Andreessen's manifesto is like a boxer who's forgotten to guard his chin, leaving himself wide open for a knockout punch. By failing to acknowledge the potential downsides and trade-offs of technological progress, he's practically gift-wrapped a target for critics.
Just as a poorly argued legal case can set a damaging precedent, Andreessen's manifesto risks becoming a reference point for critics who wish to dismiss the pro-progress position as naive or out of touch with reality.
So, Andreessen, if you're listening, it's time to step up to the plate. It's time to add some nuance to your argument, and to stop making it so easy for critics to knock down your position. Because right now, your manifesto is doing more harm than good to the pro-progress movement.
Andreessen's manifesto is like a boxer who's forgotten to guard his chin, leaving himself wide open for a knockout punch. By failing to acknowledge the potential downsides and trade-offs of technological progress, he's practically gift-wrapped a target for critics.
Just as a poorly argued legal case can set a damaging precedent, Andreessen's manifesto risks becoming a reference point for critics who wish to dismiss the pro-progress position as naive or out of touch with reality.
So, Andreessen, if you're listening, it's time to step up to the plate. It's time to add some nuance to your argument, and to stop making it so easy for critics to knock down your position. Because right now, your manifesto is doing more harm than good to the pro-progress movement.
Andreessen's piece reads a bit like Galt's speech.
Thanks for bringing Noah and Matt's essays to light. I thought they were both great.