

Your cat-picture-project is saving the world, thank you - emanuer
http://testranking.com/behind/your-cat-picture-project-is-saving-the-world-thank-you/

======
tensor
_"The insane technological & medical advancements in the past decades cannot
be attributed to a few ivary-tower scientists, but to hundreds of thousands of
profit-oriented companies. Scientists don’t create much new life changing
technologies, for-profit companies do. Scientists then benefit from open-
sourced projects."_

This statement is so wrong it's hard to find a place to begin a counter
argument. Academics are still, and always have been, huge innovators and
contribute an enormous amount to the world. I don't understand where this sort
of vehement anti-intellectualism comes from.

~~~
emanuer
Those generalizations where bound to come back and bite me...

I agree with your point and allow me to ensure you, there is no vehement anti-
intellectualism in my thoughts. On the contrary, I very much believe in
Scientific advancements.

The correct statement should have been:

Fewer life changing technologies can be attributed to Scientists than to for-
profit companies. This is due to the higher budgets and bigger number of
people working in companies, compared to staff employed by Universities.
Furthermore companies are bound to create something people are willing to pay
for. Universities don't have this kind of "restrictions" and can do work on a
more abstract level, which may not translate into anything tangible for years
to come.

~~~
tensor
I don't think it's very practical to argue which group produces more life-
changing technologies. Suffice to say, both have their place.

Regarding restrictions, there are a great many researchers who would love to
see their contributions widely applied and have big impact. While there is
sometimes cross-over between industry, a lot of the time researchers have no
resources to advertise or widely implement their discoveries.

The basic point of your blog post is absolutely correct of course: people can
have a big impact on the world without going into academics. It's not always
clear where it will come from either. But equally, there is no harm in
exploring the other side.

~~~
emanuer
This is an response to "Hyena"'s comment as well.

It never occurred to me that there is a rivalry between Scientists and
Engineers therefor I put this sentence down quite carelessly, my apology. The
question: who is more important, is very futile in my opinion.

It would be like asking: who is more important, construction workers, or truck
drivers? Our life would be impossible without either of them.

My main argument actually was intended to be: If you like what you are doing
and you are innovating on any level, you are likely to do good to the world.
(As a provider of tools you don't know how your tools will be used, you can
only hope) For this you don't need to work in Academia, you don't need to be
in Silicon Valley. BUT if you are in Silicon Valley by the sheer scale you are
doing much more good than the average person ever could.

------
btilly
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument.

People choose to spend a lot of time watching nyan cat. I don't believe that
their quality of life is actually improved by this.

Zynga is very good at delivering games that cause compulsive over-playing. I
don't think that Farmville has improved the world.

Going back farther, a lot of people choose to smoke, yet are very clear that
they would be happier if they could make the opposite choice.

Just because people choose to do X does not mean that X is good for those
people.

~~~
emanuer
I agree with the statement

    
    
      "Just because people choose to do X does not mean that X is good for those people."
    

I am guilty of generalization, again.

Nyan cat, Farmville, smoking are all examples where the benefit to society is
very well hidden. I would say smoking is a perfect example. Smoking kills,
makes people sick & those around them, it is a great burden on the health
system, etc. Yet millions of people smoke how can this be good for our
society. In my humble opinion: It isn't. Smoking, just like gambling hacks the
reward system in the brain and makes the hazardous habit rewarding (in the
short term).

I was tempted to argue that smoking has it's positive sites like higher
productivity and so fort. This would have the equivalent to arguing that the
WWII was good for the world, crazy. Yes a few innovations came from this
catastrophe, but imagine what the 50 million people who died due to it, would
have invented. The world would be much better off without this war. Look at
the pace of innovation in the past 60 years with few international conflicts
for the 1st world countries, war is almost always destructive.

Just because people choose to do it, does not mean it is good for them.
Agreed! Lets say you take all decisions of people in their life and at the
very end of it added it up. Smoking, drinking, the second mortgage on the
house to go on holiday, brushing your teeth every morning, buying a newer car,
everything. One can only guess what we would find, but my guess is: on average
the people tend to do what is good for them.

In hindsight it is always easy to say, that was a bad decision, this one was
good. But it is impossible to say that Zynga is predominantly bad. It might
have saved a few people from social authenticity & suicide, it might have been
a complete waste of resources 20 million working people wasted on it. I don't
dare to judge.

I argue, by looking at the big picture, on average, over decades, people tend
to make the decisions that are good for them

------
chippy
Cat pictures are dangerous:
<http://whyamilookingatapictureofyourcat.wordpress.com> (a project of mine)

------
chippy
Capitalism (or more correctly consumerism) requires things to be spectacular.
Cat projects are spectacular and helps sell stuff, which help people in the
world.

------
Hyena
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the complaint: would you prefer to win
a Nobel Prize or be crowned king of advice animals?

~~~
emanuer
I see your point.

He is concerned with what kind of legacy he will leave.

My post was intended to address just this, your chances for a Nobel price are
bigger if you are actively working on curing cancer. Yet, winning a Nobel
price is not a guarantee to do good to the world (Arafat). You never know how
your tools will be used, therefor being the "king of advice animals" (love
that one) might be service equally important to the world.

If you like your job and you are good at it your legacy might be invisible
(the soap guy) but possible essential for our future. We have no way of
knowing.

