This article's conclusion is kind of a let-down, but I think the thrust of it touches on part of what bothers me about the Bay Area entrepreneur scene: the strangely myopic focus on "business" as the primary mechanism for "creating."
If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit?
I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative possibilities.
I understand your wonder. I think this is why Elon Musk is such a role model. After achieving independence, he is working on making the world a better place. At the same time, I can see that this subject is going to become more important as more of the work that society depends on is automated.
Shuttleworth is trying to make money but revenues are still below costs. Redhat got a lot of the obvious market first though. I don't see it is any worse than any other startup trying to pivot to make revenue.
Elon Musk doesn't really have the money to run them any other way, to run projects of that magnitude at a possible permanent loss you would need to be right up the top of the worlds richest people.
One straightforward answer: If I'm good at making systems which make systems which make money and you're good at teaching philosophy at a Catholic university, we should trade to maximize wealth creation.
At any rate, he made a related point, that the Valley seems to see every problem as being essentially a flavor of boredom and every problem's solution as being an endless rush of attention-sapping communication (i.e. a social network). The article was really well written; it's a shame it's gone.
I think one reason the conclusion doesn't satisfy is because the question of "What do we do in a post-work world?" is horribly open ended. I believe the question is relevant as technology and automation increasingly penetrate manufacturing, business administration, and (soon to be) transportation to name a few.
To put it bluntly, for most programmers, it's our job to put others out of a job. The things we build make it easier to automate, streamline, and other buzzwords, which generally means that a company doesn't have to keep as many workers on the payroll. The business administration side is fairly decimated, and I believe the falling prices of 3D printers and robotized factories will lead to automated on-demand manufacturing. This means more people won't be able to find work, which will depress the demand for products. It's an interesting problem.
> shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit?
Yes. I would argue that the artifacts of human culture (portraits, frescoes, symphonies, statues, etc), in many cases, have no obvious financial benefit at the time. They exist because they appeal to our aesthetic side and the creators lived at the pleasure of rich sponsors.
Many programs of the Open Source universe started as an annoyance or a fling without any thought of profitability. Several tech companies started as research projects or "the itch" with no money in sight. Much of our software is still built pro-bono by an army of volunteers.
In this way programming starts to mirror the art world. The mindset to adopt is to create for the sake of creating, and letting others critique the work. Think about a programmer version of art hostels in Paris of early 20th century. In fact, go watch Midnight in Paris and see if you can picture (hah!) programmers drinking and talking instead of artists and writers. There are programmers out there like that, like Mr. Bellard and his DIY cell phone base station [1] or John Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace [2]. They build for the sake of building something cool.
For your second question, I can only assume that many entrepreneurs enjoy the challenge of building successful companies. Being wildly successful means they have additional capital and can chase larger and more complex problems. SpaceX comes to mind. Granted I can't think of a founder that was very successful start something trivial (I'm sure they're out there).
A post work world exists for the majority of humans on earth. That's why we are growing much too fast; China and a lot of Asia will be unemployed in the future (Foxconn firing their employees in favor of robots will become common with robot prices falling) (not to mention the move back to to west for several branches/markets, but even without that); most people in country X (not only China) can simply do nothing more than repetitive labor and those will be done in the future. I wouldn't give that 100 years.
What 'we' (of the HN crowd) will do post-work is easy; we will make new work. That's not an option for most (I'm not sure if it's 99+% but I guess it is). Happiness in a Federation (Start Trek) utopia is not very hard to imagine for people who have hobbies and passions. With real holodecks it's probably not hard to imagine for people with less ambitions or passions, but that's so incredibly 'not here' yet...
I would think so; as we see there is not much else this kind of employee can do, so unless they have a skill which is harder to replace by robots, I fear the worst.
Something with 'voice' would be good for instance, because voice recognition sucks still. Call centers and such are not completely replaceable by 'Watsons' yet because the recognition still really stinks.
> To put it bluntly, for most programmers, it's our job to put others out of a job.
Maybe, but a cheaper production process means that a business can also scale up production for the same amount of input due to the efficiency we added. Now, granted, in most cases they choose not to..
1. That "capitalism" does not produce anything. It is people who produce for each other.
2. Who to decide what's needed for particular human's flourishing?
3. Who to decide how exactly, at what costs "schools should aim to produce self-determining agents"?
Capitalism is defined by property ownership, it does not have any inherent rules how to profit. And profits, after all, are not monetary, but subjective. You are earning money being software developer, not carpenter because probably it fulfills your life better this way, with lesser regard of the amount earned.
