
First world demons - robheaton
http://peternixey.com/post/51189494392/first-world-demons/
======
schrijver
Teju Cole argues against the expression ‘First World problems’ more
convincingly:

> I don't like this expression "First World problems." It is false and it is
> condescending. Yes, Nigerians struggle with floods or infant mortality. But
> these same Nigerians also deal with mundane and seemingly luxurious hassles.
> Connectivity issues on your BlackBerry, cost of car repair, how to sync your
> iPad, what brand of noodles to buy: Third World problems. All the silly
> stuff of life doesn't disappear just because you're black and live in a
> poorer country. People in the richer nations need a more robust sense of the
> lives being lived in the darker nations. Here's a First World problem: the
> inability to see that others are as fully complex and as keen on technology
> and pleasure as you are.

> One event that illustrated the gap between the Africa of conjecture and the
> real Africa was the BlackBerry outage of a few weeks ago. Who would have
> thought Research In Motion's technical issues would cause so much annoyance
> and inconvenience in a place like Lagos? But of course it did, because
> people don't wake up with "poor African" pasted on their foreheads. They
> live as citizens of the modern world. None of this is to deny the existence
> of social stratification and elite structures here. There are lifestyles of
> the rich and famous, sure. But the interesting thing about modern technology
> is how socially mobile it is--quite literally. Everyone in Lagos has a
> phone.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/whats-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/whats-
wrong-with-firstworldproblems/248829/)

~~~
jumblesale
Really excellent points. Also it's worth considering that most of the people
providing these solutions are not equipped with the expertise or experience to
tackle 'third world problems' like floods or infant mortality. No amount of
AngularJS or Clojure can solve these issues. However photo sharing is a domain
that is approachable and there are obvious financial incentives to do so.

------
Eliezer
Hi. This is Eliezer Yudkowsky. I work at the Machine Intelligence Research
Institute on reflective decision theory for eventually building stable self-
modifying AIs. I do this because I think it's literally the most important
problem in the world. I do not have issues with a dead-end job or think that I
haven't found anything worthy of leaving it.

I wish entrepreneurs would stop working on First World Problems. I think a
planet that raises its best and brightest to dream of building the next
Instagram is on its way to doom.

Thereby your psychological hypothesis is shown, by this clear counterexample,
to be factually false as a generalization about a necessary cause of worrying
about "First World Solutions"; or to put it another way, someone already
working on an important problem would arrive at the same worry for much the
same reason that others say they are worried.

With that out of the way, I remark that it furthermore constitutes a fallacy
of ad hominem / poisoning the well.

~~~
saucetenuto
That's a pretty unfair standard; no psychological statement is true of
literally all humanity, and only someone very naive would try to generalize
that broadly. I don't know the author at all, but I'm willing to give them
that much credit.

Let me try to reframe his point in a way you might find more palatable. When
you feel anger, it's an opportunity to learn something about yourself--an
opportunity that most people ignore. You'll always feel like you have a good
immediate reason to be angry because that's how emotion works, but those
explanations are often retroactive and superficial; they don't point toward a
change in the world that would make your anger go away. Projection one such
failure mode, and a very common; so common, in fact, that many people would do
well to check themselves for it _every single time they feel anger_. The
author illustrates his point with a concrete example.

Perhaps none of this is useful to you personally. That's fine. But you aren't
representative.

~~~
Eliezer
One counterexample can't outweigh a lot of positive examples, but we don't
have verified positive examples of people making the reasoning error the OP
claims - we don't have verified positive examples of people secretly thinking
what OP claims they were secretly thinking. It seems to me that I went through
the same thought processes that other people worried about FWS _say_ they
underwent, while being in an utterly different context from what OP is
claiming to produce motivated cognition. That makes me extremely skeptical
that OP is correct in trying to thus undermine the thought processes producing
worry about FWS. In this case it's not clear that OP is successfully
generalizing over any of humanity.

------
SCdF
"my assumption is that whatever they hate is simply the same thing they fear
in themselves."

Hold on. It's late where I am, I'm tired, and this might be me performing some
kind of logically fallacy but: are you saying that if I hate Paris Hilton I'm
actually internally scared of being an airhead who gets far more publicity
than she deserves?

I think saying "what you're doing is stupid because X" is pointless, navel-
focused and unproductive, though not necessarily even remotely wrong.

Here's what I'd like: I'd like instead for a discussion to take place on
exactly what areas we _can_ write code in that changes the world in a useful
and laudable way.

The medical imaging example is sort of interesting, because I've worked on
hospital software before and the biggest challenge has nothing to do with
writing code, it has to do with politics and money. I've occasionally thought
of apps that you could build and run in a hospital (watch HL7 traffic and send
alerts when probable bad things happen, e.g. patients get prescribed too much
drugs / odd medications), but again: writing the code is not the hard part,
getting it into hospitals is.

I'd like to know what problems I can help solve now, where the main problem is
actually writing code.

