Day 11: I’m confused
There’s a “Climate Innovation” hackathon coming up in my city, and despite my fledgling technical expertise, I’m finding myself averse to signing up.
The thing is, I spent four years in university understanding how environmental and social problems can never be effectively solved through any one-sided approach. Technology is but one approach. Because these problems arise out of the complex interplay of social, cultural, economic, and natural systems, they must involve solutions that will affect these fronts together.
Yet here stands a symbol of a gross lack of understanding of what climate change really is, and what is technology’s place in it. Despite the techno-optimism in Singapore, we, collectively as human beings, are still far away from harbouring technology that can alter the climate — if indeed that’s what the organisers of this hackathon is trying to achieve, based on its name.
But I think their intention is not to innovate on climate per se, but to innovate on things — apps, gadgets, algorithms — that may help slow down or reverse industry-induced climate change (as opposed to natural climate change, the natural forces that brought us ice ages and out of the last one into our current climate). Even so, I still find myself hesitating to sign up. But why?
Maybe I’m just weird. Or afraid. Or shy? Besides being a little weird, I don’t think I’m any of that. It’s something else.
I think I’m worried that by taking part in a hackathon like that I would step over to the dark side, never to return. I’m talking about becoming one of the millions of techno-optimists who have become unable to discern a problem that is best solved with the application of cool technology from one that ought to just be solved with reason and collective responsibility.
In other words, I’m worried that if I start to believe that technology has the power to solve complex social-environmental problems, and act accordingly to leverage it myself through my work, I would go down a path of no return, entrenched in tunnel thinking. That scares me because I consider being able to appraise problems from as many angles and lenses as possible to be one of my key advantages as an adult.
Is it true though? I mean, is it a path of no return? Can I not dip my toe in the water and take things from there?
Probably. Maybe I’m just being an environmental studies graduate snob nitpicking at semantics like ‘climate’ and ‘environment’? Not unlikely…
It’s all quite confusing when I start to consider my current situation as a student of programming. I am literally learning how to access one of the most widely used technologies now! What other reason am I doing it than to utilise it for projects that would help people — that is to say, help solve problems, complex or otherwise, for people?
Maybe I am just allergic to too much science. Take a look at the corporate supporters of the hackathon…
These are organisations whose people innately believe in the potential of science and technology in solving big problems that were undoubtedly brought about by science and technology! Shouldn’t that be alarming?
I don’t mean to belittle these companies or science or technology — I have greatly benefitted from all three (having worked closely with some of the guys that lead these organisations). What I’m trying to point out is the technical bias that almost every person in Singapore has towards technology in problem-solving. Techno-optimism must be tampered with a good understanding of sociology and culture, psychology, economy, and nature.
To a hammer, everything is a nail!
So for now, I’m going to sit on the sidelines for the hackathon. I might decide to sign up if I am able to reconcile my unease of just being an agent of technology when it’s obvious to me that no amount of tinkering with electronics and code can meaningfully solve our climate deterioration problem.
Fundamentally sound
On a less serious note, I have completed the GA Web Development Immersive course’s ‘Fundamentals’ pre-course work today. It culminated in a card game project for which I received a lot of help with throughout the 20-hour syllabus. Compared to Free Code Camp’s laissez-faire style of instruction, I have to say this was a breeze!
Now that that is done, I’m supposed to move on to a few other things. Fundamentals covered the basics of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Those are all front-end development programming languages. It also briefly introduced the Command Line, and Git in more detail. The other things I am told to work on are (all from CodeAcademy):
That’s… quite a lot of repetition. So it seems. Maybe CodeAcademy dives much deeper. I sure hope so. Otherwise I might gouge my eyes out for them to float in superficial waters.
Ruby, though, is something I look forward to finally learning. I tried learning it 2–3 years ago when I was still in university, through Why’s Poignant Guide. That was fun for the 4 days that it lasted. It’s a back-end programming language. I am counting on it to getting an eye-opening glimpse into the dark backroom of the world wide web.
This post is part of my 30-day commitment to write daily about my journey learning something technical everyday. You can see my other posts at Getting Technical.
