Are you leaving academia to start working on so-called “real world” problems? If so, you’re probably all too familiar with this turn of phrase. Well, I was in the same boat 4 years ago, and in this post, I’d like to share with you my views on what we should call real world problems, and what they actually are in industry.
What is the “real world”?
To start with, let me find my astrophysics hat, dust it off a bit and put it on for the first time in a while. I need to make a little digression about the real world… ahem.
Our planet is nothing but a ridiculously tiny dot in the immensity of realness.
The Universe is, to say the least, quite big, and we can only see a fraction of it: The Observable Universe. This alone has a diameter of over 90 billion light years. Anything outside of it is also real, but we will never be able to see it.
Inside the Observable Universe, only about 5% of its content is “normal stuff”, like galaxies, stars, planets and so on. Within that 5%, there are at least 100 billion galaxies, of which our very own Milky Way is just one of them. And within the Milky Way, there are at least 100 billion stars, of which our very own Sun is just one of them. Orbiting around the Sun, there are 8 planets, which is finally a number that we can count on our fingers! (But don’t forget that there are millions of other smaller objects in the Solar System that don’t make it into the “planet” category, including our lonely moon and the ugly duck, Pluto).
So, if we ever get the chance to ask an alien what the real world is, the answer will almost certainly not be “Earth”. Our planet is, after all, nothing but a ridiculously tiny dot in the immensity of realness.
However, we being mere humans may say that by real world we obviously mean Earth, which is fair enough. So we have now selected a particular piece of space (again, minuscule, but pretty important to its residents at least). But during the whole history of planet Earth, what fraction of it starts counting as the real world?
When did the world become “real”?
Earth formed over 4 billion years ago. At that time Earth already faced a bunch of big problems, like the frequent impact of massive meteorites. But I guess they also don’t count as real world problems nowadays. Should we instead start counting at the beginning of life, over 3 billion years ago? Or when the first homo sapiens was born, half a billion years ago? In year zero (if you are religious)? At the beginning of the industrial revolution…?
Maybe we should start counting from the day we were born. If you are reading these lines, you are probably at least 20 years old. Are the problems industry faced 20 years ago real world problems today?
Let’s cut to the chase. In the fast-paced technological world we live in, real world problems are those which are happening on Earth (a tiny fraction of the realm of space) around the present time (a tiny fraction of the realm of time). Got it? Good, now I can take off my astrophysicist hat and put it back on the shelf next to my paleontologist scarf.
What should we call “real world” problems?
Wars, diseases, poverty, natural catastrophes, climate change, global pandemics… These are all serious problems happening on Earth today, most of which we are technologically capable of solving, or at least alleviating. Some of these problems are even threatening our very presence on Earth. The Future of Life Institute outlines 4 main sources of existential risk: Nuclear war, biotechnology, artificial intelligence and climate change. All of which are, in fact, direct consequences of our industrial development.
So if we told our alien friend about Earth and the wonders of human knowledge, it would probably expect most of our collective human effort to be invested in solving these existential problems. Because they are the real world problems, right?
Or are they?
What “real world” problems are in industry
Don’t be so naive! Existential problems are not the kind of problems industry usually focuses on at all! Churning clients, decreasing revenue, low SEO… These are the so called real world problems in industry. I’m really sorry to be the one to break it to you.
Real world problems in industry are basically any possible cause of money loss.
Don’t get me wrong, of course there are companies that attempt to tackle true real world problems, but the vast majority of them don’t. When working in a company, your main goal is to generate money for the company. Therefore, real world problems in industry are basically any possible cause of money loss. Does that disappoint you? It was certainly a bit of a blow for me, when I started looking for my first industry job. However:
- Is academic work any better at tackling real world problems?
- Is it such a bad thing to “work for money”?
Both of these questions are worthy of their own posts (which I look forward to sharing with you soon).
Conclusions
There is a common prejudice that people in academia don’t work on real world problems, unlike those in industry. However, as we’ve seen, there is a big divide between genuine real world problems (e.g. climate change), and what industry treats as real world problems (e.g. poor SEO). In fact, most industry jobs do not aim at tackling any of the genuine ones (and for now we’ve left it as an open question whether or not academic jobs do).
