A couple of weeks ago, Paul Robinson, the organizer of the excellent BarCamp Manchester, wrote "The Vision Thing", a piece where he ponders on the banality of the Web-related industry. Andy Mitchell quickly followed up with "10 Reasons I Hate Where the Web is At" and encouraged me to post a response. This discussion somewhat echoes two posts I wrote a year ago, Why I'd Leave The Web Industry: It's Hard to Excel and Why I'd Leave The Web Industry: It's Ephemeral, but I want to recover the issues since my personal views have changed significantly since I wrote those posts.
Both Paul and Andy talk about "what people want" quite a bit, so let's start there.
What People Want
The science of "wants": First comes the self, and the extension of the self in the forms of family and friends. Our innate, animalistic goal is to satisfy the self and, generally, to perpetuate the self through reproduction. Those modern men who ponder on the meaning of life typically come up with one of three possibilities: nothing, contentment in the present, or the advancement of humanity.
I do not personally choose just one of those possibilities, but treat them as a collective whole in as close as I can currently get to my written life goal:
There's no pre-defined or currently deducible meaning to life, so aim for contentment. To be content, advance humanity.
Unfortunately, people without the amounts of spare time needed to come to a similar conclusion for themselves tend to focus more on the short term buzz. That's usually by beating other people at things, whether by accruing more money, possession or fame than their perceived competition. In animalistic terms, and particularly in the way our brains are wired as animals, this behavior is very natural, and was necessary for us to get to where we are now. The drive to beat others got us to the moon and resulted in the creation of the Internet (originally conceived to provide a communications system that could withstand significant attack by others).
From Resource Competition to Species Advancement (or from Star Wars to Star Trek: TNG)
With the advent of the Internet, however, we still live in a competition driven world, but the Internet changes the dynamic of life to such a great deal that we should move more to a system driven by personal contentment in the form of advancing humanity. It's no longer necessary for us to be better than someone else in absolute terms to eat or to have enough money to survive. The bar is set very low for survival in the West now.
Consider that the technology advancements between 1600-1850 meant the average European citizen no longer needed to farm their own land for personal sustenance (indeed, it became inefficient for them to do so). In the same way, advancements in the last 50 years should mean that the average citizen no longer needs to be ruthlessly competitive or wealth-driven to live a good life.
Since the bar for absolute survival is so low now, we can focus on personal contentment through advancing both ourselves and the human species. Sadly, our cultural evolution is not that quick, and we're trapped in a mindset of competing with others for plentiful resources. This will change, and it's not too far fetched to imagine humanity, in the future, acting in the somewhat utopian fashion of the humans in Star Trek: The Next Generation, a world with a hierarchy defined by experience and knowledge, and a shared drive to advance the state of humanity. Even Bill Gates has realized this, and he deserves an immense amount of credit for taking the evolution from personally being driven by competition to being driven by helping to advance humanity, but it's taken many tens of billions of dollars and a lot of missteps for Bill to get that far.
Sidebar: Wikipedia has been a very small demonstration of how a significant minority can advance the state of humanity (in a very small way) while implementing systems to prevent the domination of competition.
Good Techies are Better Than Doctors (And Here's Why)
Technology is the answer to man's problems, and technology has been the main driver of social change and quality of life improvements in the last 500 years. There's no distinction to be drawn between altruism, philanthropy, and technology. To push forward the state of technology is to push forward the state of humanity. Without the right technologies available, society can not operate at a higher level.
Working in the technology industry, therefore, is extremely noble, as long as you are working with a team, company, or on technologies that truly advance the state of things. If your work helps to advance technology, you are ultimately helping the human species develop further and ultimately improve the quality of life for billions of people down the line. You might not consider yourself as noble as, say, a routine doctor or a care worker, but in terms of improving the state of the species (rather than resolving the personal problems of individuals) you are actually doing a lot more for the species!
If this sounds like wet, liberal, techno-optimism, consider the history of technology so far. Advancements in one field have encouraged or led to bigger advancements in other fields, which then lead on to further advancements, and so on. If it were not for, say, the invention of just the printing press, our quality of life now would be significantly reduced from the reality. If it were not for, say, the invention of the transistor, ditto. Such arguments can be made regarding all but the most useless of technologies.
