<i>"The insane technological & medical advancements in the past decades cannot be attributed to a few ivary-tower scientists, but to hundreds of thousands of profit-oriented companies. Scientists don’t create much new life changing technologies, for-profit companies do. Scientists then benefit from open-sourced projects."</i><p>This statement is so wrong it's hard to find a place to begin a counter argument. Academics are still, and always have been, huge innovators and contribute an enormous amount to the world. I don't understand where this sort of vehement anti-intellectualism comes from.
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument.<p>People choose to spend a lot of time watching nyan cat. I don't believe that their quality of life is actually improved by this.<p>Zynga is very good at delivering games that cause compulsive over-playing. I don't think that Farmville has improved the world.<p>Going back farther, a lot of people choose to smoke, yet are very clear that they would be happier if they could make the opposite choice.<p>Just because people choose to do X does not mean that X is good for those people.
Cat pictures are dangerous: <a href="http://whyamilookingatapictureofyourcat.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://whyamilookingatapictureofyourcat.wordpress.com</a>
(a project of mine)
Capitalism (or more correctly consumerism) requires things to be spectacular.
Cat projects are spectacular and helps sell stuff, which help people in the world.