $3,000 directed toward buying insecticide treated bednets.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Not just that. Remember that we're talking about companies that tend to benefit one subgroup of a community at the expense of another. This is a very bad approach if you want to do some good in this world.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    this is a correct point, thanks, but you've discussed interests around a means, not interests around the end. there's zero pressure in the opposite direction, for maintaining malaria, except the pressure from the natural world making it a somewhat tricky problem. if someone can solve it cheaply and easily they wouldn't face resistance from anyone.
    - stinkytaco 11y ago
      Not resistance against solving malaria, but quite possibly resistance to solutions. That resistance can come in the form of "don't spray insecticides because that causes other harm" to "I'm going to profit off of all this money, but not really align my interests to that money's goal" (i.e. corruption, theft, etc.).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  AirBnB did not solve housing, nor their proposed "solution" is in any way sustainable. It's completely based on pitting people against each other. While there are some places where AirBnB is a pure win, the most "value" seems to come from people deciding to ignore the rules and earn some quick buck at the expense of other people living in the area. Zoning laws were invented for a reason.

logicallee 11y ago

I bet on the whole if you compare malaria, a single disease wherein the interests of every human on earth are aligned with no competition toward any limited resource (0 people want any cases of malaria, 7 billion people are better off if the disease falls off the face of the planet by tomorrow) with something like housing where lots of people are competing for a limited resource, then housing is a lot more difficult to solve in a sustainable way than malaria is. There is some chance of eradicating malaria worldwide in the next 20 years, and then just forgetting about it, the way we have for smallpox (eradicated by vaccination - literally smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the planet through vaccination to such an extent that vaccines no longer even need to be given to anyone.) There is no chance of "eradicating" and completely solving the issue of housing for every human worldwide in the next 20 years. (It's a ridiculous thought on its face). Because it's a limited resource people are competing for, with lots and lots of overlapping interests going back thousands of years and indeed perhaps responsible for much/most of history itself. malaria is not even within an order of magnitude of difficulty. I mean we're talking about the difference between $100 billion and $100 trillion. (to completely solve the problem for everyone forever.) so yeah, I would plot them in the same boat (as you put it).

tedsanders 11y ago
But interests aren't aligned. Most people would rather have $3,000 in their pocket than have that $3,000 directed toward buying insecticide treated bednets.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Not just that. Remember that we're talking about companies that tend to benefit one subgroup of a community at the expense of another. This is a very bad approach if you want to do some good in this world.
- logicallee 11y ago
  this is a correct point, thanks, but you've discussed interests around a means, not interests around the end. there's zero pressure in the opposite direction, for maintaining malaria, except the pressure from the natural world making it a somewhat tricky problem. if someone can solve it cheaply and easily they wouldn't face resistance from anyone.
  - stinkytaco 11y ago
    Not resistance against solving malaria, but quite possibly resistance to solutions. That resistance can come in the form of "don't spray insecticides because that causes other harm" to "I'm going to profit off of all this money, but not really align my interests to that money's goal" (i.e. corruption, theft, etc.).
TeMPOraL 11y ago
AirBnB did not solve housing, nor their proposed "solution" is in any way sustainable. It's completely based on pitting people against each other. While there are some places where AirBnB is a pure win, the most "value" seems to come from people deciding to ignore the rules and earn some quick buck at the expense of other people living in the area. Zoning laws were invented for a reason.