Ping ([info]zestyping) wrote,
@ 2008-02-08 02:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Future plans.
So... i'm trying to organize my thoughts on what to do with my life. I've been out of school for a month, interviewing for jobs and coming up with project ideas. I decided that writing might help me sort this out, so i'm going to do some of my thinking here, in the open. I invite your reactions and opinions — some of you know me very well, and your feedback could help me out.

Desiderata

First, a little bit about what i'm looking for.

I am convinced that a capable computer programmer can build things of great benefit to the world. I'm not trying to be arrogant; i just think it's true because software and networking enable inventions to spread at incredible speed, and a single person can launch one with nothing more than a laptop and an Internet connection. The software industry is unique in this respect. It only took one person to invent HTML and two people to start Google or Wikipedia. Individual programmers have created things as powerful as Napster (at age 19), Facebook (at age 20?), and BitTorrent (at age 26). So, from a certain perspective, i'm already way behind the game in terms of fulfilling potential.

That's my primary goal: for my existence to have yielded things of benefit to the world — hopefully, of significant benefit to many people. That means my decisions hinge on a calculus of benefit, which is of course a complicated and subjective thing. I often find myself feeling like the stonecutter in the fable as i chase down chains of logic trying to figure out how to achieve maximum benefit. In any case, my current line of thinking is that there are five factors in choosing the most beneficial option:
  1. number of people who benefit
  2. degree of impact of the project
  3. degree of my personal impact on the project
  4. likelihood of success
  5. necessity of my participation
The first three factors are straightforward: the bigger the better (i.e. greater contribution and greater fulfillment). But the fourth, "likelihood of success", is a tricky one: if it's too low, i am likely to be wasting my time on something that won't benefit anyone. If it's too high, then it interacts with the last factor: if a project is already certain to succeed, with or without my help, then contributing my help adds nothing.

The last factor implies that there has to be something about my skills that fits the project — if the job i do is something that would have been done by someone else anyway, then my choice to join the project has little effect. And the ultimate choice, in terms of the last factor, would be to start and launch something of my own, provided it doesn't duplicate something that already exists.

I think of these five factors as combining in a roughly multiplicative way — a × b × c × d × e is the approximate expected utility of making a particular career choice. (Let me know if you notice factors i've forgotten.) Notwithstanding all that, i am biased toward projects that benefit a large number of people and/or people who are less fortunate. I don't know to what extent this is because they are truly more useful, or because i want to be famous or seen as noble. But whatever the reason, it matters to me to do work whose benefit most people can understand.

What is the most important problem?

There's a saying about how to win a game of Go: simply always make the biggest move. Each stone you play will affect the final score somehow; if you choose moves that are worth more than your opponent's moves, you're bound to win. The hard part is evaluating what each move is worth.

I don't expect to save the world by myself, but i'll get further if i have the conviction to focus on something rather than dabbling in a lot of different projects. So, i feel it's time for me to pick a big problem to attack, and after i've chosen it, to go as far down that road as possible. The question is what problem to choose.

Below are some possible answers, presented as arguments by imaginary people (members of the committee in my head, you might say). I've also broken these out into top-level comments by me below so you can comment on them individually.

1. Energy crisis

All the things that support our modern society and well-being — production, transportation, manufacturing, health, communication, defense — run on energy extracted from our environment. Literally everything either uses energy or is produced by a process that consumes energy. Our energy extraction and consumption is starting to run into limits. Without an energy source that is efficient, affordable, doesn't start wars, and doesn't cause significant climate change, all of humanity is in deep trouble.

Therefore, the most valuable thing for you to do, Ping, is to devote your technical and engineering skills to developing renewable sources of energy or ways to conserve energy. It doesn't matter that this is a new area for you; you can learn, and we need all the help we can get on this problem. The potential damage caused by global climate change is so enormous that if we fail, nothing else will matter.

2. Computer security

Energy is an important problem, but it doesn't match your skill set. Other people are working on that problem. But all the same things that are listed in #1 as essential parts of our modern society and well-being also heavily depend on computer software. Computers are in control of ever more powerful things both virtual (governments, banks, financial transactions, personal information) and real (factories, weapons, critical infrastructure). Yet, even as we become more dependent on them, they are becoming less and less reliable. They break down often; they are hard to use; they behave and misbehave in unpredictable ways. And they are vulnerable to attack. As we rely on them more, small bugs, vulnerabilities, and human mistakes will have more and more catastrophic effects.

