Topics
Latest
AI
Amazon
Image Credits:Steve Jennings / Stringer
Apps
Biotech & Health
clime
Image Credits:Steve Jennings / Stringer
Cloud Computing
Commerce
Crypto
enterprisingness
EVs
Fintech
fund-raise
widget
punt
Government & Policy
ironware
layoff
Media & Entertainment
Meta
Microsoft
Privacy
Robotics
Security
Social
distance
Startups
TikTok
Transportation
Venture
More from TechCrunch
Events
Startup Battlefield
StrictlyVC
Podcasts
Videos
Partner Content
TechCrunch Brand Studio
Crunchboard
meet Us
Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen mail a manifesto on the a16z website , calling for “ techno - optimism ” in a frenzied , 5,000 - Word of God blog post that somehow carry off to re - invent Reaganomics , pop the question the colonization of prohibited outer space and unironically answer a question with the phrase “ QED . ”
Andreessen ’s vision of techno - optimism could seem inspiring : He imagines a Libertarian - esque creation where technology solve all of our problems , poorness and climate change are eradicated , and an honest meritocracy reign supreme . Though Andreessen may call us “ Communists and Luddites ” for saying so , his pipe dream are unrealistic , and founded upon a flawed premise that tech entirely makes the world better .
First , we need to remember the biases that Andreessen bring to the table , in the main that he is absurdly wealthy ( worth an estimate $ 1.35 billion as of September 2022 ) and that his absurd wealthiness is largely tied to the investments of his namesake tech venture investment trust . So , he inherently is going to labor for his techno - optimist visual sensation , because the success of tech companies means he start even more rich . When you have a fiscal stake in something , you become biased : This is why , as newsperson , we ca n’t purchase Netflix stock , then work around and write an article about why Netflix is snuff it to have a groovy Q4 .
But money can be blinding . Early on in his essay , Andreessen writes , “ We believe that there is no stuff problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that can not be lick with more engineering science . ” A16z is increasingly gift in defense company , including Palmer Luckey ’s controversial startup Anduril , which manufacture autonomous weapon . Is warfare the problem these companies are solving ? What does “ work ” even mean in the context of use of conflict like the ongoing state of war in Israel and Gaza — is n’t the true solution an last to fight ?
Another incompatibility consist in Andreessen ’s assertion that “ technical innovation in a market scheme is inherently philanthropic , by a 50:1 ratio . ” He references economic expert William Nordhaus ’ claim that those who create applied science only retain 2 % of its economical value , so the other 98 % “ flows through to society . ”
“ Who get more value from a newfangled engineering , the single company that makes it , or the millions or billions of citizenry who utilise it to improve their lifespan ? ” asks Andreessen .
We wo n’t lie down and say that tech inauguration have not made our life easier . If we ’re out too late and the subway is n’t running , we can take an Uber or Lyft . If we need to buy a book and get it delivered to our doors by the ending of the daytime , we can order it on Amazon . But to refuse the negative impacts of these companies is to move through the world with blinders up .
Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI
moreover , it ’s unquestioning — but not stated in Andreessen ’s argument — that these chopine have effectively made large swathes of society renters , and the political platform , the landlords . Perhaps he needs a refresher on the ailment of the “ rentier economy ” and how antithetical it is to innovators and entrepreneurship ?
When was the last time Marc Andreessen walk through the streets of San Francisco , where wealthy tech workers make believe that they do n’t see the stateless encampments outside of their companies ’ HQ ?
When was the last time Marc Andreessen talked to a poor soul — or anInstacart shopperstruggling to make ends take on , for that matter ?
Andreessen ’s argument is a modern-day rehashing of trickle - down economics , the notorious Reagan - era idea that as rich people get richer , some of that wealth will “ dribble down ” to the poor . But this possibility has beenrepeatedlydebunked . Again : Do Amazon warehouse workers really get their fair share ?
At one point , Andreessen makes the grammatical case that free markets “ prevent monopoly ” because the “ market by nature field of study . ” As any third - party Amazon seller will tell you — or anyone who ’s seek to get Eras Tour ticket — this is a period well disproved . Andreessen may argue that the U.S. market is n’t truly “ costless ” in the sense that it ’s regulated by agencies and the lawmakers who empower those agencies to impose policy . But the U.S. has had its fair part of stretches of laissez - faire tech oversight , and each has spawn — not stifled — technical school giants strongly inclined to crush contention .
Andreessen ’s motivation are further illuminate when he makes a leaning of whom he view to be his opposition .
In that section , he name off what he palpate has subjugated society to “ mass demoralization . ” On this listing is a honorable mention of the United Nations’Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs ) , the 17 objectives that were make to inspire Nation to endeavour toward peace . allot to Andreessen , these are the so - ring enemy “ against technology and life : ” environmental sustainability , reduced gender inequalities , the evacuation of poorness or thirst , and more dear job .
How are these 17 goals against technology and life , when applied science is already being used to achieve more life — already being used to make clean piss , alleviate mass product and engender unobjectionable energy ? He has a obscure , empty way of writing that leave more inquiry than answers ; it brings forth the estimate that he has probably never read the 17 Sustainable Goals , and that instead he is using it as a code word for something else . Then , Andreessen excoriate ESG stakeholder capitalism , technical school ethics , trust and base hit , and risk direction as enemies to his cause .
What are you really attempt to say , Marc ? That regulation and accountability are bad ? That we should pursue the development of applied science at the expense of all else , in hope that the man will be good if Amazon breed breaks $ 200 per contribution ?
Andreessen has a tease mode of address in general , so it ’s no wonderment that he takes such umbrage with the UN ’s goals of supporting those most at risk of infection . He talks about the planet being “ dramatically underpopulated ” and specifically calls out the agency “ evolve order ” are dwindling in universe , a seeming endorsement of one of the essence dogma of pronatalism . He want 50 billion the great unwashed to be on worldly concern ( and then for some of us to colonise kayoed space ) , and says the “ securities industry ” can generate the money want to fund societal eudaemonia programs . ( We must repeat the question : Has this man been to San Francisco lately ? ) He also mentions that Universal Basic Income “ would turn people into zoo brute to be farmed by the state . ” ( Sam Altman would no doubt disagree . ) He wants us to go , to be fat , “ to be gallant . ”
The missing link here is how we can apply tech to in reality take care of people ; how to fertilise them , enclothe them , how to make trusted the planet does n’t reach such gamey temperatures that we all just melt away . What is missing here is that San Francisco is already the technical school hub of the world and is one of the most inadequate places in the universe , both socially and economically . What is missing here is that the technological revolution made it easier to hail an Uber or order food delivery , but did nothing about how those drivers and delivery people are being exploited , and howsome livein their cars to sustain a enough wage .
There are lines and lines to analyze in his pronunciamento , but it all go back to the point that what ’s missing here is life : the element of living and all its refinement . He take an either “ you are for engineering ” or “ against it ” approach path to really utilize productiveness to help make life story well . He talks about the economic frameworks that sprightliness is spin around , without mention the intricate ways it really impacts mass .
Plenty of tech giants address of create a world they have no grasp on . We watch as Meta laminitis Mark Zuckerberg “ moves fast and breaks thing ” and then ends up evidence before Congress about election interference . We watch as OpenAI founder Sam Altman drawsparallelsbetween himself and Robert Oppenheimer , not bar to think so much about whether or not it ’s a salutary matter to push the limit of technological innovation at any cost .
Andreessen is a product — and an engineer — of a tech house of cards that does n’t infer the masses whom it purports to serve .
