Yeah, I hear ya. From my point of view, I'm a programmer. I can't do much about, well, all of the big problems of the world -- hunger, environmental destruction, an unsound economic basis of consumerism vs. holistic thinking.

But even given that, it really annoys me that programming has been somewhat coopted. Ten years ago, open source was just beginning to become something that "real" companies were considering. The promise seemed bright.

But....ten years later, while open source is heavily used, the development practice remains in the dark ages, maybe even more so than in the year 2000. Most of the programming problems are not hard and have been solved (problems, as an applied engineer, that I care about anyway). What is hard is actually solving them in a consumable way.

I want libraries I can use! I want my mom to be able to write a website! I don't want to see the same code over and over again because everything's a *(U& one off! But these are people problems. As long as programming is about looking impressive vs building something impressive, this will be the state of things.

I suppose I should be glad. It increases the need for my skillset. But I'm not. I want things to work.

Pick your microcosm. I'm guessing things look just as dreary no matter what it is

The basic rhetoric he uses to criticize strikes me as easy and weak. There are bigger problems! There are always bigger problems. If the dude who is making some pithy online game applied himself to homelessness, then what? Yeah sure, program your way out of that.

Focusing on the biggest problem makes it all a game of perspective. Who can describe their issue in the most breathless terms, with the greatest amount of hyperbole? Do you just dump all the world's problems, past present and future, into a bag, shake it around, pick out what floats to the top? We shouldn't focus on the biggest problem, but on the biggest opportunity. And a lot of big important problems won't get addressed that way, because no one knows what to do about them, or at least I don't know what to do (and I multiplied over and over).

Sure people spend time doing stupid shit. Sometimes it turns out not to be stupid... but in all fairness, usually stupid stays stupid. But if we want to do better I don't think wringing our hands about what should be done helps much; we should ask what can be done, and not get so stressed out if, on a personal level, that's not what we feel like doing... it just means we need to keep looking because I don't think people do their best work (especially not their smartest work) when driven by guilt.

The revolution will not be tweeted, eh? yawn

The reason "social technology" is not big on solving civic and social ills is because to solve them you need strong ties between people, like those who faced white hegemony apartheid in Greensboro during the civil rights movement of the 60's. They knew they were risking their lives. Not just $10 for Haitian quake refugees. Social technology like Facebook rely on weak ties: not asking too much of people. It's the medium, not the nerds that are to blame.

All of this is covered in a recent issue of the New Yorker. I'm just skimming.

That said Ian is on the right track: whenever I think about my best work it was when I was a) having fun and b) learning something. Having fun doesn't mean bouncy happy whatever: you can be dead earnest. Solving the world's problems often happens with the strangest inputs. It's not an exact science. 99% of the problems can be fixed with good sanitation practices, for instance. Software will not ever really fix that.

Honestly I'm more optimistic than a lot of people about things like Facebook (or hell, Facebook specifically). We focus a lot on the big problems, but there's a lot of small problems, and helping with those small problems are important. Facebook won't help crazy-homeless people, but it absolutely could keep someone from being temporarily homeless. It really is a very good medium for saying when you need help, and for someone to help you.

And Facebook won't do much directly for Haiti, but Haiti is everything we should want to avoid for everyone; fixing things that are completely broken has become too much of a focus for the social justice crowd. The world is getting better, not worse, but if you only focus on the worst parts of the world you aren't going to see that. And if you don't see that, then you aren't going to be able to do the right thing, because you need good data to make good choices, and pessimists aren't working with good data.

OK .. let's not critique modern American capitalism -- it's too easy and weak.

I certainly don't think the world is getting better, and that has nothing to do with Haiti.

I agree that the rhetoric in the article's conclusion is too guilt-driven to be productive, but I don't think that's what the article's about at all. It's how he ends the article because he doesn't have a more actionable proposal but the critique in the article is spot on.

I dunno .. some comments recently by an open source programmer named John on Brad DeLong's blog -- http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/10/how-much-does-the-market-organization-of-economic-life-matter.html#comment-6a00e551f0800388340133f4e9af30970b -- put my feeling pretty well. Computer programmers -- pretty uniquely -- have experience in constructing, analyzing and iterating over highly complex systems in practice. These skills can be used to improve our world -- but the people engaged in the practice and debate of our highly complex social systems are generally far removed from the people who have the background needed to productively debate and implement them.

Obviously this is all changing, and presumably that change will accelerate as the media of highly complex systems and networks -- code and hypertext -- become more widely known and understood, and as literacy in those media spreads. But market organization is not going to cut it for making the necessary change. That's what the article is talking about, and it's the thread that Jeff is picking up with his comment about consumable code.

Picking up Jeff's comment, the other way programmers can help is by giving non-programmers tools that give them the same kind of power & flexibility in their domains that programmers have in the general domain of problem-solving. I see this as deeply tied to the systems-literacy thing as well, in both directions -- as people become more systems-literate they will increasingly have these capabilities, and as people use more tools that give them these capabilities they will become increasingly systems-literate.

