I agree with everything you said. Yet, I don't think that's where Mr. Graham was taking this (though I haven't heard the actual speech, but, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that the summary has, indeed, captured its spirit). I think that his advice focused on how to build a successful business - important, sound, advice for any professional, but hardly a source of inspiration, which, I guess, was his intention.
Anyway, as I said, I don't really have a problem with anything he said in particular. Some of the things actually made me think. My only issue is the premise that engineers should be inspired by business. Case in point: "it would be great if a startup could make a lot of cpus look to the developer like 1 cpu... the expected value of working on it might be really high. why high: web services. programmers like convenience." I would have said that with a compiler like that, scientists would be able to design new drugs more quickly, or that a manned mission to mars could be done more easily, or... I don't know. But his example (at least as it appears in the notes) is web services.
Again, he was talking about how to come up with ideas for a start-up, which is a business, I guess, so the talk was very much to the point. But even if Mr. Graham believes that start-ups are where smart engineers should spend their best years and bright minds because start-ups are what makes the world better - and he does indeed seem to believe that - I think he should have at least discussed why it is that bright young people should strive to build high-risk fast-growing businesses, rather than, I don't know, go work for the government or an NGO. It is as if many engineers just assume that the best path for an accomplished engineers is in the fast-money business. Engineers should be agents of freedom, of equality, of innovation and even social justice. I just don't like it that nowadays engineers in certain fields are automatically associated first with money, as if they were stock brokers or something. This is important because history has shown that smart as they are, scientists and engineers were often very easily manipulated into serving some terrible causes. They are easily manipulated because they are drawn to solving problems rather than thinking about whether they should be solved in the first place.
For example, an easier delivery of entertainment "content" is a problem for an engineer. But is it a problem worth solving? From a business perspective - certainly. From a human perspective - possibly. I don't know. But young engineers eager to learn from an experienced colleague are already trained to think about how to solve problems. They're even trained to find problems to solve. But they should be inspired to think about why it is that a problem requires solving, and to consider whether there are other, more worthy, undertakings. Again - in the end they'll do whatever it is that they're doing now. Only that shouldn't be their inspiration.
Also, big things don't have to be well defined. They should just hang up there as a source of inspiration. Big things, not rich people.
I can relate to where you're coming from. When it comes to the motivations that drive some engineers (vs. the ideals that ought to drive them), you'll probably like the recent talk by Bret Victor, "Inventing on Principle" (vimeo.com/36579366).
You (correctly) point out the places where capitalism comes up empty, if capitalism is our implicit system of determining the worth of goods and services. Apart from the environment (which seems unaddressed by the major economic models of the world) or the other causes you mentioned (unaddressed by capitalism, at least), I suppose it's fine to rely on the adequacy of money as some measure of the wealth we add to the world (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html).
Even if the world is being eaten by software (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651...), the transition to using software happens fastest through startups, I'm coming to believe. I used to work in a life-sci research lab, and there's just an exponentially growing divide between data growth and the tech resources to handle it. NGOs and government can be disorganized and unmotivated, so working for them is not necessarily going to be the best use of your engineering talents. But that might be aside your point, i.e., try to work towards noble goals.
Lastly, and most importantly, I find the model of the Aravind Eye Hospital as truly inspiring and business-model bending: a company set up to help the ones who are the _most_ in need. The ones who can least afford it. And yet in the process, generate income that goes back to serving and accelerating the mission. _This_ is what "social enterprises" ought to be:
http://infinitevisionaries.com
Thanks! Interesting stuff. My point is actually broader. I don't want engineers to be inspired by nobler things - I just want them to be inspired by bigger things. They may want to enslave everyone on the planet - that is a big goal indeed - and though I believe most will try to do good rather than bad, first they have to learn to think about the why before they start thinking about the what and the how.
The what will be cooler gadgets and "increased productivity" or "streamlined processes" only if the why is money. Money is perfectly OK as motivation; it's just so... pedestrian.