The computer science community needs to collectively bring about a change in the way we design and build software, and you're in a position to play a significant part in this effort. A combined approach to usability and security is essential to solving this problem, and you've brought them together in your previous research. Capability-based security thinking is also essential; you understand the capability ideas, and you're well-connected with the main players in that area. They are strong, but few. Join them. You already have momentum in this direction; use it to help them push the software world onto the right path.

3. Poverty and education

The real problem is peace. Without peace, we have nothing. Conflict comes about because of suffering, misunderstanding, and disparities between groups of people. The most effective way to bring a lasting end to poverty is education. To create understanding between different cultures requires education. To develop higher standards of living, address health problems, and start successful businesses requires education. To help people understand democracy and human rights requires education. To spread awareness of societies that are freer, fairer, and more humane requires education. The most powerful thing you can do is to help bring educational tools and global communication to those that don't have them.

The problem is urgent. Time is short. Increasingly destructive weapons are available to increasingly many people. International conflict is becoming more and more dangerous. The tools of peace and the tools of war are in a race, and you must help accelerate the tools of peace if peace is to prevail.

4. Governance and democracy

The real power is in the hands of governments. Peace is not achievable when politicians in powerful countries can deceive their citizens and launch wars with impunity. Solving the energy crisis, improving public health, safeguarding the environment, and the other big challenges are all dependent on politicians making good decisions.

But in the most powerful country of all, the United States, democracy is broken. Time after time, the political system arrives at the wrong answers to even the most straightforward and well-understood questions — whether retroactive copyright extension promotes the creation of new works (it doesn't), whether climate change is real (it is), how much it will cost to invade Iraq ($500 billion and counting) — despite objective analysis and a clear consensus. That's because the system is corrupt: the decision-making process is distorted by money and lobbyists, whose influence is so strong that it can obliterate facts.

The only way to restore democracy is to hold politicians accountable to the people who vote for them, instead of the lobbyists who appeal to their financial self-interest. Part of the problem is to fix the voting machinery and the method of counting votes to determine the winner; you've already done some thinking along those lines. The other part of the problem is to make the votes actually mean something — in order for votes to actually carry some power, government needs to be more transparent and accessible. Citizens need ways to understand what their elected officials are doing, hold them responsible for keeping their promises, and evaluate their campaign rhetoric in light of their actions. The UK has tools like theyworkforyou.com and hearfromyourmp.com; the United States and other countries need tools like these as well, and more. You can make this happen. Now is your chance to apply your web development, design, and information visualization skills, and use the power of the Internet to help fix democracy.

5. Media and journalism

Holding politicians accountable to their voters doesn't do any good if the voters are wrong. The idea that democracy will produce the right answers — faith in the wisdom of crowds — ignores the susceptibility of the populace to media influence. The media are biased to serve their own interests (for example, they aren't exactly eager to discuss media regulation, and prefer to emphasize the sensational over the significant) and are beholden to advertisers as well. Politicians aren't the only ones that put out misleading advertisements; corporate marketing departments regularly distort the truth too.

The conflict of interest inherent in commercial media makes it difficult for most citizens to get getting accurate, unbiased information on which to base not only their votes but also their purchasing decisions. The only way to solve this problem is to hold the media — and all sources of information — accountable for getting it right. The alternative of replacing the centralized media with a more distributed system like Wikipedia or OhMyNews is also appealing, but even if that were to happen, we would still need a way to hold sources accountable for their accuracy.

You made a start at tackling this problem before, when you tried to enable public annotation of web pages; there is plenty more that can be done to help the public substantively critique and compare news articles, blog posts, and primary sources. There is an unmet need here for a way to settle on facts backed by evidence and consensus — something like a Snopes for the media, with a participatory and scientific process. You've been wanting to create something like this for a long time; now you can make it real.

