"Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
peternixey.com
"Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
1–10 of 164 posts
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#2I have a feeling it's a good thing that game developers don't work on curing cancer. I know this isn't what the article is about, but the headline makes it sound so.
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#3I call it the Fart App Generation. Triviality rules the day. People make money selling whoopee cushions too. And if you find meaning in that, then more power to you. It's not for me though.
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#4False dichotomy much?
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#5I just wish that societally we would put more of a financial emphasis on things that deliver the most social utility. That would solve the gradient problem, and still deliver efficiency since people would have different competitive advantage.
I think games are something of a poor example, since they clearly do bring happiness to people at least, but the financial industry seems to spend inordinate amounts of energy and human capital shaving milliseconds and tenths of a percent off trading strategies.
Imagine if we had some of those people being paid $300k salary + $300k bonus instead working on vaccines, or new antibiotics? Clearly the skills aren't transferrable, but there's a brain drain to finance that is unfortunate, and I think startups suffer some of the same social-good-to-reward-ratio problems
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#6I call it the Fart App Generation. Triviality rules the day. People make money selling whoopee cushions too. And if you find meaning in that, then more power to you. It's not for me though.
I fail to see the problem with that. If people prefer "bright minds" to work on cancer cures rather than on new casual games, why don't we make a $5 app to sponsor cancer research and see how well it sells?
My conclusion is, that most people simply aren't bothered with cancer research until they get it (apparently in these areas, about 50% of the population do at some point in their lives).
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#7Some ask, "Why can't these minds be contributing more to society?" I find that they often are, by being good parents, citizens, volunteers, donors. A similar vein of thought might be applied to the talent in the financial industry.
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#8False dichotomy much?
FYI, that is the point of the article.
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#9I mentioned on Twitter how my earlier pitches for what I'm working on focused a lot more on the reasons I'm doing it... attacking loneliness in cities and densely populated areas, and inspiring people to pursue their interests.
As the pitches to users and investors evolved, I realised I'd moved a long way from this and now mention just the numbers, just the personal benefits to the user.
No-one seems to care so much for any wider benefit... just the selfish* ones.
I haven't lost my faith, but I hope to build what I believe in as fait accompli rather than something needing individuals to think beyond themselves.
* Dictionary meaning, no offence intended or meant
Re: "Instead of cures for cancer we got Angry Birds"
#10This presumes there is no social benefit from the Internet. But there are loads of margalized groups who have been able to find a group and community thanks to quick and easy communication of the Internet. Just look at a lot of lesbian, gay, bi and trans people who wouldn't be able to find people like themselves in many places. I'd even think the more common acceptance of atheism is a result of this too.