<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>A VC - Latest Comments in Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://avc.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:54:01 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-19381</link><description>I agree with you on this one steve. And that's unusual!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;fred</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">fredwilson</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:54:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-19368</link><description>enough scientists and academics and government folks think climate change is a huge threat that we must take it seriously. i mean, come on: if not current circumstances, then under what scenario would we get energized and try to rally? do we really need to have a catastrophe before we react and respond?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;also, weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels is also an urgent national security issue. the western world's basic way of life is threatened by dependance on an energy source that is controlled by hostile powers that, for the most part, consider us to be "infidels", just because we believe in crazy stuff like freedom of religion and women's rights.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;we need huge radical action. now. otherwise we are simply waiting for the catastrophe.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Steve Kane</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:39:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18924</link><description>A video from TED 2004, released in Apr 2007 - Juan Enriquez: Decoding the future with genomics (&lt;a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/80" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/80&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Interestingly, his research is now focused on energy production within the framework of biology.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:54:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18525</link><description>The Tupi field recently discovered contains as much as 8B barrels. The world consumes 25B barrels / year. This find, while significant for Petrobras (who has every incentive to play up the find, btw), means about 4 more months of global oil consumption.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18325</link><description>"Next up - our reliance on carbon-based energy and the pollution, climate change, and wealth and power effects it creates."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;No question about it. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, it's not going to happen without massive government investment into R&amp;D. Look around the world at the leading alt energy/fuels countries. Their governments have all spent huge sums of money on research, and in some cases, subsidies. Chat with the CEO of any domestic power company - conventional or alternative/renewable - and they'll tell you that investment by the federal government is the one key ingredient that is sorely lacking in the U.S. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Unfortunately, with the current administration and the spineless Dems in  Congress, the status quo will prevail for a bit longer.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Yes, technology will trump government in clean tech/renewable energy, but not without government investment in the industry.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cortland</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:50:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18321</link><description>That's fine, but 1 million barrels a day of production means that reserve is gone in 14 to 20 years. And in that time, the next generation of Chinese and Indian kids will be driving cheap cars, churning through that oil and other reserves, not to mention the megatons of new carbon they'll spew into the atmosphere. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My point is that it's not sustainable. So back to Fred's point, which is that tech finds a way. In this case, it's likely to be the productization of a lot of promising solar research, not the continued discovery of patches of oil here and there. Non-renewable energy sources will be irrelevant in 50 years (will have to be), and used for something a lot more productive like plastics. Burning oil (gas) is about the least useful thing you can do with it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">charlie crystle</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:18:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18312</link><description>this discussion doesn't have much to do with the point of my post.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;but your comment about "a woman's choice to kill her kids or not" shows exactly what i was talking about.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;that's your view. that abortion is "a woman's choice to kill her kids"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;i don't think of it that way and a lot of other people don't either.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;we shouldn't allow you or anyone else to tell others what to believe.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;we should each live our lives in the way that we believe is right.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;fred</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">fredwilson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:54:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18288</link><description>Great post.  The idea of Government facilitating further advancement certainly applies here, but its role as a facilitator has come about for all the wrong reasons.  Its intention was simply to stop and/or greatly limit the advancement of a potentially life altering medical discovery.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;ST, you are absolutely wrong.  Simply put.  There are no valid reasons why we should continue to rely on foreign oil (read: any oil), particularly when it's supplied by those who have outright western opposition.  But as Fred said, there are many reasons beyond that.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Consider the possibility that you're stance toward global warming and our reliance on oil is wrong?  The downside and repercussions are enormous.  Fortunately, there are rational people and capital in the free market to drive further advancements in alternative energy who aren't wiling to take the risk.