6. Decision-making and collective intelligence

The most urgent problem is to improve our ability to solve complex and urgent problems. Finding solutions is about much more than facts. Questions like how to address global climate change, whether nuclear power is safe, how to design secure computer software, and how to improve public health are complex and intricate. Right now, finding and evaluating solutions to these problems is a tremendously inefficient process of researching a mountain of literature, with a high likelihood of replaying misunderstandings and logical errors that have been made many times. This inefficiency also leads to fractured communities of experts with each one holding a narrow point of view, reinforced by the small segment of the literature with which they are familiar. The Internet has made access to literature faster, but has made the literature itself no more accurate or easier to integrate.

To be able to deal with the increasingly complex and urgent problems we face, communities of scientists and experts need more effective ways to lay out their evidence and their arguments, evaluate them, and rapidly arrive at a consensus. The status quo is decades of controversy and debate, sometimes with failed public policy experiments carried out at devastating cost. It is doubtful that we can afford to keep doing things this way. You've been interested in collective intelligence for a long time, and have dreamed of better ways to organize discussion and argumentation online, and to help sound reasoning win out over logical fallacies. Carry out that dream.

Your opinions here...

Which answer sounds the most compelling to you? Are there other good options i've failed to identify? I'm interested in your thoughts.

Update: I've already received several suggestions of the form, "Do what you enjoy." It's good advice, yes, but i should probably explain why i've intentionally left that out of this particular analysis:
  • For me, enjoyment and motivation go hand in hand. If i realize that what i'm doing isn't that significant after all, the motivation will go away and i'll stop enjoying it. So part of the point of this exercise is to construct an argument strong enough for whatever choice i make, such that i can maintain conviction in my choice and continue to enjoy it, long enough to actually achieve something.
  • Also, there's something that feels intellectually dishonest about choosing an answer just because i like it rather than because it's right. I'm hoping to find more solid grounding for my decision.


(Post a new comment)

1. Energy crisis
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:01 pm UTC (link)
All the things that support our modern society and well-being — production, transportation, manufacturing, health, communication, defense — run on energy extracted from our environment. Literally everything either uses energy or is produced by a process that consumes energy. Our energy extraction and consumption is starting to run into limits. Without an energy source that is efficient, affordable, doesn't start wars, and doesn't cause significant climate change, all of humanity is in deep trouble.

Therefore, the most valuable thing for you to do, Ping, is to devote your technical and engineering skills to developing renewable sources of energy or ways to conserve energy. It doesn't matter that this is a new area for you; you can learn, and we need all the help we can get on this problem. The potential damage caused by global climate change is so enormous that if we fail, nothing else will matter.

Edited at 2008-02-08 04:14 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: 1. Energy crisis
[info]me.aaronsw.com
2008-02-15 03:59 pm UTC (link)
I'm sympathetic to the people who say this, but my own personal feeling is that the transition costs of learning about the field are too high and that additional advantage is relatively low because of all the smart people already there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 1. Energy crisis - (Anonymous), 2008-03-18 02:16 am UTC (Expand)
2. Computer security
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:01 pm UTC (link)
Energy is an important problem, but it doesn't match your skill set. Other people are working on that problem. But all the same things that are listed in #1 as essential parts of our modern society and well-being also heavily depend on computer software. Computers are in control of ever more powerful things both virtual (governments, banks, financial transactions, personal information) and real (factories, weapons, critical infrastructure). Yet, even as we become more dependent on them, they are becoming less and less reliable. They break down often; they are hard to use; they behave and misbehave in unpredictable ways. And they are vulnerable to attack. As we rely on them more, small bugs, vulnerabilities, and human mistakes will have more and more catastrophic effects.

The computer science community needs to collectively bring about a change in the way we design and build software, and you're in a position to play a significant part in this effort. A combined approach to usability and security is essential to solving this problem, and you've brought them together in your previous research. Capability-based security thinking is also essential; you understand the capability ideas, and you're well-connected with the main players in that area. They are strong, but few. Join them. You already have momentum in this direction; use it to help them push the software world onto the right path.

