4 ms·
There are tech companies that only think they're doing good. But there are plenty that are doing good, and they would love your help. By all means pursue thing
by aggie 6y ago
There are tech companies that only think they're doing good. But there are plenty that are doing good, and they would love your help.
By all means pursue things elsewhere, but not because you think there are no opportunities in tech.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 6y agoThe opportunities in tech do not provide enough leverage for meaningful progress IMHO. Personally, I believe I can do far more good writing and pushing public policy than any amount of code. That is "operating at scale".
- ska 6y agoWorking on public policy is a worthwhile (and uphill) fight for sure. But it lacks imagination to suggest that impact at scale isn't possible in tech (examples: robust low cost medtech for non G7 economies, same for finance in those markets, support systems for large scale NGO efforts, access to justice efforts, etc. etc.). Clearly these opportunities exist, but they may be under resourced relative to lucrative tech options.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoI don't want to take this thread off topic. With that said, here is my example: Medicare For All would save us $450 billion, and avoid 68k preventable deaths, every single year. I find it a stretch to suggest that ambitious goals such as that "lack imagination". Such impact is simply not obtainable with tech or NGOs alone. Even Bill Gates has needed roughly $50 billion to drive forward his foundation's humanitarian efforts (but admittedly, is very efficient, with estimates of having saved ~122 million lives through their work).
- ska 6y agoI don't think this is a counterexample, and the imagination lacked wasn't in the scope of what can be done in policy work, but in the scope of what can be done in tech. To stay with your examples, some of the Gate's foundation efforts have largely been tech efforts, some haven't. Some of the things I mentioned off-the-top have potential to reach 10s to 100s of millions of people. MFA is a big $ number partially because the US healthcare system is expensive and inefficient, so that draws focus on $ saved ... other efforts may focus on lives impacted at much lower $ impacts. Most public policy work isn't as big as MFA either. I'm not saying policy work isn't important or impactful. I'm rejecting the idea that you (generic 'you') can't have similar effect in technology to what you might be able to achieve in policy; especially the idea that this is so clearly true that the "right" thing to do is quit technology to go into policy. Even assuming you can be as effective in policy work as you are in tech work, which isn't a given.
- toomuchtodo 6y agoThis has given me something to think about. I appreciate you taking the time.
- ska 6y agoYou're welcome. I think it's a really interesting question in general: where do I want to spend my working time, and to what end? I've spent quite a bit of time thinking on it for my own case, and trying to find technical areas where I hope to be able to find an impact. It was the majority reason I left academic work (not that I am saying that can't be impactful).
- iratewizard 6y agoMaking companies that matter work more efficiently is meaningful progress. I've never had the thought that what I do isn't making a difference for the next generation.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoCode is the only thing in this world that is instantly replicable billions of times into the hands of close to every human being alive. I doubt anything at all comes close in leverage. Maybe having mountains of money or being POTUS.