> rebuilding a flawed, false global economy: one which actively transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, from the sick to the healthy, from productivity to cronyism.
which, frankly, sounds like a little bit more than I can handle at the moment. It also sounds "hand wavy" - it would help if he specified some details. In terms of actual poor people... it seems to me that the Chinese, for instance, are actually getting a lot wealthier these days. But that's happening due to their own opening up, and global trade, not because of some entrepreneur in SV.
0) if you want responses from me, it would help if you commented where the original post is.
1) these shocks are distinctly not "random fluctuations". they are long-term shifts.
2) what should you be doing? like i said - redress the imbalances these shifts point to. whoever can find a solution to food or water imbalances, for example, is going to be bidding on private islands with larry and sergey.
3) we are very definitely not fixing these problems: the level of cleantech investment is tiny, etc.
4) i appreciate that it's a lot to handle. but aren't you guys supposed to be revolutionaries?
thx to everyone for the comments.
KP has $600mil earmarked for green/cleantech. Sequoia has stated numerous times that they are actively looking for green/cleantech (McAdoo used the term "browntech" in his talk at Startup School but no one else seems to know what that means). These two are, admittedly, the top of the VC food chain, and they've been so successful by being ahead of the curve just a wee bit more than the rest of the industry. But, where they go, the rest of the industry will follow.
I think you're underestimating how much people in the valley are thinking about the big problems that they are able to solve--the global economy is a two stage process, involving both government (the largest degree, and something that startups can't have a notable effect on) and business (the big ones that already have clout...startups don't have the power to affect global economic change, though Google and Microsoft do to a degree). But energy is definitely getting attention in the valley. Virtualization is a huge and growing market, partly because it saves tremendously on power requirements in the data center, and lots of money and time is being spent on it. Batteries, boring old batteries, are getting funded.
I think the problem is that you're expecting software and hardware people to move into a completely different field. Sure, some really smart people are working on stuff that might not meet your definition of solving big problems...but if they switch gears to a completely different field (which most of your specified problems are) it'll take years for them to get up to speed on those subjects. Big problems take a lot of research and a lot of knowledge to solve. Most startup guys are not independently wealthy--they need to make their startup pay quickly or they have to go back to their cubicle at MegaCorp and solve even smaller problems and waste away wishing for what could have been.
But, as I mentioned, the money is flowing into energy related startups, and the rate of flow is increasing. Startups will follow the money.
To me that sounds like politics, unless you're going to be more specific, or at best economics (distribution of scarce resources). I think many of us are concerned about that kind of thing (and active), but given our own comparative advantages, may feel that it's best to concentrate on what we do best.
> level of cleantech investment is tiny
There are a few guys here with money to invest, but not that many. That's a fair comment, though.
> i appreciate that it's a lot to handle. but aren't you guys supposed to be revolutionaries?
I'm not sure I'd define myself that way - I'm a hacker with a predilection for open source software, and I like to "build stuff". I can't speak for other people. Right now I'm simply hoping to be able to find a niche where I can make a good living for myself making something cool, and my guess is that that probably doesn't include big, world changing ideas. Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd probably look askance at anyone who describes themselves to others as a "revolutionary". Guess I'm at an age where I'm content to leave the world a better place than I found it by doing my part.
just my opinion, but cynicism is a great way to never have the imagination to fix these problems.
Like many people here, I don't have "big $$$", so that cuts me out of the investing part of the equation.
Let's put it this way: maybe your article makes more sense if specifically directed at people with money to invest. As a hacker, either I have a big green/anti-poverty/etc... idea for people to invest in, or I don't, and as one without such an idea, your article comes across as a bit of a harangue about something I have little control over, having neither the '$$$', nor that kind of idea.
And one final note: there are plenty of practical and noble ideas that could help millions of people that aren't, however, money making ideas. Once again, your article isn't clear (to me at least) on whether that's what people ought to be spending their money on, or if you think that investors can make a buck by investing in this stuff.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/58
So there are things that us hackers could do. Another is a Java project for a low cost medical records database usable by hospitals in the 3rd world.
And as far as money to charities goes, there's money out there. Figuring out the best way to spend it is an ongoing problem.