Edited at 2008-02-08 06:13 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 2. Computer security - [info]ephermata, 2008-02-08 06:28 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 2. Computer security - [info]taleinat.pip.verisignlabs.com, 2008-02-10 01:21 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 2. Computer security - [info]me.aaronsw.com, 2008-02-15 04:00 pm UTC (Expand)
3. Poverty and education
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:02 pm UTC (link)
The real problem is peace. Without peace, we have nothing. Conflict comes about because of suffering, misunderstanding, and disparities between groups of people. The most effective way to bring a lasting end to poverty is education. To create understanding between different cultures requires education. To develop higher standards of living, address health problems, and start successful businesses requires education. To help people understand democracy and human rights requires education. To spread awareness of societies that are freer, fairer, and more humane requires education. The most powerful thing you can do is to help bring educational tools and global communication to those that don't have them.

The problem is urgent. Time is short. Increasingly destructive weapons are available to increasingly many people. International conflict is becoming more and more dangerous. The tools of peace and the tools of war are in a race, and you must help accelerate the tools of peace if peace is to prevail.

Edited at 2008-02-08 04:14 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 3. Poverty and education - [info]flipzagging, 2008-02-08 04:51 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:19 am UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - [info]taleinat.pip.verisignlabs.com, 2008-02-10 01:49 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - (Anonymous), 2008-02-11 09:16 am UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - (Anonymous), 2008-02-08 06:32 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:20 am UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - (Anonymous), 2008-02-12 07:15 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 3. Poverty and education - [info]me.aaronsw.com, 2008-02-15 04:12 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]catamorphism
2008-02-08 04:02 pm UTC (link)
I didn't read every word in this post, but I think that you are most likely to succeed if you pick a project that you have some sort of personal stake in or passion about. From your choice of PhD project -- which afaik wasn't what you intended to do when you came in to Berkeley -- I would reckon that you have quite a bit of passion about democracy and governance (and you wouldn't be the only one). So my opinion is to pick that, not based on any of the answers from other people you quoted, but because it means something to you, and that's what's going to keep you working hard on it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-08 04:13 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2008-02-08 04:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:25 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2008-02-10 01:32 am UTC (Expand)
4. Governance and democracy
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:02 pm UTC (link)
The real power is in the hands of governments. Peace is not achievable when politicians in powerful countries can deceive their citizens and launch wars with impunity. Solving the energy crisis, improving public health, safeguarding the environment, and the other big challenges are all dependent on politicians making good decisions.

But in the most powerful country of all, the Unites States, democracy is broken. Time after time, the political system arrives at the wrong answers to even the most straightforward and well-understood questions — whether retroactive copyright extension promotes the creation of new works (it doesn't), whether climate change is real (it is), how much it will cost to invade Iraq ($500 billion and counting) — despite objective analysis and a clear consensus. That's because the system is corrupt: the decision-making process is distorted by money and lobbyists, whose influence is so strong that it can obliterate facts.

The only way to restore democracy is to hold politicians accountable to the people who vote for them, instead of the lobbyists who appeal to their financial self-interest. Part of the problem is to fix the voting machinery and the method of counting votes to determine the winner; you've already done some thinking along those lines. The other part of the problem is to make the votes actually mean something — in order for votes to actually carry some power, government needs to be more transparent and accessible. Citizens need ways to understand what their elected officials are doing, hold them responsible for keeping their promises, and evaluate their campaign rhetoric in light of their actions. The UK has tools like theyworkforyou.com and hearfromyourmp.com; the United States and other countries need tools like these as well, and more. You can make this happen. Now is your chance to apply your web development, design, and information visualization skills, and use the power of the Internet to help fix democracy.

Edited at 2008-02-08 04:14 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 4. Governance and democracy - [info]ephermata, 2008-02-08 06:24 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 4. Governance and democracy - [info]eekim, 2008-02-12 05:42 am UTC (Expand)
5. Media and journalism
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:04 pm UTC (link)
Holding politicians accountable to their voters doesn't do any good if the voters are wrong. The idea that democracy will produce the right answers — faith in the wisdom of crowds — ignores the susceptibility of the populace to media influence. The media are biased to serve their own interests (for example, they aren't exactly eager to discuss media regulation, and prefer to emphasize the sensational over the significant) and are beholden to advertisers as well. Politicians aren't the only ones that put out misleading advertisements; corporate marketing departments regularly distort the truth too.

