What to Do
Defining “good” and net harm
- Many challenge “make good new things” as too vague. “Net harm” is hard to assess: is the internet or social media net positive or negative? Some doubt that “net” tallies even make sense.
- Several propose explicit questions: Is it useful? Does it increase or reduce productivity, health, or long‑term wellbeing? Does it help some while actively harming others, people vs environment, or trade short‑term pleasure for long‑term damage?
- Others argue that every technology embodies both benefit and harm from the outset; progress always carries built‑in risks and power shifts.
Technology, progress, and unintended consequences
- One camp sees modern technology as largely destructive (climate change, chronic disease, social decline, biodiversity loss, AI/crypto energy use).
- Another points to enormous gains (e.g. child mortality collapse) and frames tech as mostly positive or neutral, with capitalism and incentives bending it toward harm.
- Disagreement over whether tools are neutral: some insist things themselves can be objectively bad (e.g. predatory gambling algorithms, exploitative data‑harvesting apps), not just their users.
Creation vs maintenance, novelty vs improvement
- Several object that the essay over‑privileges “newness” and creators. They argue society depends more on maintaining and improving existing systems (nurses, electricians, mechanics, software maintainers).
- Others say building and maintenance blur in practice; improvements and upkeep are as vital as green‑field invention.
- Questions arise about where art, music, and especially criticism fit; some note much contemporary art is critical rather than “making good things,” and worry the essay devalues critical analysis.
Individualism, virtue, and scope of responsibility
- Some readers see the essay as individualistic: celebrating thinking and lone creators, underplaying cooperation and solidarity.
- Counter‑frameworks stress classical virtues (wisdom, courage, honesty, temperance, justice), “policing your area,” and helping those nearby before trying to “take care of the world.”
- Others reply that global problems (environment, politics) now make some form of collective, planetary responsibility unavoidable, though how to coordinate it remains unclear.
Assessing the essay and meta‑discussion
- Many find the piece platitudinous, philosophically shallow, or self‑serving for the startup/VC worldview; others defend it as simple encouragement to have agency and build rather than only critique.
- There is debate over whether the author and their funded companies live up to the “don’t net harm” standard, and concern that an undefined “good” can justify almost anything in hindsight.
- A large subthread discusses suspected AI‑generated comments and HN’s norms/flagging, reflecting anxiety about authenticity and about the special treatment of the essay’s author on the site.