Alright, a few of the top comments point out the good of the Foursquares and Facebooks of the world.
Except, that's not the point - on anything beyond the personal scale the question is not, "which of these two do we want?" but "how much of each do we want?" She asks: "How well are our resources allocated?"
I think there's a strong case that we're under-invested in some of the largest problems of society - personally I'm working towards reforming government http://votereports.org/, and I can tell you the government directly spends some 40% of the GDP, and indirectly affects every other bit of it. Do we have anything close to 40% of developers working on disrupting our stodgy old government? How about 5%? 1%? I know of 3 good folks I work alongside (including these folks: http://circlevoting.com/), and a handful of other part-time, side-job efforts. But is that a proper reflection of the relative return of the problem, when compared to hundreds of facebookers or dozens elsewhere?
Health care is 17% of GDP. What are the big, disruptive health care startups? Who is going to build the tool that enables doctors and patients to circumvent the worst of the system? Or something that serves the economic purpose of insurance while avoiding the onerous regulations thereof? I've had the pleasure to meet with Jay Parkinson of http://thefuturewell.com, and I'll bet he could put the 30-some foursquare developers to better use.
Again, this isn't an either/or question, but a question of resource allocation.
Perhaps what we've done so far has made sense because those are the easy questions to answer - the money is there and the consumers are willing. But sooner or later we're going to have to recognize that the biggest problems of society deserve more of our attention.
I also have to ask: Where are all the education startups? We have a massive, high-speed communication tool and I don't see much changing with respect to education. There are a few things out there (the Khan Academies of the world), but they're very few and far between.
Especially given pg's comments on education in 'Hackers and Painters' (which I just finally read). Yeah. Why on earth aren't we solving this? It's because it's not just hard (as in hard math, or hard code, or hard sell) but it's actually very hard work, and while people like to be remembered as the billionaire who invented something, they don't care so much for being the philanthropic [mo/fa]ther of today's educational system.
I think Jolie's right, to some extent -- we are selfish, and the demands of selfish people make us think we are creating things of value. It's easier to create something for pleasure and gratification or to solve an obvious problem than to entirely overhaul a nationwide, endemic problem with hundred year old roots, red tape up the wazoo and a severe shortage of cash.
While it may not be considered by most as a "startup" at this point, I think that in the long run Wikipedia will have a major impact on education, in the sense of the knowledge base of the average individual.
I can't quantify the amount I've learned from wikipedia articles over the years, but I'm quite certain it's an awful lot. If I had grown up with access to it I'm pretty sure the impact would be far greater.
Sure, when I was a kid we had an encyclopedia, but A) a lot of kids don't, and B) wikipedia is thousands of times more powerful than an encyclopedia (and reading one article will often lead one down a path through various other articles too).
Is it going to replace public schools? Obviously not. But it has and will change education for the better.
Except, that's not the point - on anything beyond the personal scale the question is not, "which of these two do we want?" but "how much of each do we want?" She asks: "How well are our resources allocated?"
I think there's a strong case that we're under-invested in some of the largest problems of society - personally I'm working towards reforming government http://votereports.org/, and I can tell you the government directly spends some 40% of the GDP, and indirectly affects every other bit of it. Do we have anything close to 40% of developers working on disrupting our stodgy old government? How about 5%? 1%? I know of 3 good folks I work alongside (including these folks: http://circlevoting.com/), and a handful of other part-time, side-job efforts. But is that a proper reflection of the relative return of the problem, when compared to hundreds of facebookers or dozens elsewhere?
Health care is 17% of GDP. What are the big, disruptive health care startups? Who is going to build the tool that enables doctors and patients to circumvent the worst of the system? Or something that serves the economic purpose of insurance while avoiding the onerous regulations thereof? I've had the pleasure to meet with Jay Parkinson of http://thefuturewell.com, and I'll bet he could put the 30-some foursquare developers to better use.
Again, this isn't an either/or question, but a question of resource allocation.
Perhaps what we've done so far has made sense because those are the easy questions to answer - the money is there and the consumers are willing. But sooner or later we're going to have to recognize that the biggest problems of society deserve more of our attention.