The conflict of interest inherent in commercial media makes it difficult for most citizens to get getting accurate, unbiased information on which to base not only their votes but also their purchasing decisions. The only way to solve this problem is to hold the media — and all sources of information — accountable for getting it right. The alternative of replacing the centralized media with a more distributed system like Wikipedia or OhMyNews is also appealing, but even if that were to happen, we would still need a way to hold sources accountable for their accuracy.

You made a start at tackling this problem before, when you tried to enable public annotation of web pages; there is plenty more that can be done to help the public substantively critique and compare news articles, blog posts, and primary sources. There is an unmet need here for a way to settle on facts backed by evidence and consensus — something like a Snopes for the media, with a participatory and scientific process. You've been wanting to create something like this for a long time; now you can make it real.

Edited at 2008-02-08 04:15 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 5. Media and journalism - [info]montyz, 2008-02-12 07:35 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 5. Media and journalism - [info]montyz, 2008-02-14 10:02 pm UTC (Expand)
6. Decision-making and collective intelligence
[info]zestyping
2008-02-08 04:04 pm UTC (link)
The most urgent problem is to improve our ability to solve complex and urgent problems. Finding solutions is about much more than facts. Questions like how to address global climate change, whether nuclear power is safe, how to design secure computer software, and how to improve public health are complex and intricate. Right now, finding and evaluating solutions to these problems is a tremendously inefficient process of researching a mountain of literature, with a high likelihood of replaying misunderstandings and logical errors that have been made many times. This inefficiency also leads to fractured communities of experts with each one holding a narrow point of view, reinforced by the small segment of the literature with which they are familiar. The Internet has made access to literature faster, but has made the literature itself no more accurate or easier to integrate.

To be able to deal with the increasingly complex and urgent problems we face, communities of scientists and experts need more effective ways to lay out their evidence and their arguments, evaluate them, and rapidly arrive at a consensus. The status quo is decades of controversy and debate, sometimes with failed public policy experiments carried out at devastating cost. It is doubtful that we can afford to keep doing things this way. You've been interested in collective intelligence for a long time, and have dreamed of better ways to organize discussion and argumentation online, and to help sound reasoning win out over logical fallacies. Carry out that dream.

Edited at 2008-02-08 04:15 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: 6. Decision-making and collective intelligence - [info]smws, 2008-02-08 05:45 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 6. Decision-making and collective intelligence - [info]eekim, 2008-02-09 07:15 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: 6. Decision-making and collective intelligence - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:32 am UTC (Expand)
Re: 6. Decision-making and collective intelligence - [info]eekim, 2008-02-12 06:01 am UTC (Expand)
Re: 6. Decision-making and collective intelligence - [info]me.aaronsw.com, 2008-02-15 04:20 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]tedesson
2008-02-08 04:32 pm UTC (link)
I don't have an answer for you, because you will succeed at anything you attempt that is worthy of your time and effort, and I don't have a good idea of what worthy might mean.

A couple of suggestions.

Do a Y combinator project. In a couple of years, you'd learn how to leverage your talent and the resources of a team of both technical and non-technical people to make something much larger than what you would be able to alone. Plus, because it's a business, you'll have concrete feedback from the world about your success with money. And, however you do, you'll have more connections and skills than otherwise. If you do well, you'll also have "FU" money.

Ask the people on the Overcoming Bias blog. Eliezer Yudkowsky has a clear way of framing the big problems.

Evaluate all your resources and opportunities. Take your time. There's no need to rush into something. Make sure you've evaluated enough choices to have a good view of the whole field.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]deeptape, 2008-02-08 05:03 pm UTC (Expand)
Just brainstorming here - [info]deeptape, 2008-02-08 05:09 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]nwhitehe
2008-02-08 05:36 pm UTC (link)
I share your concerns and a lot of your interests. Here are some things to think about.

First, you want to do something that is important to other people. You can do better than guess what other people think is important, you can measure it. The best measure we have is market forces, i.e. what are people willing to pay. You also don't need to calculate everything out yourself. Organizations will value your personal contribution also using the market. So the market is telling you which projects are the most benefit to others--the highest paying job you can get.

