Today I learned that YC not only funds military companies, but encourages new startups to focus on killing machines and spying. And to point to the spy firm Palantir as an example of a model company shows how morally bankrupt YC truly is. Anything for a buck, right? All this while those same defense firms are currently making tens of billions of dollars supplying hardware to kill hundreds of civilians a day right this very instant.
The founders that work in defense are mission driven. they see nation-state preservation as a moral issue.
They would fail to “make a buck” if that was their only goal, as is the case in most industries/sectors
Respectfully, I’d encourage you to review the HN guidelines. Skepticism is welcome here, but even cursory research will show that the founders in defense have deeply personal reasons for building what they do.
> The founders that work in defense are mission driven
That's not really saying anything, since it doesn't say anything about what their mission is. Sure, you have to be mission driven to get things done and lots of good and necessary things have been accomplished by people who were mission driven, but every villain in history was mission driven too. To point at someone and say "they are mission driven" as if being mission driven is on its own evidence that someone is good is at best naive.
> they see nation-state preservation as a moral issue.
hmm, surely at no time in history was a bad thing done by a leader who believed that nation-state preservation was a moral issue.
> They would fail to “make a buck” if that was their only goal
A somewhat peculiar and unsubstantiated claim about an industry that famously makes enormous amounts of money.
> See “American Dynamism”
I'm not really sure what sort of point you're trying to make here other than "VCs like defense companies".
(If not, I’m not seeking to argue the fundamental point you appear to be making that “if you fund defense you cannot be moral.”)
In the order you present:
>mission
Im taking “moral” to mean “for a purpose of doing good.” Assuming the “doing good” is a combo of opinion on what is helpful and some feeling (such as empathy or a sense of honor), my experience with founders who sell to defense that they are moral people.
It’s possible to genuinely disagree about what “doing good” is without assuming the other person is immoral.
>nation-state
On this we fully agree. However, I’ve not seen any other form of group identity escape this dilemma. I would be genuinely interested to learn of it.
>making a buck
I get that this seems like a strange thing to say. But go to any industry and try to sell a 7 figure deal. Very quickly you will find there are “in group” tests, the tests are significant, and there are certain “sacred cow” values you must ascribe to. “Making a buck” is the job for everyone in business so it’s a poor purity test.
Here’s another way to think of it: if you are buying from a vendor who’s only motivation is to “make a buck,” how can you trust they won’t stick you with a problematic product after they’ve gotten the money? Government purchasing is a massively complicated process precisely to address this issue, but it is still the social fabric between buyers and sellers that is determinant when selecting speculative, new vendors (aka buying from startups).
Respectfully, we are both making unsubstantiated claims here. I’m sharing my personal observations.
>American Dynamism
Politics has an outsized role today in the fortunes of companies. There are actually very few VCs with a footprint in defense and many suffered significant paper losses due to public reactions to it.
SWEs have a huge influence on what gets funded. If you can’t recruit tier 1 tech talent, you can’t build great tech companies.
In this case, a VC has built a media company and is going out making the case for investing in American Defense knowing that it will cost them relationship capital with a very large amount of the tech sector.
The reason I’m engaging with you on all of this is that, on HN at least, I think it matters to “pierce the veil” on founder motivations. “Making a buck”is a simplistic, dismissive take on why people found companies and I don’t think our community should accept it as a reasonable assertion. They are far less risky ways for talented people to make money than founding a startup and very few get such a fortunate outcome.
Let me give you a real example - a founder friend of mine helps the Pentagon replace gas powered equipment with EV powered ones.
Enabling the US to have a more mobile & resilient supply chain is a benefit the founder believes in. He considers himself a patriot.
But it’s not the company’s mission. The mission is to take on climate change. The US military is one of the greatest contributors to factors driving climate change, so it’s an important customer in terms of both mission and of course revenue.
If you’ve concluded that money is the only motivation people have for being in a business you disagree with, this probably isn’t a discussion you’ll get much value out of.
My guess is, you think it is wrong that VCs are taking a moral stance that building defense capabilities is something tech companies should be doing. Leaving no room for their humanity is one way to attack that.
But I am no longer willing to accept that tactic. I think it is more dangerous than any other. If we refuse to see the humanity of the people we disagree with, we’ve already set the stage for wanton destruction after our time here on this planet. History is full of such examples.
Apologies if I’ve been ungenerous or missed your point here. I’d be grateful to learn what I’m missing.
This is a very thoughtful and well argued comment and really informative.
I commend you for taking the time and effort to write this so well, despite the original comment being somewhat snarky and clearly opinionated.
I'm personally a pacifist and would like to end all wars, all weapons production, etc, but we currently do not have a way to enforce that over the whole world.
So the realistic view is that given that currently we have wars, need weapons, etc - it does make sense that YC would fund companies that develop new ones or new technologies in the space. Even if nobody really wants to hurt people.
Respectfully, I'm aware of all of the fancy words investment firms hide behind to make themselves sleep at night when they're really building killing machines. I'm sure plenty of them have patriotic stories they tell about protecting the nation they live in. That doesn't mean I need to buy into their narrative.
These war firms will appear whether or not YC funds them. YC chosing to explicitly call for more war firms shows they put the acquisition of even more extravagant wealth over human lives.
Ukraine suffer from daily Russia's drone attack. How about a low cost network that detects, disables or shots down those drones before they can get to their targets? That also, and truly is, a defense system.
I don't see anything in YC's call saying they would only fund defensive capabilities (which is itself somewhat of a misnomer since it doesn't take much engineering to turn "defensive" tech into offensive weapons of war). YC looks like it is open to funding all forms of warfare.
So, how would the US defend itself against countries like China and Russia if no one built weapons? Everyone agrees weapons can be used in ethically horrendous ways. It doesn't follow from that, that the US doesn't need a weapons industry.
YC doesn't need to be funding the weapons industry; they're already filthy rich. This shows their greed outweighs any moral quandries around building machines of death.
Make bombs people want, I see.