6 ms·

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 socio

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?

mypov 15y ago
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)
angrycoder 15y ago
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.
- true_religion 15y ago
  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.
  - danenania 15y ago
    "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.
dkrich 15y ago
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.
- bmac27 15y ago
  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.
  - dkrich 15y ago
    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?
    - zackattack 15y ago
      I agree. Look at this way though. 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, ...
- jacoblyles 15y ago
  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).
chc 15y ago
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.
- puredemo 15y ago
  Pet care is a billion dollar industry. Could we stop arbitrarily dismissing things that are important to hundreds of millions of people as "silly"?
  - chc 15y ago
    "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.
  - patrocles 15y ago
    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 ....
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  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.
larrys 15y ago
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.
- gfodor 15y ago
  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?
  - larrys 15y ago
    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).
adelevie 15y ago
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".
ojbyrne 15y ago
I think it's asking entrepreneurs, not computer scientists, that question.
edanm 15y ago
The push is directed at entrepreneurs, not computer scientists. It just so happens that a lot of entrepreneurs come from a CS background.
arnoooooo 15y ago
It might be that the field is pretty new, and thus CS culture does not have ready made ansers to the question ?
uptown 15y ago
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.
neutronicus 15y ago
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.
vitaminj 15y ago
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.

mypov 15y ago

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)

angrycoder 15y ago

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.

true_religion 15y ago
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.
- danenania 15y ago
  "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.

dkrich 15y ago

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.

bmac27 15y ago
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.
- dkrich 15y ago
  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?
  - zackattack 15y ago
    I agree. Look at this way though. 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, ...
jacoblyles 15y ago
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).

chc 15y ago

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.

puredemo 15y ago
Pet care is a billion dollar industry. Could we stop arbitrarily dismissing things that are important to hundreds of millions of people as "silly"?
- chc 15y ago
  "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.
- patrocles 15y ago
  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 ....
gurkendoktor 15y ago
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.

larrys 15y ago

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.

gfodor 15y ago
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?
- larrys 15y ago
  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).

adelevie 15y ago

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".

ojbyrne 15y ago

I think it's asking entrepreneurs, not computer scientists, that question.

edanm 15y ago

The push is directed at entrepreneurs, not computer scientists. It just so happens that a lot of entrepreneurs come from a CS background.

arnoooooo 15y ago

It might be that the field is pretty new, and thus CS culture does not have ready made ansers to the question ?

uptown 15y ago

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.

neutronicus 15y ago

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.

vitaminj 15y ago

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.