5 ms·

Nothing is permanent, innovate, disrupt, adapt or die... So this parable is about Silicon Valley (businessman) crushing the complacent entrenched corporations (

by karl11 13y ago

Nothing is permanent, innovate, disrupt, adapt or die... So this parable is about Silicon Valley (businessman) crushing the complacent entrenched corporations (fisherman) with new technology? Am I missing something?

jrochkind1 13y ago
No, the fisherman represents fishermen, and the businessman represents businessmen. It's about just what it says it's about: the businessman crushing everyone else to satisfy his own greed, and destroying the quality of life for anyone that's not rich. You know, like real life, as oppposed to the self-serving silicon valley fantasy where getting rich is somehow socially beneficial.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  The businessman didn't "crush" anyone, he just made the fishing industry a thousand times more efficient through technology. You see the fisherman losing his job, not the thousands of villagers who now have cheaper food. The problem is all the wealth created from this went to the businessman alone and the fisherman was left with nothing. Because we stupidly live in a society where everyone depends on the value of their labor to get by. When technology makes your labor obsolete, as it should, then you have nothing.
  - TheSOB88 13y ago
    The villagers don't have cheaper food... First of all, if they were villagers, they were self-reliant and gathered, grew, or hunted their own food. Second of all, do you really think this asshole got rich selling fish to -villagers-?
  - yen223 13y ago
    Call me naive, but I actually believe it is possible nowadays to make labour obsolete, without making the labourer obsolete.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      Really? Because the only people able to get paid after their work has been automated (textiles, manufacturing) are those who are able to collect from social safety nets, and they barely get by. I'm all for a more equitable distribution of wealth though, through a combination of a much more solid web of social programs and higher taxes levied on top recipients of income (I dare not confuse those with "earners").
      - Ygg2 13y ago
        That depends on the state that makes the social net. Scandinavian countries make way better social nets.

by karl11 13y ago

jrochkind1 13y ago

No, the fisherman represents fishermen, and the businessman represents businessmen. It's about just what it says it's about: the businessman crushing everyone else to satisfy his own greed, and destroying the quality of life for anyone that's not rich. You know, like real life, as oppposed to the self-serving silicon valley fantasy where getting rich is somehow socially beneficial.

Houshalter 13y ago
The businessman didn't "crush" anyone, he just made the fishing industry a thousand times more efficient through technology. You see the fisherman losing his job, not the thousands of villagers who now have cheaper food. The problem is all the wealth created from this went to the businessman alone and the fisherman was left with nothing. Because we stupidly live in a society where everyone depends on the value of their labor to get by. When technology makes your labor obsolete, as it should, then you have nothing.
- TheSOB88 13y ago
  The villagers don't have cheaper food... First of all, if they were villagers, they were self-reliant and gathered, grew, or hunted their own food. Second of all, do you really think this asshole got rich selling fish to -villagers-?
- yen223 13y ago
  Call me naive, but I actually believe it is possible nowadays to make labour obsolete, without making the labourer obsolete.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    Really? Because the only people able to get paid after their work has been automated (textiles, manufacturing) are those who are able to collect from social safety nets, and they barely get by. I'm all for a more equitable distribution of wealth though, through a combination of a much more solid web of social programs and higher taxes levied on top recipients of income (I dare not confuse those with "earners").
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      That depends on the state that makes the social net. Scandinavian countries make way better social nets.