It's not simply that investors don't want to take certain risks. It's that some kinds of risks are outside their parameters. VCs are built up in our minds as towering financial authorities, but really they're just small teams of MBAs who are themselves raising money from foundations and pension funds, and the fraction of that capital that they get to work with is very small; a large pension fund wants some exposure to the market dynamics of "venture capital", but no pension fund wants to bet the farm on a Hyperloop.
When you grok how venture capital actually works, it gets easier to see how much less important they are to the economy than they seem. Startups like Instagram emerge from the parameters of VC, not from the whims or me-tooiness of the VC partners.
Again, this is a standard trope at HN,but is wrong - they are not primarily financial it goes like hedge fund or PE guys. Most top tier firms are made up of former entrepreneur types. And the idea that they all don't invest in groundbreaking technology is because quite frankly a perception issue here - is the average YC company a groundbreaking tech or closer to an Instagram? A lot of the clean tech investing was disastrous, but that is an example where a lot of interesting tech was backed, some of which has hit the market. Jut because it doesn't reach the front page here does not mean it doesn't happen.
My point was that it doesn't much matter what the VC partners think, because they're simply not in a position to fund massive civil infrastructure projects. Even the former- entrepreneur- types; they're getting their money from the same places.
It is not wrong. To make matters worse you'd need to look at the history books to better appreciate what indeed actually is "groundbreaking tech" and how it evolves. Science and technology is nudged along with micro breakthroughs. The history books are full of what appear to be big breakthroughs but when you look past the surface you'll discover how they really happen. Your experience of VC firms appears to be very limited, I'm guessing though you were top in your class (probably two years ago), and now think when you say something, it automatically becomes "the word".
If your points are strong, they don't need to be covered in barbs. Barbs are a "tell"; they indicate bluster, which is what people deploy when they don't know that they're talking about. You're making it harder to take you seriously and should change your tactics.
When you grok how venture capital actually works, it gets easier to see how much less important they are to the economy than they seem. Startups like Instagram emerge from the parameters of VC, not from the whims or me-tooiness of the VC partners.