What's with this recent push to ask computer scientists "why aren't you saving lives with your skills?".
No one asks the same question of accountants, or sociologists, electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers or any number of smart individuals in the liberal arts fields.
Why is CS special in that its members need to be harried about selling sugar water, where as everyone else in the supply chain for that sugar water doesn't have to worry?
You also don't see breathless AccountingCrunch articles about accountants getting $41 million to develop accounting for pets and similarly silly things. The call for loftier thinking is in response to the fact that the tech industry seems to actively celebrate shallow crap. It's easy to forget that there are more praiseworthy goals in the world than having a successful social network when that's what everyone actually praises.
You also don't see breathless AccountingCrunch articles about accountants getting $41 million to develop accounting for pets and similarly silly things.
I don't agree with the normative implication here, but strongly suggest you subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. It will help expand your worldview vis-a-vis questions like "Is accounting Important?" or "Is $41 million a lot of money?"
"Is $41 million a lot of money" is a perspective-less question. Is it a lot of money for an individual? Tell me you don't think so. Is it a lot of money for an investment bank? Doubtlessly not.
Did the person you're responding to somehow say accounting was not important? How will the Wall Street Journal help me understand that further and why do you assume we need that insight based on all of this?
Not much to take home or own part of, or not much to push around on someone else's behalf? I have yet to understand. The first seems pretty unlikely, unless accounting is a much better career path than I've heard, and the second seems irrelevant.
Since it sounds like I gave the wrong impression, just to clarify: I'm not trying to imply that accounting is unimportant. What I said (jokingly) is that there are probably better uses for accounting knowledge than trying to teach it to pets, and if accountants regularly engaged in such fanciful ventures, you'd probably see similar articles about their profession.
"X is a billion-dollar industry" is not equivalent to "X is praiseworthy," so it's not really relevant. There are lots of billion-dollar industries that are positively sleazy. Also, the precise example was both irrelevant (since it was deliberately silly) and not a petcare solution.
Anyway, you're free to disagree with this thinking. I disagree with many instances of it. I'm just explaining why the software industry is different.
Spot on. cdixon is trying to direct traffic to things he associates with 'gravitas'. These may or may not unleash much value.
Relative cost structures are really complex; a mind-numbing TV show that people use (instead of alcohol) to cope with their jobs may save more lives than an exceptional charity.
If we think something is retarded and yet millions of people do it, we either have different values than them or have failed to see the value. Neither puts us in good stead to judge those people.
Unless we actually prefer a world of Moral One-upmanship ....
> It's easy to forget that there are more praiseworthy goals in the world than having a successful social network when that's what everyone actually praises.
I became depressed the day when realized that some of most bright engineers working for one of the most unique companies of our times spent their time and energy and intellectual resources on cloning a social network (google+ vs. FB). And I'm not really claiming that they should save the world or anything, I'm just saying that with the huge amount of data that they have gathered so far and considering the human capital they have available they could start answering a lot of very interesting questions, which gave bugged us as an intelligent species for quite a long time (think linguistics-related issues, for example).
Implicit in those kinds of criticisms is the idea everyone shares a common view of what goals are and are not praiseworthy. One person's praiseworthy goal is another person's key to the apocalypse.
This. Reading TechCrunch for the first time made me feel so embarrassed about my major.
Other proudly shallow businesses are probably acting and music, and many actors and musicians actually like to point to their side projects of saving the world. I guess it helps them feel more confident with what they spend their life on too.
That said, art in and of itself is a whole different can of worms. I think art can stand alone on its merit in many ways the latest startup on TechCrunch cannot.
The way I see it, we are the only generation that has had access to the computing power and knowledge that we have. It's our responsibility to take advantage of it since many of our ancestors dreamed of such things.
Do you spend time on sites where accountants, sociologists, electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers hang out and know it isn't a topic that comes up regularly?
I think the desire for one's work to have a larger impact on the world is fairly common.
That's not what I'm questioning. Its the accusatory tone that's unique to CS professionals.
As if one should be doing something that betters the world, and if you're not then whatever you're doing is a waste.
Outside of CS, people tend to read "betterment" into their current job if they're satisfied with their position. Guys who work at an umbrella plant aim to make the best damn umbrellas you've ever seen, and are happy that due to their work people are less wet and less sick than they would be otherwise.