It also ties in to the author's comment about "game mechanics, addiction, self-reference, and narcissism" -- which I totally agree with. For the sake of simplicity and instant appeal (and this is another mass-market capitalism failure) we are constructing environments for people that limit their choices, reinforce unproductive (self-referential, narcissistic, addicted) behavior, and celebrate weak ties and cheap action. We can do better than that.

This doing-better that I'm talking about doesn't give programmers a direct impact on the Problems Of The World. I agree with Ian and Nick that those sorts of attempts are in no way world-changing and never will be. (And that's my generous take on it.) But programmers know how to reuse solutions, and how to attack meta-problems (or shave yaks). This means we have a capability to help by giving other people more capability to help.

This is where startups could come in -- but, again, market organization makes it, at least, both unlikely and difficult.

From my perspective its always an issue of getting the tools of change into the hands of those that need it most. It's sad to see so much money and attention paid to fluff apps or software, and media instead of solutions to help reach people in need. I've seen a lot of really great advocacy work killed prematurely, if not from lack of funding, then from lack of reaching the intended audience effectively.

Even in my own trade, its nearly impossible to make a reasonable living doing non profit or advocacy work, and too often I've found myself having to produce the fluff for the capitalism machine in order to pay bills. Most of the real good work I do ends up being wasted on selling products or ideas that aren't really helping anyone in a meaningful way. Advocacy work ends up being relegated to my free time, for free.

even then, the audience is hard to reach, and those that do get access are usually not the ones who can benifit most from it.

I think the market driven,capitalist model of innovation has to give way to something more holistic or at least sustainable, but it really has to start with the producers, the innovators, and those who can create the tools and channels of delivery. We can't just bemone a shitty system and cop an oh well attitude. We need to do whatever we can to connect those with the talent to create tools of communication with those who have the talent to package information for positive social change and finally get it to those who need it. We can't rely on capital either, as that will always end up turning it into a product to sell.

Also, we need to move discussions like this off of closed loop channels and somehow get them out into the pubic discourse, and do it in a way that the rest of the world can understand. Keep in mind, something like 20% of US adults are functionally illiterate. Academic speak won't cut it, nor will apps that grandma can't use easily.

Nicholas Whitaker -- yes -- and, again, this is a problem of mass markets .. reaching the intended audience does not always mean reaching the biggest audience possible, and making apps that grandma can use easily doesn't need to mean dumbing them down -- it could also mean building functionality and interfaces that speak the same language as grandma.

I think there are interesting differences between your perspective and mine -- for lack of better terms, my focus is on software and functionality, and your focus is on media and communication (which includes software-as-media) .. but, judging from your comments and mine, we're at least facing many of the same problems.

for me, software and functionality,and media and communicationI are intrinsically tied. I think the most frustrating thing about things like twitter and facebook, youtube and vimeo, is that they are, to use a tired phrase, walled gardens.easy to use for the few who have access, but weak in every other regard. The weak ties that they create couldn't possibly create a lasting impact on the serious issue that the world is facing. I'm reminded of classic propaganda theory. In order for a piece of propaganda to be successful, it must be repetitive, constant, and spread over as many channels as are available.

So the question for me as a producer of content becomes, what channels are available to me, and what channels are the people who can benefit from what i have to offer using.

I'm afraid that too often, they aren't using any channels. In fact they don't really even have access to the trappings of digital media. So then it becomes a question of, how to reach the people who are using those channels, who can be reached by a message, who will then in turn help move the ball a little farther in whatever method is at their disposal, weather digital or otherwise. There is an organization called charitywater.org that is a good example. Or even the whole help hati with a text message thing.

There were decent attempts there at making real, on the ground change and bringing help to those who needed it, but even still, they are terribly limited by reach, scope, funding and toolsets.

I think this is where programmers really can shine. If there were more scalable, functional tool sets available, that were easy to find, use and share. That could be applied even to nuts and bolts issues, logistics, systems solutions, information gathering and delivery, or even taken offline and applied in a non digital way, i think that would be a real step in the right direction. Extending reach, allowing for a larger scope, and bringing those who have the funds to the table. Or maybe it's the kickstarter.com approach. Draw on the masses to help the masses.

I don't know really what that would entail, nor can i really imagine how one could get those toolsets into the neediest hands, but there has to be something that can be done. I mean, literacy started that way didn't it?

I think that the article is approaching things from the wrong angle. I'm not a programmer, so to translate the argument into something I have a better grasp on: it's like railing against James Patterson books because you believe writing can be so much more. Do I find that sort of writing viscerally repulsive because it's what stands in for real writing to so many people -- while it is really hack work designed to appeal to the LCD and move inventory? Sure. But while I might have some serious gripes with the publishers of that stuff, I don't think they have much to do with the unfortunate fact that relatively few people read literary fiction these days. And I don't think that pointing out that books like The Da Vinci Code suck does much to improve our society. It's a corollary issue.