Web 2.0 Is Just A "Tag" - Don't Blame It!
The interactions between technology, society, and our animalistic human nature relate to the here and now of the Web industry, though it takes a big mental jump, but much like the segue between the monkey throwing the bone and the space station shot in 2001, I'll crudely jump straight to Web 2.0, the here and now of the Web technology industry.
If you've been using the Web in an involved way over the past few years, you'll be familiar with the concept of folksonomies or tagging. Let's say you want to bookmark this essay. You might give it tags of blog, english, british, opinion, society, evolution, culture, and technology. In much the same way, we "tag" eras, events, people, and movements in an implicit way.
The movement behind social Web applications, the proliferation of advanced JavaScript and XMLHTTPRequest usage has been given the tag of "Web 2.0." Web 2.0 is not a specific thing, event or technology. It's a vague concept, like the tags blogs, evolution, culture, technology or funny. "Web 2.0" is a tag we use to relate technologies, people, concepts and ideas as a single unit.
As such, Web 2.0 does not deserve condemnation. People do. If someone is developing useless technologies or appropriating the generous contributions of others for solely personal financial gain, condemn them. Don't condemn "Web 2.0" because the technologies and advancements made under its name are helping to benefit the human species. The social ties invigorated by sites such as FaceBook are bound to result in significant social advances, whether in the way they allow like-minded people to co-operate on more important projects and new technology developments, or even in the way they improve the social outlook and morale of non-technical workers.
Geeking for Geeks? It's All Good
Andy Mitchell complains a perceived "loss of direction" in the Web industry, along with a focus on geek-to-geek developments. That is, he feels geeks are primarily developing new technologies primarily for other geeks. When you look at recent Web industry technology developments like RSS, OPML, AJAX, and Rails, this is an understandable viewpoint, but misses the point in my mind, because even currently insignificant technologies can have significant future effects.
Donald Knuth, perhaps the world's most respected computer scientist, recently said that he does not consider any events or developments in computer science to be "significant." He says "all progress [..] has been incremental."
The development of various forms of metallurgy had, at the time, no significantly conceived uses for the general populace. Many involved with the early development of computers, likewise saw no significant advantages for humanity in their development. When you're close to the coal face, it's easy not to anticipate what the future may do with your work. Fortunately, it's not necessary that you anticipate for this either. Charles Babbage didn't invent the Internet. Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the cellphone or text messaging. And Dave Winer (inventor of RSS) certainly won't have been the inventor of whatever technology people use in 50 years to subscribe to news (if they still do so).
Technologies designed "for geeks" have a canny way of being used in the development of softer, mass market tools and technologies that have more significant benefits to humanity. RSS, OPML, and AJAX might not be having any significant benefit on humanity outside of the geek sphere right now, but the questions such technologies raise have powerful, far-reaching effects. RSS led to podcasting, and podcasting has led to the concept of allowing people to subscribe to radio shows on-demand. Lots of people do that now, but do they care about RSS? Not one jot!
The continual improvement of technology occurs, and will continue to occur, on a much larger scale with other niche technologies. If you develop a niche technology for geeks only, you can still pat yourself on the back. One day, someone might use your technology, or might be inspired by your technology, to develop something that stands on the shoulders of giants and helps the rest of humanity in a far more direct way. Without your work, however, that progression may not occur.
Making The Bleeding Edge Sharper and the Tech Echo Chamber
Andy Mitchell opines:
We on the bleeding edge are effectively just making it sharper, and in the process further distancing ourselves from the mainstream (and I’ve been as guilty as the next bloke…). This creates an echo chamber, where only other occupants of the bleeding edge are talking/regurgitating; whipping up more enthusiasm for the aimless evolution. More disconcertingly from the POV of our well-being, this disconnect from reality creates an unpleasant sensation that what we do doesn’t actually matter to our friends and peers; and the truth is, it doesn’t.
