Capitalism Kills Creativity

Bad software can masquerade as good software by inflating its marketing department, downplaying its flaws and establishing its brand to be associated with high-profile success stories. It is the job of the marketing team to boost the appeal of software independent of whether such appeal is warranted. This makes it very challenging to discern good software from bad, as it is not necessarily in the interests of the company to be honest about their product's shortcomings. Consider that the free and open-source git software was made in response to a need which was not met by existing solutions, and which has become the most widely adopted solution in place of its competitors. Its capitalist competitors, being parasitically obligated to the marketability of their existing product, are only secondarily (at best) compelled by utility had from their solutions--if there is room to innovate for a solution, but that innovation does not afford better market advantage, there is incentive to instead defer this, which deferment opposes the users' best interests. Yes, capitalism supplies monetary incentive to produce, but this incentive is not aligned with a genuine interest in people's well-being, and rarely justifies exploring such a breadth of possibilities available to the creative problem-solver.

Comments

  1. HaydenSeptember 20, 2020 at 7:02 PM

    I agree that the intentions behind the vase majority of companies to only to sell their product and they don't necessarily care about the consumer. Some small company could have the next huge software that could change peoples live but they don't have the recourses to share it with the world but a big company can shovel out almost anything and everyone supports it because of the name that it is coming from.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

It is absurd that replicating an idea or performance can be litigated against . The rationale for intellectual rights certainly does not hold up universally to reason, indicating it does not succeed in protecting something of inherent value without also producing at least some harm. Suppose that the first person to walk upright had claimed that action to be a novel and creative feat, and forbade anyone to mimic their style--with only the exception of this first-doer , or so-called "artist," the entire human race would be reduced to crawling (assuming  that was not also copyrighted). This imposes severe restrictions on human attainment, and more importantly their wellbeing. The rationale behind intellectual property is that it incentivizes innovation within a capitalist system, to justify the overhead cost in speculative research and development. In truth the necessity for such laws indicates a severe shortcoming of capitalism . The initiative to innovate is not naturally ac...
Read more

How the Sausage Gets Made

Cancel Culture is the manifestation of a revolution currently under way!  Essentially the domination of one sentiment over the other, at large scale and with unsettling instances of collateral damage , it is exactly what one might expect to occur if a social revolution was enabled by modern technology . The digital aspects particular to this  revolution aside, the essence of the phenomenon has analogues in history: during the American Revolution, the sentiment that was silenced was British sympathy-- not all colonials were supportive of the push for independence, and expressing that sentiment exposed oneself to serious harm. For the sake of self-preservation, non-sympathizers find themselves trying to not get trampled. Revolutions are characteristically messy, the very best causes will still make one's stomach churn when looking too closely. Even where a revolution is necessary to right horrendous systemic problems, my heart goes out to the ones so unlucky as to be "tied up ...
Read more

A Petty Problem

One would think that there existed a topic out there in the world which was so inconsequential that people would not even bother expending energy to come to a resolution over it--some disagreement whose subject just plain does not matter . If this were the case, then we could prioritize issues whose resolution makes real improvements to society. Unfortunately even the silliest distinctions seem to provoke heated discussion around them to justify one side and fault the other. The significance of the smallest sentiments is regularly inflated, even to the suggestion that normative ethics could be derived from the smallest issue. For example, elaborate sketches can be designed to denigrate entire generations  over a distinction in just vernacular, as if during this  two minutes, fifty-seven seconds  one imagines that the only thing that mattered in the world was the inflection one used during conversation; and countless programming convention standards will tirelessly war ov...
Read more