3 ms·

I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should

I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per (e.g. http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities). I'd like to hear why that is not real value. No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are that useful. I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation.

lionhearted 16y ago
> I find it a really shameful comment. You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage. > It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per There's no conflict here. New technology saves lives, often by use in unexpected ways. Eradicating disease saves lives. They're both good. > I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation. You don't see how electric cars could save lives? Coupled with better batteries and advanced nuclear power, it goes a long way towards obsoleting fossil fuels and driving down the costs of transportation. That's huge - lower pollution and lower costs on everything - medicine, food, housing - lower transport costs makes everything more affordable. As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.
- mquander 16y ago
  As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be. Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them. Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.) Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education, disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over a few decades than more efficient cars. Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other tree. The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    >Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them. Only in your own mind.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Without the concept of hightech startups, most of the people we are discussing would never have their fortunes to give away.
- gjm11 16y ago
  Just as well no one's proposing to do away with the concept of hightech startups, then.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Valuing those who give to charity more than those who start businesses is like eating your only chicken then wondering why you don't have any more eggs.
    - gjm11 16y ago
      The people being talked about here are ones who have both started businesses (or at least run them very successfully) and given to charity.
petercooper 16y ago
No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are that useful. It's a wide array of advances by first world businesses in many industries that led to those medicines being as prevalent and as cheap as they are. It'll be yet more advances that lead to them being even cheaper and even more effective. A healthy balance is required - not just technological advancement, but not just saving every life at the cost of advancement either.

lionhearted 16y ago

> I find it a really shameful comment. You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage. > It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per There's no conflict here. New technology saves lives, often by use in unexpected ways. Eradicating disease saves lives. They're both good. > I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation. You don't see how electric cars could save lives? Coupled with better batteries and advanced nuclear power, it goes a long way towards obsoleting fossil fuels and driving down the costs of transportation. That's huge - lower pollution and lower costs on everything - medicine, food, housing - lower transport costs makes everything more affordable. As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.

mquander 16y ago
As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be. Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them. Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.) Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education, disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over a few decades than more efficient cars. Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other tree. The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  >Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them. Only in your own mind.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Without the concept of hightech startups, most of the people we are discussing would never have their fortunes to give away.

gjm11 16y ago
Just as well no one's proposing to do away with the concept of hightech startups, then.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Valuing those who give to charity more than those who start businesses is like eating your only chicken then wondering why you don't have any more eggs.
  - gjm11 16y ago
    The people being talked about here are ones who have both started businesses (or at least run them very successfully) and given to charity.

petercooper 16y ago

No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are that useful. It's a wide array of advances by first world businesses in many industries that led to those medicines being as prevalent and as cheap as they are. It'll be yet more advances that lead to them being even cheaper and even more effective. A healthy balance is required - not just technological advancement, but not just saving every life at the cost of advancement either.