Of course there are distortions to the market, but that doesn't mean the market information is meaningless. The biggest distortion I see is with releasing open source code. Software might be valuable if its freely available to everyone and not so valuable if one has to pay for it, so this will distort the incentives to create such software. E.g. tools for democracy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:38 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]nwhitehe, 2008-02-12 09:04 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]flipzagging
2008-02-08 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for posting this. I am having my own thoughts about my direction in life lately.

I would like to point out some obvious things. As technologists, we turn money into assets. That asset might be a steel plow to help a farmer or a social network linking activists together.

Since we need money, every project has to have a buyer or funder or some kind. The easiest way for us to affect other people's lives for the better is the normal capitalist way. The most stunning changes occur when a technologist is able to bring a research innovation into the hands of the public. Think solar energy, or Google.

Everything else you're proposing is a form of activism; you are wading into situations where there is no great research discovery to be disseminated, and furthermore, no existing organization to fund the project. So the work here is more like 99% political and 1% technical.

With a straight cost-benefit analysis, it is usually better for a technologist to focus on technology and not worry about directly applying it. TheyWorkForYou is amazing, but it couldn't exist without low-cost, high-quality free operating systems and scripting languages. If one person makes Linux security just a bit better, it affects countless such projects.

I have a feeling that this would be emotionally unsatisfying to you -- you'd rather work directly on some social problem -- but if so, you might as well make that clear to yourself.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:43 am UTC (Expand)

[info]tedesson
2008-02-08 06:20 pm UTC (link)
In my experience, I've found Eli Goldratt's Theory of Contraints helpful in figuring out where to intervene in a system. There is only one constraint in a system, and you can find it by looking to discover where the backlog builds up. If you increase the capacity of the constraint, you increase the capacity of the whole system.

In the problem spaces you are considering, where's the constraint? Is it inside or outside the system? Is the constraint something your efforts could change?

His other books are also quite good.

The effect of a small change at the right place can be dramatic.

(Reply to this)


[info]threadwalker
2008-02-08 06:42 pm UTC (link)
Have you seen thisTED talk?

One thought- extraordinary things are not often started by people who are thinking about the probability of their success more than simply focusing on what they are doing. More often they are accomplished by people following a passion, a dream, a mission- sending in endless copies of a novel until it gets published, going bankrupt 3 times starting a company, etc. In many cases the thing doesn't actually bear fruit until after the person is dead.

The examples you give in the dot com world have given people that kindof "get successful overnight" expectation that reminds me of the 30's rags-to-riches dream. The that dragged themselves up did it the hard way.

May I offer another suggestion for a project? Food and nutrition. I see two huge problems- one is outlined here (building infostructure that gets food to people who need it- pooling resources, getting good communication about food so that it can be grown, bought and sold. Something like that not only feeds people, it improves the economy and raises the general quality of life. Less war as result? More time for education? Many countries could use such systems, and computers could help a lot there. There are certainly lots of people wanting to fund such projects too- talk to Bono. :)

The second is nutrition. In the US we just don't understand the impact. Protein deficiency and Iron deficiency alone account for a 15-25 percent IQ shift in populations worldwide- in particular areas of South America, China and Africa. Folate deficiency adds to this. Simply put, you need these things to build your brain. If you don't get Iron in utero, you never recover. Inattention, listlessness, and poor mental acuity are effects. After a year old, if you were not iron deficient and become iron deficient, you can recover some, but not completely. Protein deficiency affects DNA production, and problems get carried into the next generation

The freaky thing is- researchers measuring intelligence levels around the world are finding that huge populations are notably less intelligent- the Nobel prize winner that mentioned this about Africa was not mistaken in his findings- what he didn't realize was that they weren't genetic, they are perfectly correlated to nutritional deficits (my grandfather's work- well him leading and advising groups around the world), and there's a good deal of evidence for the causality. There are some countries with 80% deficiency. Think what that can do do a country- geniuses are merely smart, smart people average, average people borderline retarded.

The challenge? It's multi-discipline. Get the nutrients into a food supply everyone is either already eating or will eat cheaply. Sometimes this is an engineering problem, sometimes a genetic one (a corn that produces almost as much and as rich a protein as soy was developed for one region of Africa). Sometimes it's spreading information, coordinating things.

