A lot of people would agree that empathy is one of the large components of what makes us "human", and that's rather vague, but it does make evolutionary sense for why empathy is useful for societal progress. And guess what, perspective is crucial for empathy. If we assume for a minute that almost nobody really lacks empathy, then what could be the only possible factor that produces an outcome like the one described in that link above? I'm sure most of us tech people aren't narcissists/sociopaths, so the only thing that could explain it is a skewed perspective that makes it permissible to rationalize a lot of the nonsense around us as being 'okay', or 'not relevant' to us. Empathy is a function that takes perspective as an argument, and if we assume that our empathy functions are correct (no reason to think they aren't usually), shouldn't it be good when we realize it's giving us the 'wrong outputs', and then do something actionable about it like try changing our perspective (or input)? I've battled with a lot of self-criticism and depression myself, but I see nothing wrong with this. On the contrary, it seems like the healthiest thing we could do as we approach a possible 'bubble' scenario.
I think the problem is that the OP is labeling what he's arguing with as "web development" when it's really more of a subset of startup culture that he's referring to, not all web developers (he lauded the 'adults' that created Rails remember? I'd say they're 'web developers').
Also, it isn't that things are trivial to us, it's that they can be trivial, period. It just doesn't look that way from the outside, so we benefit (and are congratulated) for "daring" to look into the black art that is computer programming and actually producing something, anything... imagine if it were socially deemed adventurous to look into plumbing, it would have a similar outcome (albeit without all the VC nonsense probably).
Also:
> Jet packs and flying cars were always a terrible benchmark to measure human technological progress against.
Not really, because we do have jetpacks (albeit not exactly efficient/affordable ones), and lets not forget that Google is developing self-driving cars! I'd say the notaion that any vehicle could drive itself is an even crazier idea than having something that's redundant with a small glider/aircraft at this point, and I'm sure people from the 1930's would probably agree.
So then why wouldn't it be good to use existing ground-breaking projects as benchmarks for human progress and value? A lot of web startups sure do fall short of that benchmark too.
> I think the problem is that the OP is labeling what he's arguing with as "web development" when it's really more of a subset of startup culture that he's referring to, not all web developers
You hit the nail on the head. I'm a web developer, and what I do is build websites and other online solutions for non-profits. They range from the very small, to the very large (many millions of dollars in budget). I'm paid less because most of our clients pay less, but I'm happy with my contribution to society, and that's what matters to me.
It's not the job, it's the context in which that job is performed.
Off-topic: Can you contact me (email in profile) as I am trying to rebuild my portfolio of work from scratch (as I've been out of the tech world for a decade) and rather than put up files on github scratching my itches, I have been trying to find non-profits or charities to re-do their websites (for free). My skills are very rusty, but I am pushing ahead to get up to speed with the modern tech world. (I programmed in the 80s and 90s everything from AI to geocities, but spent the last 15 years living life and trying different things)
What the OP here is describing, is exactly the mentality that leads to this nonsense: http://programmingisterrible.com/post/50421878989/come-here-...
A lot of people would agree that empathy is one of the large components of what makes us "human", and that's rather vague, but it does make evolutionary sense for why empathy is useful for societal progress. And guess what, perspective is crucial for empathy. If we assume for a minute that almost nobody really lacks empathy, then what could be the only possible factor that produces an outcome like the one described in that link above? I'm sure most of us tech people aren't narcissists/sociopaths, so the only thing that could explain it is a skewed perspective that makes it permissible to rationalize a lot of the nonsense around us as being 'okay', or 'not relevant' to us. Empathy is a function that takes perspective as an argument, and if we assume that our empathy functions are correct (no reason to think they aren't usually), shouldn't it be good when we realize it's giving us the 'wrong outputs', and then do something actionable about it like try changing our perspective (or input)? I've battled with a lot of self-criticism and depression myself, but I see nothing wrong with this. On the contrary, it seems like the healthiest thing we could do as we approach a possible 'bubble' scenario.
I think the problem is that the OP is labeling what he's arguing with as "web development" when it's really more of a subset of startup culture that he's referring to, not all web developers (he lauded the 'adults' that created Rails remember? I'd say they're 'web developers').
Also, it isn't that things are trivial to us, it's that they can be trivial, period. It just doesn't look that way from the outside, so we benefit (and are congratulated) for "daring" to look into the black art that is computer programming and actually producing something, anything... imagine if it were socially deemed adventurous to look into plumbing, it would have a similar outcome (albeit without all the VC nonsense probably).
Also:
> Jet packs and flying cars were always a terrible benchmark to measure human technological progress against.
Not really, because we do have jetpacks (albeit not exactly efficient/affordable ones), and lets not forget that Google is developing self-driving cars! I'd say the notaion that any vehicle could drive itself is an even crazier idea than having something that's redundant with a small glider/aircraft at this point, and I'm sure people from the 1930's would probably agree.
So then why wouldn't it be good to use existing ground-breaking projects as benchmarks for human progress and value? A lot of web startups sure do fall short of that benchmark too.