They don't go home and worry about why they aren't using their machining skills to build things for the poor instead of providing umbrellas for other relatively well off 1st worlders.
It's an odd conceit that CS professionals have to say that you must do good, or else you're no good. It sparks of noble oblige, and frankly I don't think CS (whilst important) is so important that it demands that.
"As if one should be doing something that betters the world, and if you're not then whatever you're doing is a waste."
Well, yeah, sorta. I don't think there's any need to bring a moral component into it--we all do what we feel we gotta do to get by, but is it really disputable that we'd have a better world if all the energy that went into selling people crap that is at best useless and at worst blatantly harmful to them instead went into directly improving people's lives? To me that seems like the very definition of waste, though I also think it would be extremely foolish to think you could somehow direct people into behaving any differently. Judging the 'wasted' efforts of others is at least as much a waste as those efforts themselves. It's up to each of us to decide individually whether we can be content selling sugar water or whether we can do better... but I think honesty requires admitting that we can indeed do better, whether or not we choose to do so.
You're conflating CS with the overall startup/hacker scene.
I think hackers are being asked this question because of the pedestal many of them have put themselves on.
pg, whom I'm guessing most of us here respect quite a bit, compares today's hackers to the original Renaissance men. pg's comparison largely holds true in my book. But, it can only be healthy to take a step back and get some big picture perspective on your work--especially if you read "Hackers and Painters" thinking "that should be me".
The statements he is making come from someone who has money and doesn't have to worry about paying for health care for example. So he can pontificate and apparently his words seem to have an effect on people less fortunate then he is.
Angelina Jolie travels to all sorts of places trying to cure all sorts of worldly ills. But you don't find average and even successful actors doing the same. They are happy perfecting their craft and hopefully not waiting restaurant tables.
By the way sometimes people who think the things Dixon is thinking are actually depressed. They can't enjoy what they have and realize that their success is due to luck.
This makes it all the more reasonable to ask yourself, if you are in a position to not worry about health care costs due to such luck, shouldn't you take advantage of the opportunity you have to make a real difference in some larger way?
Maybe. I think if it makes you feel good then the answer is yes. I don't think there is any value in doing something that causes you stress or anxiety.
Also, there are others in the equation. The successful person might have family (spouse, children, parents) that will suffer depending on how the person spends there time or their money).
I think it's a credit to the CS community that computer scientists actually ask this question.
I'm an electrical engineer and I left a career in oil/gas to do something "good" with my skills. A few of my former colleagues used to ruminate about whether they could be doing something more meaningful in their professional lives. Of course, there were also those who had no qualms whatsoever about the oil/gas industry, that it was a noble goal to provide the world with energy (and FWIW, this is a perspective that I respect even though I don't share it).
But the overwhelming majority of my colleagues hadn't even thought about it, nor did they really care. The job afforded them a very comfortable living, enough for them to fulfil most of their material aspirations. And frankly, that's enough for most people.
Of course, existential crises probably happen to these people once in a while, but only to be forgotten the next day. My suspicion is that in the main, most people just aren't very introspective. So I applaud the CS community for actually bringing this issue up and discussing it openly.
You must not know many accountants, electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers. People I know in those fields complain (well, fret is maybe a better word) about their careers and "changing the world" all the time. Especially women.
Because we are actually in a position to change the world to a significant degree in various areas, most importantly including Civil Rights, money, privacy, knowledge propagation, news, voting systems, new representational models for political input, education, etc. (edited to add to the long list)
I think it's because SO many startups (at least the one's that get a lot of press) are related to social networking social bullshit. Contrast that with "world-changing" endeavors, and the difference is pretty stark.
Ultimately I think there ought to be a fundamental debate about what "changing the world" even means in the context of the tech space. In other words, how big does a company have to get to "change the world"? How much reach? Can it be drawn to a hard number? A specific metric? Or is it this nebulous sort of thing that doesn't really mean anything?
I think we’d see a pretty wide range of opinions if we polled folks here as to which of the current crop of both established companies & startups they felt were companies that really, truly “changed the world" or were in the process of doing so.
Well, let's agree that a cure for cancer or alternative forms of energy are objectively more important than a new way to ask people questions about your city or share event photos, no?