Will that improve quality of life? Yes. Education. Yes.

Energy? Have you seen the Fab Labs? Give a young African boy the ability to design a windmill to power the light bulb in his family's hut. That's today- if you give people the tools what will they come up with next themselves? That can help with the poverty too.

The thing I see is that there are tons of solutions and possibilities out there- they are just very badly organized and distributed. As Eleni Gabre-Madhin outlines- her country has the food to feed itself. It doesn't need food aid, it needs networking. Same with getting nutrients into that food. That is something you can do.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]threadwalker, 2008-02-08 06:45 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]vociferouspanda
2008-02-08 07:20 pm UTC (link)
I would say stop thinking so much on it and just do something. You can't wait for the perfect opportunity, you have to create one yourself! =)

(Reply to this)

This might or might not help...
[info]grimhild
2008-02-08 10:29 pm UTC (link)
But it certainly made me think about how to help the world... at least in off-work time.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

(Reply to this)


[info]leech
2008-02-08 10:45 pm UTC (link)
When you look at problems in this country and fall into a stonecutter's spiral, it might be helpful to examine success stories. What are the situations of the media, education, political transparency, etc. in better places?

(Reply to this)

(a x b x c x d x e)^n
(Anonymous)
2008-02-09 05:25 am UTC (link)
I suggest that you reproduce. Multiply your talents and benefit the world exponentially. That is the best approximation to infinite productivity that lasts forever.

If you are like most Ph Ds, you have gone past your peak of creativity -- another reason to reproduce. So don't be overly ambitious. Focus on something simple and do it better than everyone else can. That is the most common way to succeed.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: (a x b x c x d x e)^n - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-10 01:44 am UTC (Expand)
Important Problem
(Anonymous)
2008-02-09 12:09 pm UTC (link)
Something to think about: Your problems are all of the 'things we have now that aren't functioning well' sort. And they are characterised by complexity and scalability problems. A lot of the things that aren't working well would work fine for smaller numbers -- it is just that there are so many of us trying to use the system that makes it fail. But some of the problems we have are with things that we don't even know we have as problems yet. We didn't know how much of a problem the lack of the WWW was, until we had it. Or the ability to search it was -- until somebody invented a search engine. I suggest spending some time just wishing _for_ things, rather than wishing for improvments in things. See if you catch your mind coming up with new and interesting things that maybe haven't been thought of before. My experience is that such thoughts come easiest in a boat, after several days away from the world, where you spend a lot of time paddling and not thinking abou the problems of the world. Only by removing myself from the world can I get the perspective to change it. But your milage may vary. Good luck to you. And if moving to Sweden ever strikes you as an interesting thing to do, get in touch. Laura Creighton

(Reply to this)

Passion and information
(Anonymous)
2008-02-09 04:23 pm UTC (link)
First, pick something you have a passion for doing. Without the passion, you won't spend the gazillion hours needed to have a real impact. That applies to both the work and the subject area.

Second, the highest payoff is nearly always in the area of improving information -- communicating it, processing it, inter-relating it. For my money, there are two high impact areas right now: If you believe in the singularity (which I give a low but non-zero probability), then working on that, and in particular on AI, is the best bet. If not, then working on information publishing and the sociology of information is it -- we're currently struggling to find the next printing press, with current solutions like blogs and Wikipedia being good attempts but clearly not the final answer. The former area has a greater impact but lower probability of succeeding; the later has a higher probability.

Finally, whatever you pick, don't do it by yourself. Go to where the best work is being done and hang out with the best people. It can be disturbing to discover how relatively stupid you are when compared to the best people in the field, but you'll learn the most the fastest and have the most opportunities to contribute.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Passion and information - [info]syntience, 2008-02-09 09:58 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Passion and information - [info]zardozap, 2008-02-12 11:04 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]catachthonian
2008-02-09 05:49 pm UTC (link)
FWIW, it does sound like you see yourself more as a technology-oriented social activist than a Silicon Valley capitalist. Unless you have a brilliant idea about the energy crisis, it might make sense to build on your existing strengths in computer security and voting (2 and 4), where you are able to more clearly define the problems and solutions. I'm not sure this post articulates lines of attack for the others that are as clear. But it might be worthwhile to do some more research and see if you come up with concrete ways to contribute that appeal to you more than the more obvious continuations of what you've done in the past. It seems like you need to locate either a specific idea to pursue or a group of people that could use your help on an existing project. Maybe you could set up informational interviews with people working on, say, the energy problem.

