>One representative example of this argument, applied more generally, can be found in this lament about why Silicon Valley isn't solving the "big" problems. Assuming that this complaint is sincere, it nonetheless misses the point. What are "real" problems?
Well, I could name 10 real problems off of the top of my head, and most people would agree that they are important too. So I don't really understand the question. It seems to me to imply that people are unique snowflakes and because of that it's difficult to determine what's important, but that's not really the case.
>1. The clamoring for tech companies to solve social problems ignores the empirical record and empirically observed characteristics of top-down engineering efforts
Like this internet thing, on which the very article is posted on?
>Unfortunately, Manhattan Project-like ventures are not translatable to social and political problems.
Maybe, but then again there are tons of serious problems that are not "social and political" in nature, and are not "social video sharing for cat lovers" either.
And, yes, people might enjoy and derive some value from the latter too. But they'd derive a lot more value from, e.g. not dying from certain diseases due to a better focus on such problems, or sustainable energy.
What I think the people the author mentions ask for is not stopping Google and co from doing their stuff and conscripting SV engineers to basic research, but more and better funded and coordinated national (and international) efforts on stuff that matters in a large scale for our societies and our survival. Kind of like the internet was developed, we went to the moon, nuclear energy, and also applications of such stuff to current problems (from environment to health, education, democracy, privacy, etc).
Well, I could name 10 real problems off of the top of my head, and most people would agree that they are important too. So I don't really understand the question. It seems to me to imply that people are unique snowflakes and because of that it's difficult to determine what's important, but that's not really the case.
>1. The clamoring for tech companies to solve social problems ignores the empirical record and empirically observed characteristics of top-down engineering efforts
Like this internet thing, on which the very article is posted on?
>Unfortunately, Manhattan Project-like ventures are not translatable to social and political problems.
Maybe, but then again there are tons of serious problems that are not "social and political" in nature, and are not "social video sharing for cat lovers" either.
And, yes, people might enjoy and derive some value from the latter too. But they'd derive a lot more value from, e.g. not dying from certain diseases due to a better focus on such problems, or sustainable energy.
What I think the people the author mentions ask for is not stopping Google and co from doing their stuff and conscripting SV engineers to basic research, but more and better funded and coordinated national (and international) efforts on stuff that matters in a large scale for our societies and our survival. Kind of like the internet was developed, we went to the moon, nuclear energy, and also applications of such stuff to current problems (from environment to health, education, democracy, privacy, etc).