Comments
I agree with everything you said. Yet, I don't think that's where Mr. Graham was taking this (though I haven't heard the actual speech, but, for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that the summary has, indeed, captured its spirit). I think that his advice focused on how to build a successful business - important, sound, advice for any professional, but hardly a source of inspiration, which, I guess, was his intention.
Anyway, as I said, I don't really have a problem with anything he said in particular. Some of the things actually made me think. My only issue is the premise that engineers should be inspired by business. Case in point: "it would be great if a startup could make a lot of cpus look to the developer like 1 cpu... the expected value of working on it might be really high. why high: web services. programmers like convenience." I would have said that with a compiler like that, scientists would be able to design new drugs more quickly, or that a manned mission to mars could be done more easily, or... I don't know. But his example (at least as it appears in the notes) is web services.
Again, he was talking about how to come up with ideas for a start-up, which is a business, I guess, so the talk was very much to the point. But even if Mr. Graham believes that start-ups are where smart engineers should spend their best years and bright minds because start-ups are what makes the world better - and he does indeed seem to believe that - I think he should have at least discussed why it is that bright young people should strive to build high-risk fast-growing businesses, rather than, I don't know, go work for the government or an NGO. It is as if many engineers just assume that the best path for an accomplished engineers is in the fast-money business. Engineers should be agents of freedom, of equality, of innovation and even social justice. I just don't like it that nowadays engineers in certain fields are automatically associated first with money, as if they were stock brokers or something. This is important because history has shown that smart as they are, scientists and engineers were often very easily manipulated into serving some terrible causes. They are easily manipulated because they are drawn to solving problems rather than thinking about whether they should be solved in the first place.
For example, an easier delivery of entertainment "content" is a problem for an engineer. But is it a problem worth solving? From a business perspective - certainly. From a human perspective - possibly. I don't know. But young engineers eager to learn from an experienced colleague are already trained to think about how to solve problems. They're even trained to find problems to solve. But they should be inspired to think about why it is that a problem requires solving, and to consider whether there are other, more worthy, undertakings. Again - in the end they'll do whatever it is that they're doing now. Only that shouldn't be their inspiration.
Also, big things don't have to be well defined. They should just hang up there as a source of inspiration. Big things, not rich people.
I can relate to where you're coming from. When it comes to the motivations that drive some engineers (vs. the ideals that ought to drive them), you'll probably like the recent talk by Bret Victor, "Inventing on Principle" (vimeo.com/36579366).
You (correctly) point out the places where capitalism comes up empty, if capitalism is our implicit system of determining the worth of goods and services. Apart from the environment (which seems unaddressed by the major economic models of the world) or the other causes you mentioned (unaddressed by capitalism, at least), I suppose it's fine to rely on the adequacy of money as some measure of the wealth we add to the world (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html).
Even if the world is being eaten by software (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651...), the transition to using software happens fastest through startups, I'm coming to believe. I used to work in a life-sci research lab, and there's just an exponentially growing divide between data growth and the tech resources to handle it. NGOs and government can be disorganized and unmotivated, so working for them is not necessarily going to be the best use of your engineering talents. But that might be aside your point, i.e., try to work towards noble goals.
Lastly, and most importantly, I find the model of the Aravind Eye Hospital as truly inspiring and business-model bending: a company set up to help the ones who are the _most_ in need. The ones who can least afford it. And yet in the process, generate income that goes back to serving and accelerating the mission. _This_ is what "social enterprises" ought to be: http://infinitevisionaries.com
Thanks! Interesting stuff. My point is actually broader. I don't want engineers to be inspired by nobler things - I just want them to be inspired by bigger things. They may want to enslave everyone on the planet - that is a big goal indeed - and though I believe most will try to do good rather than bad, first they have to learn to think about the why before they start thinking about the what and the how.
The what will be cooler gadgets and "increased productivity" or "streamlined processes" only if the why is money. Money is perfectly OK as motivation; it's just so... pedestrian.