(Reply to this)

Some thoughts
[info]mr_privacy
2008-02-09 06:40 pm UTC (link)
Let me start by saying that I'm biased towards #2, ideally with you joining my employer, who has jobs open for this work. If the idea doesn't make you throw up, I can give you more information about why I think this could be really exciting for you. So you may discount my skepticism about the next possibilities.

Regarding #4 and 6, I think that you underestimate the impact of things like regulatory capture, preference diversity with regards to outcomes, and rational ignorance on the decision making processes. I think those make your goals tremendously difficult to achieve in a sustainable fashion, and each of them has overcome repeated attempts to overcome it. More generally, I'm less a fan of consensus than you are.

I think that these factors play a lot less into #3. I agree with you that education is a tremendous weapon against poverty, and a good education is a huge gift to the world. I would love to see your talents applied here. Are you thinking of the US, or globally? Each has advantages and costs.


(Reply to this)

you think too much
[info]niteskye
2008-02-10 06:36 am UTC (link)
I think this is a decision best left for your heart to lead with. I don't think logic will work, though I think I understand why you're going down that path. First, you're very comfortable with logic. Second, you think logic won't fail you. If you go with your heart, motivation might wane later on.

In my experience, motivation always wanes, no matter what. It is impossible to remain 110% commitment to something. At some point, you won't feel it as strongly. You'll look at your criteria - the same criteria you used to make a sound logical decision - and suddenly things feel less sound. It is your own willpower and that of the people around you that will get you through the points when it drops to 50%. I say this because this is what experience from time-to-time.

I remember you happiest when you make the people around you happy.

I remember you most unhappy when you feel like you've (yet again) missed an opportunity to change the world.

I suggest you focus on doing what makes you happy. You are a very smart, caring, and resourceful person. Let changing world happen along the way.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-10 02:46 pm UTC (link)
Like you mentioned in your "update", there have been many comments more or less advising you to "go with your heart", or "do what you enjoy". I think the reason people are saying this is that usually logic and objective discussion can only bring you so far in making such a decision. Once you've narrowed the choice down to a few options which are all very important to you, there is no objective way to decide which is more important. There's no way to know in advance which actions will have the most impact.

And yet I think you're right - it would be good to first get some facts straight and try to look at things as objectively as possible. In the end I'm sure you'll choose the option that you think you'll be the happiest in pursuing.

(Reply to this)

Weighing Criteria
[info]erights
2008-02-11 04:23 am UTC (link)
Hi Ping,

First, congratulations on finishing your thesis! Last I knew, it was still a draft! Are you fully graduated and everything?

I like the way you set up the problem and your analysis. Most of all, of course, I enjoy and appreciate the values you are applying to this question. I like these values.

When researchers examine how people's estimates deviate from so-called "statistical rationality", one of the stronger biases they find is not taking the base rate into account. As I read your analysis, I fear you may be underestimating the importance of your criteria #c and #e for similar reasons.

When I think about what to work on, an image in my head comes from Archimedes' search for "a lever long enough..." I don't claim the following makes much mechanical sense. It's just my imagery for a real issue:

The problem is that many other people are also looking to push on a long enough lever. When a long enough lever is in plain sight, like perhaps much political advocacy, then there are enough people already pushing and pulling on that lever that it has gotten stuck. For a lever to provide *you* leverage for changing the world, it must be both long enough and (currently) obscure enough.

Unsurprisingly, I think this argues for the options I'd most like to argue for anyway: #2 and #6.

(Reply to this)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Weighing Criteria - [info]zestyping, 2008-02-13 12:15 am UTC (Expand)
World Changing
[info]montyz
2008-02-13 03:40 pm UTC (link)
I was assuming you already know about WorldChanging.org Many of the posts on their site address the concerns you have above, in an inspiring way.

Monty

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…