Truth is nobody can authoritatively answer what is good for other people. But if everybody respects each other's property, it is possible to see how for each pair of exchanging persons both parties profit. Even "useless" speculators are doing social good by equalizing prices making calculations and predictions easier (unless they participate in Fed's money printing, which is not a feature of capitalism, but simple robbery).
The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one. We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit.
But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle:
"But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better."
This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property. It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will typically increase utility for all market agents.
I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy? Huh?
I think the point he makes in the middle is a good one, even if he oversimplifies capitalism's claims. Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. And you can see many instances of (especially deregulated) capitalism spin out profound and unethical unhappiness (e.g., the US meatpacking industry in the early 20th century). The point he is raising is that there is an essential disconnect between the things that we as human beings care about (eg, quality of life, improving the world, raising families, aesthetic pleasures, knowledge) and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit).
As for the conclusion, I agree he does sort of get in the weeds a bit (what kind of education does he see as training consumers? I never took a class on that...). But he seems to be getting at the idea that part of the role of education in capitalism is empowering free agents to make ethical, informed purchasing decisions so that the free market veers toward good. If we aren't educated on broad topics and don't have autonomous free thinking, we might not believe in global warming and therefore not create a market for electric cars; or we not care about the ethical treatment of animals, so disregard organics and keep our cheaper Tyson products.
Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market.
Are you claiming there is some huge gap between utility and happiness/quality of life?
Note that utility is defined as what people choose for themselves. How do you define happiness or quality of life?
...and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit).
You make the same fallacy the OP does. Agents in capitalism care about utility, not profit.
See this piece I wrote a while back, for example, which explains why we have such a large leisure class in America in a purely utility maximizing framework. (Hint: profit != utility.)
> I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy?
In my opinion he is talking about an uneven playing field.
There is a multi million dollar advertising industry which is applying psychological tricks to lure people into buying goods which might not be in those peoples best interest.
On the other hand there are many studies that show that people do not feel any luckier above a certain money threshold, that a larger car makes you only slightly happier for a couple of months and that most people on their death bed regret not having spent enough time with their family.
Of course this is nothing you hear about in the superbowl half time since it is not in the "interest of capitalism" as the author states it.
Maybe those things should be taught at school to counterbalance the effects of advertising.
I used to program as my leisure activity. Now it's my job. Why does my day job feel like work? I have less freedom to play! When I programmed at home, i'd use the technology I wanted, i'd try new things. At work, i'm more rigorous. I do what works, not what's fun.
The article is a great example of over-thinking things that should be really simple.
Whatever you are doing, you should choose a career you can enjoy. Some people are really picky of what (in their view) constitutes meaningful and fulfilling work. Others may consider any work that generates money to be fulfilling by this definition alone.
One person feels they have to solve the world hunger to feel good about themselves. Someone else feels fulfilled just working on better advertising technologies. Yet another person has to start Wikileaks or become a martyr of some kind to feel like they have accomplished something.
Stop over-thinking the meaning of life and just find a career that makes you happy! If your work feels like fun you'll be motivated to achieve in whatever path you have chosen.
EDIT: To address the comment that definitions of "fulfillment" can change over lifetime, let me repeat the famous quote: "in the long run we are all dead". If you are not enjoying the journey you are probably not very excited about your supposed destination. But I am sure the debates about the "meaning of life" and the "search for the right path, etc" is a way to happiness for many people. Go for it!
The above post is a great example of under-thinking things. It takes as read that one can easily determine what enjoyment and happiness is, something that is incredibly hard to get right over the course of a lifetime.
Most things that are fulfilling in life require a great deal of self-denial for longer term ends. And that self-denial can break you. Likewise, a life of hedonism can leave you feeling unfulfilled and unhappy with your lot.
That depends on what 'hard' means; it's hard to take the step, not to actually do it. People are very scared and security seeking. I don't like the ex CEO of godaddy much, but 'security is for corpses' is definitely something he was right about. When you are born, you are almost dead. There is no reason to be so careful; I mean, don't drunk-drive or inject yourself with random stuff to get a maybe-high, but doing only stuff you like? Whats the harm in that? You're going to die if there is a mistake? No, you'll have a maybe temporary hard time. At least you did what you like. It's incredible what small amount of people actually do this. Most people agree with this though but they don't do because of BUNCH_OF_SECURITY_EXCUSES.