As much as most technological advancements help humanity (or will - which is just as good), sometimes people promote particular ideas as being more important than they should be and fail to see the big picture. This is particularly true of most people in the Web 2.0 / Web development sphere right now. While most technological advancements will have an incremental benefit at some point down the line, these benefits are more likely to be realized by newcomers to the industry or those who work outside of it, rather than those in the "echo chamber" Andy considers.
Consider Steve Jobs. In the 1970s, Jobs could not have been called a geek or a technologist in any forms of the words. Yet, with his confidence in his personal style, his appreciation of both form and function, and his general knowledge of what a computer could do (or could be made to do), he managed to steer Steve Wozniak to develop the Apple II, and later, with a much larger team, the Macintosh. Jobs was not a member of any sort of technology elite or involved in a geeky echo chamber. Jobs was not at the bleeding edge and making it sharper. He was starting a whole new game, fuelled mostly by his own personal style and ignorance of how the "tech world should be!"
The Steve Jobs' of the future, who will take our existing technologies, and turn them into something magical and new, are also unlikely to be existing well-known tech luminaries. Instead, they'll be people with broad interests, a deep understanding of how humans think (or at least a very deep sense of how they think - and believe other people should feel the same way), as well as an understanding of how current technology can be forced into the new roles they've envisioned.
As such, the people who are "making the bleeding edge sharper" need to feel better about their work. They might not become a famous tech luminary who radically changes an industry, but like anyone involved in the development and advancement of things like Linux, RSS, electronics, and programming languages, they're helping progress everything at an incremental level.
Become an Advancer and Be Remarkable
So, at the end of this essay, we're back to "what we want." Let's try and nail down why some people are unhappy and work on a solution.
If you're unhappy with the tech industry, as so many seem to be nowadays, it shouldn't be because you feel that technology doesn't advance the human race (it does). If you're unhappy it should be because you're not advancing. Become an advancer!
Being an advancer doesn't mean you can't be doing a regular job. You don't need to be a Dave Winer, a computer scientist, or an entrepreneur. Someone needs to maintain the networks and PCs for motor insurance companies, or write the stock control system for Wal*Mart, but if you sit at the same job for ten years without actively contributing to the advance of technology, of course you'll be unhappy with the tech industry! If you're working on the stock control system for Wal*Mart and you consistently fail to innovate or improve anything, you're not advancing! Doing these jobs is not a bad thing in and of itself. It's only when you're implicitly committed to not advancing at all that you're dying on the inside.
(source)
In 2003, Seth Godin, a well known marketer and inventor of numerous marketing concepts, wrote The Purple Cow. In the book, he stresses that it's necessary for you and your business to be "remarkable." You need to be, as Seth Godin says, a Purple Cow.
If you're working as that fictional programmer working on the Wal*Mart stock control system, and you're an "advancer," you're the one on the team who sees new ways to solve the old problems. You've got ideas on making the system more parallel. You're the one looking into new technologies, new programming languages, and new protocols, to see if there are existing technologies you can tailor to make your life easier. You're not the guy who just goes to work to make money to afford grits each morning.
Now, some people who are entrepreneurs, tech luminaries, or generally intelligent people like most of those in the Web 2.0 industry like to think they're Purple Cows. But in terms of the tech echo chamber, they're not. Some of these people think they're advancing, but are really just chasing money or fame. Inventing yet another social networking site that doesn't really push the industry forward is not advancement. Sucking up to your chosen tech luminary of the moment by flattering their latest creations is not advancement. Trying to convince people that the programming language or IDE you use is the best is not advancement.
Don't Measure Deltas: Look Back Over Years
Paul Robinson says:
What the hell are we doing in this industry? Why do we spend so much time talking about Ajax and definitions of “Web 2.0” and virtually no time whatsoever trying to work out what people want? Is this just all an aspect of the industry being over-run by complete geeks, or is the industry lacking any sense of philosophy? Are we being over-run by ideas and concepts from the advertising industry and mass media generally, because they’re becoming more dominant in the industry? Should I turn my dev environment off and go and do something less boring instead?