~~~
petenixey
Interesting example. I kind of wonder why you would hate her. She may be a
irritating but she hasn't killed anyone, stolen anything or brought down any
banks.

However, if you value intelligence, meritocratic success and substance over
style then the fact that Paris apparently represents the opposite of those
things is bound to be unpleasant. Is it really her that's so distasteful
though or the fact that people seem to like her for it. If it's the latter
then she's bound to be unpleasant by association.

On a different note I think idea that Paris is an airhead is probably
misguided. Being a billionaire heiress will only fly for so long before the
press lose interest and like Kim K she's been an extraordinarily savvy girl in
keeping the ball rolling.

------
hawkharris
To me the real issue is not that many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs tackle
problems such as photo sharing. It's that they do so with an utter lack of
humility and awareness for what's going on in the world.

If you want to create the next big photo app, that's great. I'll support you,
use it and enjoy it. But be modest and don't always insist that you're
changing the world on a grand scale.....because when you get paired up with,
say, oncologists and Red Cross volunteers, you'll seem kind of silly.

~~~
msglenn
But isn't there a certain lack of humility in attempting to solve a set of
problems that you have no insight into because they do not affect you at all?

There is nothing wrong with trying to address "third world problems" if you
have the skills and background knowledge to actually do something, but if you
grew up in a middle class suburb then stick to working on what you know. A lot
of the innovations in the first world eventually end up being used and applied
to bigger problems anyway.

~~~
venomsnake
Okay - there are a lot of First World Problems too left solve.

Like - drop in replacement system for the flywheel of a car consisting of
electrical engine with recuperation braking system backed by supercapacitors
(batteries are expensive) you could turn any car in de facto hybrid for a
fraction of the cost and it could be used on the current fleet that will be in
commission for a long time to come.

Heat pump that cools tank of water at night to 4 degrees and pumps up the cold
back into the build which would make air conditioning at summer much less
straining on the grid and cheaper to operate.

There a lot of inefficiencies in out energy production and consumption system
that could be eliminated by some engineering ingenuity and sufficiently smart
software.

~~~
tocomment
Those are great ideas! I'd be up for working on those. So you're actually
thinking to replace the flywheel of an engine instead of refitting the brakes?
(I'll put my heatpump comment in a separate comment)

~~~
tocomment
Actually what about putting in a bigger alternator and stronger belts and
having it charge some super capacitors? That's already connected to the engine
through a belt so whenever you use engine braking you could also be partially
charging.

Can the alternator run in reverse though and provide energy to the
engine/drive train?

~~~
venomsnake
Well it was just an idea conceived over 2-3 beers with a friend with just some
basic napkin math that said we don't brake too much of the laws of physics. I
can see multiple approaches working.

But the goal - make the existing fleet of vehicles better while cleaning the
air as a bonus is a worthy one and smog is a first world problem.

Edit: honda have something similar

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Motor_Assist>

------
rayiner
Ever see the episode of South Park where San Francisco is overrun with smug?
You think Trey Parker is secretly just afraid that he loves to smell his own
farts? I mean this is textbook logical fallacy. Just because some groups of
people react to internal fear (e.g. Homophobes) by lashing out against those
that have the characteristics they fear they have, does not mean that any time
people are critical of other people its because they harbor secret fears.

The problem isn't that people individually are making photosharing sites.
That's way cooler than 90% what people do. But so is being an advertising exec
like Don Draper in Mad Men. Very cool job that many people would love to have.
But Don Draper doesn't tell himself every morning that he's changing the
world. This is of course something you see on Wall Street too. "I'm changing
the world by securitizing these income streams." And how do tech folks react
to that?

Also, people love to complain, about everything. Try writing a new GUI toolkit
and prepare yourself for the barage of complaints from people asking why you
didn't just contribute to GTK.

------
Nursie
_"The First World Problem objection is a classic of these. Why should it
bother anyone that someone should build another photo sharing service? Is it
really such an offensive thing to do?"_

That depends. Is it accompanied by a statement saying "Look at our cool photo
app!" or is it accompanied by a statement saying "Look at us, with this photo
sharing app we're going to change the world!"

'cos that latter one gets annoying...

------
onli
The "he is criticizing it because he fears it for himself" theory is of course
an oversimplification. But sometimes it is true. And even if it is not true,
it is a great strategy to make someone stop with the criticing, which i used
quite a few times when I got sick of homophobic jokes.

And there is an other argument for doing it anyway, even though it looks much
less important than curing illnesses or stuff like that: We live our lifes in
a specific way. The way we live it, we generate expertise. I know nothing
about illnesses or development work, I would have to start at zero. But I know
how to build a computer together with the parts on the market, and I think I
know how to select the best ones, so I can build a hardware recommender. Same
thing for other people with foto sharing apps and so on.

Working there where we have a clue is not arrogant and mindless, often times
it is smart.

------
exratione
Nonetheless, I think it's important not to lose touch with the fact that some
things are more important than others. It's necessary for an entrepreneur to
think that what he or she is doing is important, but one can take that too
far.

It's not as though the entrepreneurs are on their own in this, anyway. There
is always far more money and attention for things that are not important in
comparison to those that are. Playing games versus medical research, for
example. Political campaign funding versus medical research. Pretty much
anything in the mainstream of culture versus medical research.

In general we are the species that fritters away our opportunities for
significance, with odd exceptions here and there. Entrepreneurs are just like
everyone else in this respect.

