Think of all the really interesting and important things that this pool of brainpower could be addressing.
Actually, though unsexy, making the global economy a little bit more efficient probably does more to make people's lives better than dramatic things done specifically to make people's lives better.
On the contrary. I think arguably the advances that have made people's lives better over the last century have been collective, more centrally planned efforts, not driven by profit, and done in spite of the attitudes of big business and the market.
I am thinking specifically of public sanitation, public health works, winning World War II (what a boost to the economy that was), public education; most, if not all, beneficial scientific advances. Most technology "developed" by business has been largely offshoots of collective efforts (eg NASA).
But come to think of it, most that was pretty damned unsexy too :).
Although I agree with the main thesis, I must point out something that muddles matters: if we hadn't had massively subsidized highways, cars would not have been so ubiquitous in postwar America.
I happen to think that this supports the libertarian side, since a government powerful enough to build something of that scope will be vulnerable to lobbyists who want it to build something useful to their industry.
I agree the point of subsidised highway system encourages popularity of automobiles in America.
This also means when government's involvement distorts the market mechanism, the consequence of suburban sprawls, huge consumption of oil will creep in one day. If the government did not try to build too many highways, maybe we will not waste so much of natural resources, right?
All your examples only became possible because of a vibrant, unplanned economy. Wealthy, productive people can afford sanitation, public health works, war victories, education, and scientific advances.
Wait, winning a war is one of the triumphs of central planning? How many wars have been fought directly by non-governments? And isn't that like saying that one of the triumphs of dictatorships is how much life improved after Stalin and Hitler died?
I’ve been observing the comments here and at my blog and I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to draw the line between making money or saving the world.
My point is that we’ve been conditioned somewhat to think that the only way to build profitable businesses is as an advertising platform.
It’s less a question of revenue models and more a questioning of the types of technology we build and a challenge to expand our horizons.
> Pools of brainpower directed towards any task imply centralized planning.
Not really... after all, isn't this what "collective intelligence" or "wisdom of the crowd" is all about? People self organizing around their personal interests and thus contributing towards a greater goal?
Actually, though unsexy, making the global economy a little bit more efficient probably does more to make people's lives better than dramatic things done specifically to make people's lives better.