Now, we find ourselves at a crossroads, where technology has not only enabled the biggest achievements of human kind, but also triggered the main risks of our extinction. Incidentally, it is also our only ally to solve them. And technological development has always been driven by a balance between academia and industry.
So, we can conclude that to solve real world problems, we need both industry and academia working side by side. We can see this clearly in the combined efforts of academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies to develop a vaccine against COVID-19. I hope that very soon we can come out of this pandemic and realise that there are other urgent, real world problems to be tackled together.
To solve real world problems, we need both industry and academia working side by side.
Regardless, whatever the problem you end up working on in your career, be it forecasting market trends or reducing social inequality, don’t worry, for these problems are nothing but an insignificant blip in the universe. (Woops! It seems my astrophysics hat has randomly fallen off the shelf onto my head again!)
Chris Brennan
December 1, 2020 — 21:24
Some interesting insights here, Pablo. I’ve neVer really thought about real world problems much before. You’ve got me thinking.
Pablo Rosado
December 2, 2020 — 07:49
Thank you Chris, I’m happy that you found it insightful.
Wael Farah
December 2, 2020 — 03:52
Very interesting read. Thanks for this, Pablo!
Pablo Rosado
December 2, 2020 — 07:49
Thanks Wael!
Stefan
December 2, 2020 — 10:25
Yeah nice article but also pretty far away from what is called real world for most people.
The real world for a lot of people is something like:
1.) I want a badass new smartphone with function XY.
2.) Where can I buy new jeans and how cheap are they?
3.) How can I get enough money to buy a house?
.
.
You can continue this list forever with stuff that is more “real world” for most people than solving climate change or measuring gravitational wave signals of two merging black holes.
So I would argue that industry is indeed working more on real world problems than science is. It does not matter that this is not solving any of humankinds big problems.
Pablo Rosado
December 2, 2020 — 11:12
Hi Stefan! That’s a very interesting perspective. If you measure the importance of a problem based on the simple count of people affected by it, then you might be right. But you can measure the importance of a problem based on its severity. I’d say that, for example, a person dying of a disease is clearly more important than (100? 1000? 1e9?) people needing a new phone.
I’d also say that, even when measuring importance by simple count, poverty is, for example, a problem that affects more people in the world than any of those problems you mentioned. But in our industry jobs we may not hear about them (which is actually part of the problem). Also, when considering existential risks, the number of people affected is actually the entire human kind, which is again larger in terms of simple count.
Stefan
December 2, 2020 — 13:35
That is a good statement. However I would argue that preventing 10,000s children in third world countries from starving does not help humankind whatsoever. If this is a good thing from our moral perspective is an entirely different story.
What I am trying to say is that at least modern days democracies pretend to care about the freedom of choice of their people. If the people decide that they would rather care about new phones, their daily jobs and in third world countries people not starving…. we might have to live with it.
As scientists (or policticians) we can of course always argue with society and try to convince them that we are correct. But we should definitely not educate them and blame them for being stupid from our ivory towers. Because that is quite frankly one of the reasons why people like Trump have such a success.
I think a very good way of handling “saving the world” is done by companies like Tesla. They try to be like Apple and produce a cool product that a lot of people want to have. And at the same time they (maybe) do something good for the world. So they basically use evil capitalism and consumer addiction for their cause.
Pablo Rosado
December 2, 2020 — 18:08
I’d say that a priori saving 1e4 lives does help human kind (simply because they are part of it), regardless of their demographics.
As scientists/engineers/politicians we have two responsibilities: to spread knowledge, and to figure out what’s best for humans (and other living entities). If we do these things well, democracy should be better aligned with humanity’s goals (not perfectly, but better).
I agree with you that people don’t like to be patronized. The fact that many people prefer to vote for politicians who deny science should not stop us, but rather push us to do our jobs better.
And I also agree that some companies are doing an effective use of capitalism to have a positive impact on the environment. But such companies are an exception, which is one of the points I made above. If we let the market decide the future of our planet, we may survive, or we may not. I wouldn’t expect that Tesla alone is going to revert climate change.
Stefan
December 3, 2020 — 11:16
I think we have to get much much better in explaining stuff to the public without patronizing them.
You can even see this in Covid crisis. There were never so many virologists on TV talking about their science but still there are quite some people protesting about pandemic prevention politics.
Okay we could discuss stuff forever but I will stop now. 😉