~~~
nitrogen
If all you do is tackle big problems, what do you do when you ron out of
problems? Someone has to provide a welcoming world for the ones whose problems
have been solved.

~~~
nitrogen
Since it's too late to edit, that should be " _run_ out of problems" -- HN's
text edit box does not work well with the stock browser on my phone.

------
btrautsc
_The credit, as we know, belongs to the man in the ring but the pity belongs
to the First World Objectionist for he is only sheltering from his own fears_

Agreed. Anytime you bring out something shiny, new, awkward, and full of a mix
of excitement & doubt - the arm-chair-quarterbacks will miraculously emerge
from the ether. It is their role. HN is still the best place to get feedback
on products, and it comes with the pendulum of 'that is the best thing _ever_
" to that is a toy and _no one_ will buy or invest.

Know your market. Get the feedback you need and utilize what's valuable.

------
ruswick
His argument regarding the way in which we develop "demons" is incoherent.
Negative emotions are not just the product of disdain or fear of our own
actions. Just because one thinks murder is abhorrent does not mean that they
are secretly harboring a desire to commit murder. He never defends this claim,
and merely asserts that, because people are displeased with the abundance of
companies solving trivial problems, we must be afraid of entrepreneurship.

How does he reconcile this with people like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs, whom
most people venerate. Did they not work exceptionally hard and face hardship
that most of us couldn't bear? If the impetus for our dislike was really a
fear of the toils of entrepreneurship, we wouldn't venerate any hard-working
entrepreneurs like Elon and Steve. If anything, we'd dislike them more because
they have faced more adversity than the photo-sharing apps.

No one dislikes these companies because they fear work. They dislike these
companies because they are trivial, and there are too many exigent problems in
the world to make another Pinterest clone.

------
squozzer
I get his rant. But most of the "real" problems at least on the surface
require huge amounts of resources, if they are even solvable.

For instance, world hunger. We seem to produce more food per unit land area
each year yet people still go hungry. I'm sure the explanations given are all
valid, but more importantly solving them requires near-global consensus for
which no incentives seem to exist.

Example 1 -- food market speculation. How many in the West care if millions go
hungry when there's money to be made?

Example 2 -- continued breeding by the poor. Many in the West are opposed to
any form of birth control except "God's will."

Having tilted at a few windmills in my day, I can see why people would give up
trying to solve "moon shot" level problems in favor of something achievable
(and with any luck, sinfully profitable) in their lifetime.

------
gems
I don't find it offensive, I just find it troubling. The talent can be used
more effectively in other areas. This bothers others at varying degrees. I
don't believe this has anything to do with my own fears.

I still admit that that psychological effect is real. I'm sure it's true for
many circumstances. I just don't think it's applicable to this case.

------
forgottenpaswrd
"Why should it bother anyone that someone should build another photo sharing
service? Is it really such an offensive thing to do?"

When the money for building this another photo service comes from the people,
through money printing by central bankers, then , yes it could be offensive.

In USA, Japan and Europe money for banks and big institutions like Google,
Microsoft, Yahoo or Apple is free, as they could get money at near 0% interest
with real inflation way over 3%.

No problem with "yet another whatever" that really makes profit by itself, and
is necessary, but a real problem with a new multi billionaire acqui-hire that
never returns what it extracts from society and when the show is over makes
everyone to pay for it, creating misery for all in the process.

------
michaelochurch
_Unless that is, you’re in a job you don’t enjoy and the reason you’ve coached
yourself not to leave it is that you haven’t found anything “worthy enough” to
start yourself._

No, the problem is money. Good ideas are not that rare. "Worthy" ideas are not
that rare. The money to implement them is almost impossible to come by,
whether you're in a corporation or raising on the outside.

Free-floating capital is not actually that rare. Talent is not that rare,
"talent shortage" whinging aside. The problem is a bilateral and cataclysmic
distrust between both sides. Money doesn't trust Talent not to steal so it
injects a bunch of useless management that makes Talent impossible to unlock.
Talent doesn't trust Money not to be stupid and develops a deep, smoldering
cynicism that the rest of the world misperceives as obnoxious entitlement.

The problem is that any idiot can raise money for something any idiot can do.
On the other hand, if you try to convince someone to pay you, _even at the
level of mere salary money_ to do something worthwhile, you get a lot of
questions because not everyone can do those useful things. You get: _why you?_
Which is actually a valid question, even if mildly insulting, because things
that are worthwhile are hard.

We end up all working for the smooth-talkers selling trivial ideas because
they've been overriding the "why you?" objections since college, when it
involved booze and women with low self-esteem and, by age 30, they're very
practiced at overcoming, for example, "last minute resistance" (LMR). So when
they see LMR in investors, they know what to do, and we don't.