Let's say you share a picture of me at a concert and my dream romantic partner sees it, decides she must be with me, and tracks me down. We fall in love and get married and I never again have to think about dating, because I choose not to.
Now I have more mental resources dedicated to the tasks of providing everyone with healthy food, disseminating compassion, ...
Social networking bullshit has had a massive effect on politics and everyday life. It has leveled the playing field between the elites and the everyman. It is easy to dismiss social networks, but upon further reflection they are revolutionary (sometimes literally).
I can't speak for others, but I ask that question of myself because I consider much of the work I do (designing and building websites) fleeting. I expect that they'll be used for a relatively short period of time, then the world will either lose interest and move onto something else or changing design trends will require a refresh. Because of that, I personally seek other outlets that will affect a more-permanent impact on the world around me.
“The problem is I’m older now, I’m 40 years old, and this stuff doesn’t change the world. It really doesn’t.
“I’m sorry, it’s true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We’re born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It’s been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much — if at all.
“These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. You may have a child with a birth defect and be able to get in touch with other parents and support groups, get medical information, the latest experimental drugs. These things can profoundly influence life. I’m not downplaying that.
“But it’s a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light — that it’s going to change everything. Things don’t have to change the world to be important.”
Sorry. I find this kind of self-importance nauseating to say the least. Curing cancer or connecting the entire planet is the only way one can change the world? Really? If that's the case, then I guess 99.99% of our resources as a global community are misallocated, along with the hopes & dreams of thousands of entrepreneurs. Who says one can’t create valuable human experiences in games or some other form of social entertainment? Or with a nutritional product? Seems to me like Dixon is conflating Acai berry-esque products produced by scamsters with folks who (god forbid) aren’t trying to create the next Google. As if there are no shades of gray in between.
Yes, many entrepreneurs move on to bigger and better things. Which is great. We should encourage thinking as big as possible. But to sweep aside the smaller projects they & others created to get to that level (products/services that may not have “changed the world” in the traditional sense but still might’ve solved a burning problem) or to actively discourage folks from solving similar-scale problems is the height of pretentiousness.
I think solving big problems impacting humanity is fantastic. Actively discouraging people from innovating in spaces & making those folks feel like douchebags because they’re not the developer equivalent of Mother Teresa and aren't "changing the world?" That’s absurd. And it ought to stop. I've seen & heard it too many times from a litany of folks in the tech scene.
This type of platitude sounds good and all, but from the actions speak louder than words file, I have to wonder if Chris' company Hunch which mines your "taste graph" to help advertisers sell you stuff you may or may not need lives upto the changing the world sound-bite?
Agree with jasonz above. IT absolutely can make a real difference. Healthcare software, Kiva, etc.
But information technology is what I know, and it’s probably too late for me to learn a new field from scratch.
Information technology can absolutely save lives - I'd argue that a developer building medical software can save more lives than a PhD working on a treatment for cancer. The subtle killer these days are all the extra days a patient spends in the hospital. An extra day or two is what leads to complications. Work on solving the inefficiencies of inpatient medicine (documentation, communication, decision making, ect.) and you can go home at night knowing you are literally saving lives with your programming skills.
>Information technology can absolutely save lives - I'd argue that a developer building medical software can save more lives than a PhD working on a treatment for cancer.
Anything you do that makes an economy a little more efficient frees up resources for other things. In the US those other things end up being more consumption, mostly, but in countries where people don't get enough to eat you could be saving lives. That's why they call it progress. Or used to, anyway.
Yeah, I had this exact feeling about finance and was lucky enough to be able to get out. Working for organizations that do little but spend ever-increasing amounts of resources so that computers can edge each other out by nanoseconds in the market to the continuing aggrandizement of the uber rich is about the most depressing thing I can think of now.
I'd like to think that working on Stack Overflow's Careers service will help keep at least a few people from taking finance jobs like I did by providing them an alternative to needing to throw their lot in with a technical recruiter in a big city. Due to the economics of recruiting, recruiters tend to work with big finance (big salaries mean big commissions) instead of companies that y'know, make things but have lower salaries. I'd like to think we provide a slightly more level playing field to regular jobs (because we don't get paid on commission, therefore won't send applicants towards a finance position before all others).
