No one is wanting to stop progress.

Personally, I just want a better voice in what that progress looks like. Rather than listening to venture capitalists whose sole claim to fame is making a lot of money off a social media platform. "Oh, well he got lucky in the financial lotto, so I guess I better listen to him."

SV capitalists are like yesterdays capitalists. "More capitalism" is the only solution that makes sense to them. Not necessarily because it makes sense in the big picture, but because their power and wealth rely on it.

"... venture capitalists whose sole claim to fame is making a lot of money off a social media platform. ..."

There was the whole Netscape thing, too. I mean, way his arguments on their merits, but he's not just a random VC.

Andreessen is quoted in the article as saying ..."Most of the good ideas are obvious," Andreessen says. "They just might not work right away."

If the good ideas are obvious, why bother listening to him?

He seems to ignore that an obvious good idea still requires exorbitant amounts of capital to enable it. No one can hack together a Netscape and win big anymore, been there done that.

Honestly, this "advice" comes off as a) obvious b) tone deaf.

I was only disagreeing with the 'sole claim to fame' part. Excessive and obviously inaccurate hyperbole does not make a good argument.

How did 'he' get lucky in the financial lotto? For providing a service that practically everyone in the world wants but no one did right at the time?

How do you have progress without private industry actually making things?

There's a difference between making progress and recognizing the impact on real lives vs naively claiming we haven't seen any negative externalities of technology.

That's right, everytime there's been progress there have been negative externalities of the tech produced for the progress.

It's nearly impossible to have both, ie, progress and no negative consequences. So which would you rather have?

This might be unrealistic, but it would be nice if the human race acquired some wisdom at some point instead of just blindly rushing ahead into whatever makes money. Maybe we could lessen the negative consequences with a little bit of restraint and foresight.

For example, did nobody stop to ask what would happen to all that non-biodegradable plastic meant to service a disposable economy?

Is that really true? For example, plumbing.

Early plumbing was often made of lead pipes which caused some pretty serious negative externalities such as brain damage.

Sure, someone will argue that the outhouse makers are out of business. Or the well makers.

As the owner of property with a well, the well makers are making bank. Your ideas of what is outdated are kind of outdated.

Or maybe "It's nearly impossible to have both, ie, progress and no negative consequences" is incorrect.

He made the web browser. That's completely changed the way I get my news, do my shopping, learn about things and communicate with people. I'm happy with those changes.

Do you feel the impact of the browser has been a net negative?

Working more isn't progress.