~~~
gizmo
I notice most of your posts lately have a very negative tone. I don't think
the negativity is really justified, given how many opportunities there are for
programmers. Life isn't just good for programmers, it's also getting better
every day. We are probably living in the golden age of internet startups,
where small 3 man shops can effectively compete with large enterprises. This
won't be true forever, but it's true today.

If you don't have any money (and let's face it, most of us don't), you can
still start a startup. You can work on your project in evenings and nights. Or
you save money and quit your job for 8 months or so. Or you can work part time
on your startup and do part-time contracting work on the side.

Starting a software startup is so much easier than opening a bar or a
restaurant or a jeans shop it's not even funny. People put their life savings
in ordinary businesses like these every day, and more often than not they get
utterly crushed by reality. A restaurant without customers can't afford to
keep the doors open for long. Buying a 30k kitchen and hiring 5 people before
the first customer has walked through the door is _scary_. We programmers in
contrast can just pivot until we find something people are willing to pay for.
We can build half a product and use server analytics to figure out which
direction is best. We have unique insights in our users and customers and the
press loves to write about anything that involves startups. There are so many
things subtly working in our favor!

Doing a startup isn't _easy_. But nobody is entitled to an easy road to
guaranteed riches. But doing a startup _is_ possible even if you're broke,
don't have any connections and are only a mediocre programmer or business
person.

Of course the VC money game is rigged to an extent. So what. If you have
traction you have leverage and if you have leverage you'll still get a good
deal. And if you have paying customers you may not even need VC money. These
are, in the big scheme of things, not things to get terribly upset about.

~~~
michaelochurch
I'm probably older than you (almost 30) and I don't think you're aware of the
long-term career risks in this industry. Yes, it's cheaper to go all-in on a
startup, and you might build something that makes life (yours and others') a
lot better. There are a lot of great things about living in 2013. There
certainly are opportunities that didn't exist 20 years ago.

However, what happens when your bootstrapped startup fails is an unholy
cocktail of the following:

    
    
        a. Your savings is depleted. 
        b. You learn a lot, which overqualifies you for junior-level work. 
        c. People try to take advantage of (a) and offer you low-level positions.
    

Rapid learning (b) and zero credibility advancement (c) is a recipe for
disaster, because you'll probably fail when you get shunted into some bullshit
low-level job after having been "spoiled" by the experience of getting do real
work.

It's the career problems that make this game an unholy mess: the fact that
most so-called "tech" jobs are career-killing, subordinate wastes of talent
that slowly turn you into an unemployable idiot. It's the risk that you'll be
37 and taking orders from a 25-year-old "tech lead" who only knows half a
programming language and won't listen to your ideas. Worst of all, at that age
you probably have a spouse and kids, so suicide isn't an ethically defensible
option. At that point, you just have to suffer for 40 years and die of natural
causes.

~~~
jdbernard
You are my age, and I intend this to be friendly. Gizmo is right. You have too
much potential left to be so negative. This negative view of employment in our
industry is not unique to software. The same concerns about getting stuck in a
career-killing, life-draining job are found in most professions.

I don't know you personally, so I am hesitant to put words in your mouth or
infer what you are feeling. So I'll just talk about myself.

What made the difference for me was attitude. It sounds trite but it's true.
Some people are too motivated to let themselves be beaten down by a bad job or
a bad boss. They continue to struggle through until they change things for the
better. I used to be that kind of person, but I gave up hope. I had to find a
way to convince myself that I was smart enough, could work hard enough, and
could be persistent enough to force positive change in my life. That I would
carve a good path through life with my bare hands if I had to. The other
alternative was for that negative view of career option to become a self-
fulfilling prophesy.

I have three children myself, the oldest of which is 4 years old. For their
sake I cannot kill myself no matter how bad I feel about my prospects. But
also for their sake I cannot let myself get beaten back into a hopeless corner
where I come home depressed every day about my life. If I come home every day
dead already, what hope do they have of seeing the wonder and beauty of life
that makes it worth living? Even without the responsibility of kids I have
seen too much good in life to ever be convinced that death is preferable.

~~~
winter_blue
I know I'm breaking HN guidelines, but thanks for that comment. :)

