4 ms·
This feels like a value judgment to me. Did any of the following 'solve the next big problem'?: Jerry Seinfeld, Seth MacFarlane, Claude Monet, Francis Ford Cop
by tomsaffell 18y ago
This feels like a value judgment to me.
Did any of the following 'solve the next big problem'?: Jerry Seinfeld, Seth MacFarlane, Claude Monet, Francis Ford Coppola, Kubrick, the list goes on...
This guy made something that entertains people (although he's probably not yet in the league of those above ;). It seems to me that you're not valuing works of entertainment as highly as some other works. That's a judgment on your part, which makes your, "should still strive to work towards solving real world problems" sound quite judgmental. I like to think there is more to life than efficient markets (even though I love efficient markets)
- tsally 18y agoFair enough, and perhaps I am being a bit too harsh. :-) I would point out that I haven't wished anything but the best for this guy, and have congratulated him several times in my comments. I also like seeing a Second City showing in downtown Chicago as much as the next guy :-). I can't say I have any specific criticisms with regard to entertainment. What bothers me is when things of little value are assigned a very high value. I will say this: entrepreneurs are people with particularly powerful talent; with that power comes a responsibility. Imagine the choice between developing a Facebook application that lets friends buy digital icons of drinks for their friends (why not just real drinks :-p) versus an Facebook application for FreeRice [1]. A responsible entrepreneur would develop the FreeRice application, even though profit might be smaller. A more concrete example can be seen in Google. They own the most valuable piece of real estate on the internet (their homepage), yet they don't monetize it. Their restrictions on content on AdSense are stricter than they are required to be by law. The list could go on. As tdavis pointed out, there will always be people looking for a quick buck. Let them monetize the things that don't really matter. Instead, skilled entrepreneurs should tackle the more difficult problems and monetize things that create value and have real impact on lives. I may be stretching your analogy, but I would compare Google search to the works of Claude Monet and most Facebook/AppStore applications to paint by number. If the media keeps sensationalizing paint by number, eventually people will believe in it. [1] http://freerice.com/ http://freerice.com/
- Tichy 18y agoI don't see the point of the freerice game. Why don't they just donate the money directly? I suppose the rice is paid for with advertising, but all the ads seem to be from wellfare organizations, so they are paid with donations that otherwise could go into rice directly. The only time this would REALLY yield some rice would be if somebody playing the game would end up donating money to one of the sponsors. Anyway, that is a bit off-topic. Yesterday I had a discussion with friends who were all very depressed about their prospects on the job market. Basically they saw it as a given that everybody would either be jobless or be forced to work 60 h weeks and take shit from their bosses. So apart from the entertainment (which I personally value, too), I think it is a worthy achievement to show that there can be an escape from living as a drone. (Too bad none of my friends were programmers or engineers, but that is another problem). As for trading drink icons on facebook, I don't know. But maybe it would serve the networking and socialising of human beings, which in turn might yield other positive effects. Maybe Unicef could win some sponsors for rice by giving out free drinks to people on Facebook, for example.
- gdee 18y ago> (although he's probably not yet in the league of those above ;) those above are not in the same league either...
- tomsaffell 18y agoPray tell... Of course, it's personal opinion, but I'm interested... Don't knock Seth ;)