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Evan S</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:30:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18265</link><description>I disagree - strongly - with your comment "technology...always tries to solve the problem it creates."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'm under the impression that 40% of the real estate value in the US is concentrated in less than 2% of the actual landmass. I'm guessing you live in that 2%. Your community may be somehow exempt from the tax issues that plague neighborhoods around the country. These problems don't stem from high profile issues like global warming or stem cell research, they stem from issues like sales tax, or more precisely, the question of how do we pay for the infrastructure in the communities we live in. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Two years I blogged about this issue ( &lt;a href="http://connectme.typepad.com/news/2005/04/globalization_3.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://connectme.typepad.com/news/2005/04/globa...&lt;/a&gt; ) -- wondering if the dot-com industry truly understood the role of sales tax, and how the avoidance of sales tax could lead to its own hockey stick growth curve: assuming we continue to go online to avoid paying sales tax, what happens when Chinese or other foreign manufacturers start offering quality merchandise, at the same time Americans become truly comfortable with buying online? The answer: when the Chinese stop shipping us shoddy, sometimes toxic goods, we Americans are already waiting, collectively, to vote with our pocketbooks. When that happens, there will be cataclysm. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Technology not provided a solution for the sales tax shortfall created by the rapid growth of the online merchant industry. We will experience this in many ways, some not so obvious, and some obvious places like as police, schools, and bridges. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Once we believed Y2K was a world where our entire systems ended swiftly, suddenly. Our collective disrespect for government suggests a world that slowly, inexorably winds down with the whimper of our infrastructure gradually, invisibly rotting from the inside.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">connectme360</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:07:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18240</link><description>did you inadvertedly/subconciously mispell Microsoft in lowercase or was that totally intentional ?&lt;br&gt;:-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">vruz</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:35:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18233</link><description>The Brazilian score is just the epitome of Fred's "Technology Trumping Government".&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&amp;status=article&amp;id=279849058330891&amp;secure=1&amp;show=1&amp;rss=1" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?s...&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;...&amp; this from Business Week&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;' the oil lies some 4.5 miles beneath the ocean's surface. To reach it, Petrobras will have to run lines through 7,000 feet of water and then drill up to 17,000 feet through sand, rock, and a massive salt layer. A decade ago, geologists lacked the tools to glimpse beneath these salt layers, which can be more than a mile thick offshore Brazil. Today, with the help of data-crunching supercomputers, 3D imaging of ultradeep subsalt layers is illuminating billions of barrels of new oil. Geologists say the discoveries challenge one of the notions of the peak oil theory, which claims oil companies already have found nearly all of the world's usable oil.  '&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So, you can't say "peak oil" if we now have new technology that allows us to drill deeper then ever.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;(Fred -- No.  Why would anyone want to be short any dollar-denominated commodity?)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ST</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:18:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18217</link><description>i agree with your idea that technology is more powerful than government, but i disagree that stem cell advances are the right example.  the government acted in response to a moral dilemma about embryonic stem cells that a lot of people were facing.  it's not like the government was just trying to stop technology for no reason and scientists found a way around it.  technology, in response to the government's moral concerns, developed a less troubling way to get stem cells.  it seems to me that the government effectively directed technological development in a positive way, and that is a great outcome.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">james alonso</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:31:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18199</link><description>clever, ST... so oil is infinite? You're suggesting it's not a limited resource?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">charlie crystle</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:38:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18153</link><description>So I assume you are short oil?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">fredwilson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:30:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18139</link><description>This stem cell advance also makes the argument that society should think twice about recklessly pursuing ethically/morally debatable science in the short term, especially when there is a chance that future or different technologies can achieve the same ends without sliding down the slippery slope...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">itsdono</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:46:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18102</link><description>neither do the Brazilians, who just discovered a huge offshore oil field.  Some reports indicate that in 5yrs the field may be able to pump about 80% of what Saudi Arabia pumps today.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;'peak oil' is funny to me b/c about a year ago the Saudi Oil Minister said that we've only tapped about 18% of the world's KNOWN proven oil reserves.  Of course, that was before the big find in the Gulf of Mexico this spring; &amp; before this HUGE SCORE by Brazil.