I chiefly interact with software from the point of view of a consumer. Some of the technologies cited (Twitter, Foursquare) turn me off for seeming frivolous and vain. I enjoy others (I've always been a big fan of Facebook, for example). But regardless of my personal taste, I don't think there is anything wrong with appreciating a well-designed app that doesn't serve a crucial social purpose. Like Ian said, you can always make the "there are bigger problems" argument. Liking fun software isn't the linchpin of the grievance the article dances around. Honestly, it seems pretty naive to take so seriously the grandiose rhetoric that these technologies use to promote themselves. (And of course the media buys into it -- because the media always regurgitates press releases and always will. Writers are workers and press releases make their jobs easier.)

I like what Jeff and Ethan say. The relatively little experience I've had programming has tremendously expanded my understanding of how the world works. From the practical (better grasping the mechanics of the technology I interact with everyday), to the abstract (e.g. providing me with powerful models of human psychology and society) -- I really can't imagine my thinking life without that knowledge. The key point I would make (as I think Jeff and Ethan are saying, too) is that more people need to become systems-literate. That is to say, the key point is education. And everyone -- maybe especially programmers -- should do what they can to encourage that.

A world where everyone can talk in terms of software engineering would be a better world. But expecting venture capitalists to fuel that is kind of like expecting the Coca-Cola Company to solve global hunger. WTF?

David Shamoon, so what can be done - or rather, what is a productive angle for talking about it?

Of course, I agree that education is key here .. but I am also impatient, and I also prefer to be methodical. Looking to education is a temperature<->kinetic energy model of approaching the problem - keep raising the temperature in the system and better results become statistically more likely (as long as nothing too catastrophic happens before the temperature starts rising significantly). I want to start identifying solutions that can start now, and I want to see clearer paths to those solutions than statistical likelihood over time in a vacuum. To reuse the systems-thinking argument, it is not impossible to approach these questions; we do have the capabilities for stating the problems, analyzing proposals and mapping out solutions.

That's leaving aside entirely the question of how to implement that education - which may be the more productive question to ask, and may circle around to the same problem.

Sorry, didn't mean to talk past the last few comments before mine -- they hadn't loaded in my feed when I wrote my post.

I think we all agree that the capitalist model isn't the best for fostering socially helpful software. Framing the argument as helpful software vs. entertaining software just irks me because I think it's a little besides the point -- and maybe even counter productive to devote energy to bemoaning the fact that lots of resources get devoted to profitable but relatively frivolous apps. That seems like a given to me and an issue that is better side-stepped than attacked. I can imagine, though, that if I worked in software engineering I would be grumpier about the Twitters, Hulus and Facebooks out there.

The more productive angle would be like you and Nicholas say: getting the toolsets into more hands. Part of this would involve rather unglamorous and fairly conventional advocacy for curriculum reform. It's absurd that programming isn't automatically taught to children these days (my impression is that it's actually gotten worse since we were kids and stuff like the Apple II and LogoWriter and HyperCard were around).

So yeah, that's about "raising the temperature," I guess. Something more actionable (though with the same goal of raising the temperature) would be working on the programming equivalent of the desktop publishing software of the 80s or, say, the music making software of the 90s. I know, it's easy for me to say that so vaguely and theoretically -- and maybe it's not what you're looking to talk about, anyway, when you ask for solutions to start working on now.

But I think that until a larger portion of the population understands programming better -- if not the precise mechanics, than at least some of the concepts -- you're going to continue to feel frustrated and limited in your reach. You can't talk to people about something they don't understand, and if social change is your goal you will need to be able to communicate with people outside of the relatively esoteric programming community.

Engineering has a special place in the coopting of the human state. I'm sure this is true for other fields of expertise, but engineering's uniqueness is marginal returns as a result of artificial external constraint. It is easily showable that we have the entirety of technology needed to maintain a stable system where everyone had elevated standards of absolute wealth, many dramatically so. Obviously, this must fail in the way things all fail.

But taken to a microcosm, engineering is reduced to ineffectiveness. In the effort to get profit, engineering companies are run ineffectively. There are few novel ideas, yet everything engineered pretends to be a novel idea. It is technologically easier, in the same way manner as it is easier to mix coffee and cream than to unmix them, to replicate existent technology. Yet synthesis is achieved from the harmony of technologies: innovation.

So, no, there'us nothing wrong with making a game that has a wacky gopher popping out of some phone that you get points on for tapping on your iPhone. But the way engineering is practice does harm to the field itself. Instead of developing cohesively, the "let's pretend this is a [new] idea" just gives spawn to "do it you f-ing self"-ism.

Historically, for product, there was scarcity. There is no scarcity of information or engineering. So the suffering is needless. It would be much easier -- much easier! -- to allow engineers to work collectively to develop better systems. It would be cheaper, more time efficient, and result in much more stable innovation more quickly, to take the body of engineers and allow them to work very much part time and on their own schedule and very minimally supervise them.

I guess I'm lucky enough to largely have this, so I shouldn't complain. But it really makes me sad that people...engineers...can't just make the world better