Edit: I seem to have remembered the phrase from Bob Parsons incorrectly. It's "Security is for cadavers." (http://www.bobparsons.me/bp_16_rules.php). I hoped that it actually was from someone else :)
If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you, or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place. Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.
(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example, housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)
in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address ... it can be very hard to get back out of it
True, if you are relying on government/social programs to get you out. Such programs tend to keep you in your bad situation, as doing so perpetuates the survival of the social program and its budget.
There are examples of people who have experimentally, deliberately put themselves in such circumstances and worked their way out in a relatively short time.
I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-out option available at any time.
The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set up for rapid but temporary assistance.
Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a housing-assistance program this week, possibly even on the same day—not next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address. Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.
In my (limited, i'm only around 40 years on this planet) experience it's far from simple for people who don't want to know/learn. But I learned from my 94 year old grandfather who was not intelligent as in IQ but who knew how 'life' works and what is important and what not. People who know 'better' do usually (again, personal experience; it's easy to spot the sour people at a party) not achieve this happiness. It's quite easy for most people who just listen to older people.
The people who are truly not happy who I know personally almost all (2 exceptions) have a hangup about money; they want money to buy stuff. What stuff is unclear; once they get stuff (over the years), they usually don't do anything with it. Or if they do it didn't turn out the magic bullet they thought it was, which is of course the reason people don't buy it in the first place. It's like the 4 hour work week book; you can have your dream X TODAY but a lot of people will not do that because when they finally do their dream X it's very disappointing. And you didn't gain much happiness from it in the end.
The happiest people I know, who, I would say, scored a 10/10, are people who do not reason about their existence AND do what they like most all the time. My neighbor (who is a small goat herder) is 24/7 happy; I have only one creature who seems to have the same happiness and that's my little dog (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6134596/Screenshots/y835c9xw_lg~.png). I don't think people who meta-live in any way can do a 10/10 or would they want to; I think a part of happiness is misery but I don't know exactly how that works yet. Might be my Calvanistic-ish upbringing though. People (I like to think i'm one of them) who do 9/10 on the scale, in my experience, do what they like and work only as their hobby, never for money(I know at least 2 people who rather live under a bridge than do something which is not their passion, and they both have in the past, but now they are doing well). I have no exceptions in my circles to this. Again; might be who I attract or not.
I think if you accept 'how it works' from people who actually are what you want to be (and no, that doesn't mean millionaires in my eyes as that's the biggest let down on earth if it takes you, as it usually does, a lot of time to achieve and it's really not very interesting; it's nice, but not for the reasons you might think and I don't have anything I wouldn't be able to 'do' which contribute to my happiness level).
Also, to me, not native EN speaker, enjoyment != happiness. Enjoyment, if you would want it 24/7, is a heroine drip. If you manage to make it so you cannot meta-live then maybe that means happiness as well (I never tried), but if you have 1 moment to contemplate, your happiness is gone.
If my job is to do what I'd do in my free time anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm not happy if I play games all day, I'm happy when I build something other people want to use. I'm happy when I solve problems. I'm happy when I make something that entertains others.
Work is the result of people being unable to find what makes them both happy and productive.
The division between "leisure" and "work" proffered is too coarse and binary.
A continuity of work-y-ness makes more sense: the degree to which something qualifies as "work" is proportional to how distal the reward is.
Most leisure provides immediate reward for some amount of effort/energy expended, or at the very least provides little reward but demands little, too. But when the only pay-off for one's effort is years away, this is when true work takes place.
Work as in productive activity is a part of who we are, but this world in which people have to deal with the stress and misery and downright inefficiency of a subordinate context is a disaster. And it's not stable. What happened to agricultural commodities in the 1920s-30s (leading to rural poverty and the Depression) is now happening to almost all human labor. The work of unmotivated people is worth almost zero, but most people don't have the social access and trust to get out of the subordinate context and into a motivating role.
The next 50 years may be really great, or we may see a violent, global class war that kills millions. It depends on how the surplus and resources are distributed.
If we can accept that there are profitable companies which aren't socially productive or inspiring, shouldn't it follow that there are potentially a myriad of possible projects which might be amazing and worthwhile things to build, even if they obviously won't turn a profit?
I can understand needing to sustain your own existence, but I'm always curious why "entrepreneurs" who've made enough to live comfortably (and even to endow their children) continue focus their productive energy on building companies measured by financial success, rather than exploring other creative possibilities.