"You can't change the world, but you can make a dent" - Sheldon Mopes
Whether someone "changes the world" is not a binary function. It is continuous. Has Steve Jobs changed the world? I think so. Has he changed the world to the extent of Gandhi or Mandela, or Hitler? Probably not.
People change the world everyday by doing their daily duties. Parents, friends, teachers, they all change parts of our world everyday. These impacts should not be diminished.
Life is too short to chase someone else's world-changing dreams. Do what you love. If you happen to change the world in some way during the process, all the better.
What's important is that you're supporting society, not whether you're at the coal face of saving lives. If it were, Elon Musk should be a paramedic, not inventing electric cars.
Even if you do only run an online payments system, a project management webapp, or a site like Twitter, people and businesses are using those things in support of other enterprises. Those things could include space travel, saving lives, new technologies, and more. You don't need to be at the coal face to be pushing the world forward, just doing something to support all of the people who are.
Right now, I want to make good grades. Later in life, I want to be a great husband/father. Throughout all this, I want to use programming to make some people's lives easier/better (and be good enough at it to financially support my family). That's enough for me, and it can be enough for you if you want.
"We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee."
That quote is from Steve Jobs, and while he certainly has changed certain parts of my lifestyle (I have the information of the world at my fingertips via my phone!--I don't use their other products), are you really saying that Steve Jobs has "changed the world"? I suppose it's a matter of semantics, but that seems like a stretch to me. He's certainly done more than sell sugar water and made absolutely amazing personal/professional accomplishments, but "change the world"?
And do I have to work in clean-tech or biotechnology to change the world, or can I build a vertically integrated hardware and media empire instead? Is the latter noble enough? I dunno, I'm pretty unimpressed by this article's sentiment and find the whole thing a bit facetious and condescending.
You can say what you want about Apple: cut-throat business, closed platforms, etc. - BUT I don't think you can deny that they've been able to build the bridge between the oligarchs blocking progress (AT&T, music labels, etc.) and those building the future. The perfect bridge? Hardly, but I think they get a good deal of credit for making glass smartphones and tablets popular products.
Technology and social progress is often blocked because of business and other social issues - rarely just technology. Apple has been the marketing force trying to push throw this - while certainly securing its position and profit immensely. I think you can argue that they're a net-benevolent force for the world - unlike Coke which is certainly a net-negative one - while being as marketing savvy.
To counter this sentiment, one need not come up with examples of how such-and-such software contributes a great deal to the noble cause of blah, because society is built on abstractions. Much of the world is hungry, but becoming a master hunter is not the way to solve that problem.
In my view, you have two choices: (1) trust the market to determine where society needs help and to give job opportunities in those areas, or, since that rosy picture may not be reality, (2) gather as much wealth and power as you see fit and push society to be better.
#2 never seems to materialize. People who change the world when they made their money (Bill Gates) generally keep trying to change the world with their own philanthropy. Whereas the path of: 1.) Make Partner at Goldman -> 2.) Commit your money & agency to solve problems - isn't shown to happen in most cases. Sure a % to charity - but that's far less than what's possible if you're really taking that route.
"when I came home at night, I’d know that I had literally spent my day trying to cure cancer or prevent global warming"
Someone can have a very large influence on the world if they make enough money (by doing anything) and then spend that money to empower others to "cure cancer or prevent global warming".
reading the title, i thought that the article would be about the difference between the master of sales that sells lemonade since his childhood, and the nerd that can't speak smoothly but has disruptive and needed project and working skills. and that investors start to prefer the latter.
"But information technology is what I know, and it’s probably too late for me to learn a new field from scratch."
Rationalization; party line.
(Someone as smart as Chris Dixon could pick up a new field in 3 months. It actually doesn't take that much intelligence to learn a new field. It takes some intelligence, it takes a good mentor and it takes discipline.)
If you want to change the world, chances are you're going to be depressingly disappointed. I find it best to limit my definition of the "world" to save to: a family, a couple of friends, and hopefully, if I'm lucky: a team of employees that I can manage and work with to create something many people will want.
No one asks the same question of accountants, or sociologists, electrical engineers, or mechanical engineers or any number of smart individuals in the liberal arts fields.
Why is CS special in that its members need to be harried about selling sugar water, where as everyone else in the supply chain for that sugar water doesn't have to worry?