This argument comes up from time to time, but it's first order thinking. The real question he should address is the following:
Why does the modern economy incentivize negative and/or zero sum endeavors (e.g. trivial startups, exploitative finance,etc) instead of positive sum endeavors (e.g. genetics research?)
Which leads to a very interesting discussion. In short, extant economic policies disincentivize research so strongly that it's a wonder any research occurs at all.
I think at some point, "free-market" radicals threw the baby out with the bathwater, and have forgotten that some activities, such as research, are extremely risky in the short term but produce unfathomable long term benefits (antibiotics, vaccines, etc.). At present, neither companies nor governments want to foot the short term costs of research.
As such, we are paid six figures to brainwash people to click ads, but must accept financial ruin to even attempt to contribute to research.
Why does the modern economy incentivize negative and/or zero sum endeavors (e.g. trivial startups, exploitative finance,etc) instead of positive sum endeavors (e.g. genetics research?)
Which leads to a very interesting discussion. In short, extant economic policies disincentivize research so strongly that it's a wonder any research occurs at all.
I think at some point, "free-market" radicals threw the baby out with the bathwater, and have forgotten that some activities, such as research, are extremely risky in the short term but produce unfathomable long term benefits (antibiotics, vaccines, etc.). At present, neither companies nor governments want to foot the short term costs of research.
As such, we are paid six figures to brainwash people to click ads, but must accept financial ruin to even attempt to contribute to research.