Paul is a Purple Cow who doesn't know it. He put on BarCamp Manchester (at some personal sacrifice), an amazing event that had significant effects that he did not anticipate. Like the unrecognized developer of a minor technology that gets magnified into something greater in the future, he sees things from the coal face. He's so "into" the tech industry that he cannot see the woods for the trees. This is natural because humans are hideously bad at noticing incremental changes!
The lack of ability to notice incremental changes, especially those we have effected ourselves, is a reason why goal setting is a great improvement technique. If I do something that benefits the technology industry by a tiny increment, I might not feel it, but if I have a goal in place that means I'll commit to more improvements for, say, a year, then I should notice the difference over that year. Likewise, Paul might not recognize his own incremental contributions on a one-by-one basis, but it he keeps hammering away at it, he'll be blown away after a while.
I think Paul (and Andy, for that matter) needs to recognize that he's a Purple Cow, he's an advancer, and he's done some good, but that as an advancer, he needs to keep the heat turned up. He needs to keep advancing, whether by creating more tech events, or by retreating and developing some new technologies, or just by posting inspiring blog posts to keep the rest of us going.
I've recognized this issue in my own work with Ruby Inside, Feed Digest, and Code Snippets. I'm no tech luminary (far from it!) but it's only two years on that I can now see what a massive effect Ruby Inside has had on the Ruby community (and, dare I say it, "industry"). There are companies, libraries, and applications that would not exist today if it were not for Ruby Inside. This does not mean I deserve the credit for "creating" them, but that I had a tiny, incremental part in the whole chain. It's like how Bill Gates' great-great-great grandfather couldn't claim any real credit for building the biggest software company in the world, even though if it were not for him, Microsoft would not exist.
The same goes with Feed Digest. I developed it just for myself, but a few years on, I can see how tens of thousands of people have used it to advance their own situation. Some people swear by it, and others use it for reasonably important uses (for example, it came in very useful in one instance just after Hurricane Katrina for publicizing feeds regarding mission persons.) It is very hard, but I can recognize that while I'm not famous, not rich, and have no real respect in the "echo chamber" I have made significant contributions within certain areas of the tech industry. This encourages me to keep advancing. In a very small and incremental way, I'm improving the world, by helping to create new technologies and services, and I'm ultimately a tiny, but essential, brick in a very big wall of human improvement.
So, take one thing from all of this:
When you advance, no matter how little, you take humanity with you. Go with it.
Addition: Think of Hugh McLeod when you think about being remarkable. I don't know him personally but he doesn't seem to have much technical talent, design talent, or anything like that (even his drawings are crude by "artistic" standards), but he's still well known in this industry because he's a Purple Cow. He says things you're "not meant to say" and he says them in a convincing, exciting way. He's fresh, original, and his talent shines through that avenue rather than in any traditional way. We can try to do this too.
{ 7 comments }
Peter,
You've managed to take a lot of the current swirl of my thoughts in my head - particularly those with a more human focus - and articulate them beautifully.
In my original post, I was being intentionally angry to test some of my more extreme viewpoints. One thing I wrote that particularly needles me, and you've picked it up, is that I said it was a problem that communication has become so intense we "cannot see the wood for the trees", and so we've lost the big picture in our projects. But, in reality, the communication has become so *good* that we can now create a 'tiny improvement' (evolution) and it can stand alone. It does not need to be part of a revolutionary big system for people to take note. The machinery of the blogosphere will take that little advancement, help it reach an appreciative audience, and help new developers take the idea further.
More importantly, this is done without losing the big picture... if anything, by requiring you do only focus on the actual improvement (not a whole new system), you have more time to ponder new challenges.
It's undoubtedly a great time to be part of the Web ecosystem; we're only just beginning to see the power of hyper-communication and openness/transparency. This is particularly interesting when the things we take for granted (open source, community spirit) is applied to stodgy old industries (e.g. Craigslist vs the newspapers).