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ST</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:09:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18101</link><description>This is my point. You've made it better than I did&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Fred</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">fredwilson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:08:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18086</link><description>Others have already pointed out the unintended irony of the embryonic stem cell debate. The fact that the federal government's unwillingness to fund embryonic stem cell research in the past few years may have driven the scientist/technologist towards the non-controversial adult stem cell research. We Californians have funded a $3 billion stem cell research. Was this wise in retrospect? I think not. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I tend to avoid viewing our government as separate from us. It is still the very embodiment of the whole country. The reason the government cannot decide on something is that the country as a whole cannot decide on something. Social security, health care funding, global warming, etc. We are frustrated with the government because its policy or its pace is not to our liking. But this is part of the process. With enough frustration, change will happen. This very blog and the millions of blogs out there will help change the policy of our government.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">RK</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:26:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18084</link><description>Representative governments are ultimately a reflection of the people that elect them.  If there is strong disagreement in society over the merits of a particular course of action, there will likely be inaction in government, whether local, state or federal.  In those cases, it takes time to work through the issues - time that technology innovators can use to completely change the nature of the original debate.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">itsdono</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:25:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18082</link><description>I meander on weekends and holidays, and saunter the rest of the week.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">charlie crystle</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:21:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18079</link><description>I don't.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">charlie crystle</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:19:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18073</link><description>I could say a lot more, but the point of your post is not an argument for a woman's choice to kill her kids or not.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jeremyvaught</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:07:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18045</link><description>Fred,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's an interesting post, but on a broad level as Charlie's meandering comment somewhat alludes to, it's a false dichotomy. I take particular issue with your broad (re)assertion as you worded it in your opening sentence:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;"A couple years ago I wrote a post asserting that technology and markets are more powerful than government and politics."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;At a surface level, it's just dead wrong to reach such a sweeping and unsubstantiated conclusion. Under the surface, asserting this dichotomy exists at all ignores the overwhelmingly dominant role of government in exploiting and driving the rapid advancement of technology and the “markets” in the first place. Our beloved Web is but the scraps off the table of government (and it's corporate and university R&amp;D partners). &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Forgive me if I appear to be nitpicking, but I don't see "faith" in technology, government or for that matter religion, as a reasonable way to navigate complex issues like stem cells, cloning or an approaching energy or climate crisis.  To illustrate, isn't it naive to assume that significantly reducing dependence/use of fossil fuels can become technologically feasible while the government is still able to concentrate several trillion dollars of wealth and squander it chasing scraps of the very carbon based natural resources you argue technology will help get us off of? With your last statement are you indicating you think the comparable trickle that is the “green economy” is poised to dislodge governments entrenched willful dismissal (in numerical terms) of this necessary (as you point out for many reasons) shift?  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Your point is overstated and could be toned down to say 'technology occasionally leaps past the cesspool of politics and government to provide and elegant solution to a problem.'  When it comes to technology and markets being more powerful than government and politics I reiterate that they'd first have to be independent power bases, not interchangeable ones.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">michael</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:07:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18044</link><description>I didn't say I didn't think a fetus/baby is a human being.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I said I believe it's a woman's right to choose and that we shouldn't be&lt;br&gt;telling women what to believe just because we believe something else.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And I agree that its a great thing that technology makes this a moot point.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Fred</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">fredwilson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:04:01 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Technology Trumps Government Once Again</title><link>http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2007/11/technology-trum.html#comment-18037</link><description>Well, tis true that government creates roadblocks that technology works around.  (also true that companies create roadblocks that technology finds a workaround, think DRM, copying DVDs, etc.) In the case of stem cells, I think the government took the correct moral position of not using murdered babies to field science.  Very slippery slope.  And yes, a fetus/baby at any stage of development is a human being.  You may not think so, but a lot of people do.  So the fact that science came up with a workaround is fantastic, not just morally, but scientifically.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jeremyvaught</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:49:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>