But, I take umbrage that we so broadly agree here ;) My real grumble, perhaps not articulated very well, is that the focus on pure competition and trend riding - rather than more internal/rewarding motivation - is creating output that is clearly designed to cash in, rather than create long-term value. There's no reason this should really irritate me - it's not my business - but it certainly does... which in truth was probably the underlying cause of my original post! If anyone can explain, or even sympathise, why it's so galling to see immensely trivial Facebook apps be worthy of VC cash and be allowed to intrude on our limited attention time, then please share it with me :)
I think that coming to terms with our position within the Web industry and the success of others who are seemingly less worthy than us, is a mirror of the same effect in real life.
How comes the guy down the street can get planning permission to build a big extension that boosts his property values, while I can't? How comes when I opened a party goods store it failed, yet some crazy dude who gives bad service has made it work? Such questions will always remain as long as you determine your success against the benchmarks of the herd.
I have come to realize that while some of the things I have done have resulted in quite significant achievements (mostly for other people), I need to be content with my own progress and not demand recognition. This is a really big mental block to overcome.. it's pretty much extinguishing a major part of your ego!
I think it's a necessary hurdle to navigate, however, so that you can be content with your contributions to life, humanity and your industry when you reach a point where you are able to contribute no longer. It tends to be people at retirement age who make this realization in many areas of their lives, so perhaps I'm just being precocious, but it makes me feel better about it :)
It doesn't answer the question, but I see your old blog posts were right on the pulse of this stuff, and the issue of zero-value (aka crap).
I think you've just flicked a switch and made a few things slot into place. That's what I was hoping for when I started this meme: let's get some clarity around this.
Thanks for the response, I'll respond after I've left it swirling around my head for a while. I like being called a Purple Cow though. :-)
Another excellent post, Peter. I'm so very glad you started blogging again!
Two points I found particularly interesting, both as they apply to Web 2.0, but perhaps even more so on an anthropological/intellectual level.
You indicated that "...technology has been the main driver of social change and quality of life improvements in the last 500 years."
Just a thought here -- I think we can spin the clock back even further, if we so desire. I think maybe what we've seen in the past 500 years is simply just an acceleration of technological change and development, rather than any weakened role of advancing quality-of-life. Two more ancient examples that I think about sometimes are paper and the domestication of dogs (the latter I think can be accurately termed a technology, even though it's perhaps more a process).
Both of those innovations have played an amazing role throughout the course of human history since they were invented, and to this day continue to be refined. Paper still serves as an engine of innovation, even though we're thousands of years past the papyrus... And the venerable Labrador Retriever, a result of thousands of years of refinement, remains flexible enough to retrieve hunted birds, become a steadfast family companion, and assist the disabled in fully participating in larger society. Could such developments -- by he or she who invented paper, or for that first ancient hunter who tamed that first wolf pup -- ever be foreseen? Probably not, but it just proves your point that incremental technological developments advance humanity.
From an anthropological level, I think things get a bit more interesting (and this is something I need to think about more). Very succinctly, the question is, what is the boundary of "technology?" I'm not sure there is a very clear answer, except you say something that would be deemed very radical to some more traditional views of anthropology, namely that "There’s no distinction to be drawn between altruism, philanthropy, and technology."
Taking the terminology to the social sciences generally (and anthropology in particular,) you're essentially making the (in my view, amazing) point that "There's no distinction between reciprocity and technology." And on that note, I'm going to leave this for now, since you've spawned literally hours worth of thinking about that :-D
BTW, are you on Facebook? If so, feel free to add me -- it's easier to find the one Reece Sellin among the one Reece Sellin's than the one Peter Cooper among the hundreds of Peter Coopers :-D
Oops, sorry I didn't respond to you quicker, Reece, but you're definitely thinking along the same wavelength.. great comment! I AM on FaceBook. I'll attempt to find you :)
Peter,
I just left a comment here:
http://www.petercooper.co.uk/why-id-leave-the-web-industry-its-ephemeral-43.html
.. and it seems that I should've left it on this follow up from you.
Anyways, I see your mindset switched here to a bigger picture and larger viewpoint. That's what i was getting at in my other comment. Glad to see you have achieved more clarity on this, and it motivates me to seek it myself :)
Best..
Curtis.
Comments on this entry are closed.