Does the computing industry have an obligation to address social and political issues? Absolutely not. An industry has no obligations, as it is a term used to refer to a branch of companies with similar products. The companies that make up the computing industry likewise have no obligation other than to make their shareholders money. If MegaCorp or BigBusiness can make the most money by ignoring or even flying in the face of sociopolitical issues, I have little doubt that we would see policies in place that accomplish just that.

However, this neglects an important - perhaps the most important - viewpoint; that of an individual. The individual does have an obligation to address social and political issues. This obligation, whether it stems from religious imperative or the plain desire to be a good person, can affect an individual’s choice of where to work, what products to buy, and how to vote. These individual motivations, then, effect the tech industry on a company level. If highly talented individuals want to work in a company that is advancing solutions to social and political problems, the companies (and the tech industry in general) must work towards addressing these issues in order to attract and attain the workforce needed to remain profitable. While there is no direct obligation to work on issues such as income inequality, companies may choose to do so because those issues are important to their employees. This is especially true in the tech industry, as tech employees may feel work that automates away a person’s job is a moral dilemma. Working towards a solution for the problem automation creates could then assuage their discomfort.

Just because tech companies and their employees have a desire to address these issues doesn’t mean they are best suited to do so though. As Ross Baird points out in “Silicon Valley’s Unchecked Arrogance”, young tech workers may not know the issues that the majority of the country (or the world) face every day. He says, “Because most of today’s entrepreneurs have their basic needs taken care of, their problem-solving often seems frivolous to the rest of the country.” One concept tech workers in Silicon Valley propose is Universal Basic Income. This would supposedly allow relief for individuals that lose their jobs to the automation Silicon Valley creates. But as Jathan Sadowki explains in “Why Silicon Valley is embracing universal basic income”, “…the trouble comes when UBI is used as a way of merely making techno-capitalism more tolerable for people…” Is Universal Basic Income solving the problem that automation creates? Or does it just allow tech workers to satisfy their moral obligation without accomplishing any social good?

The ethos of the computing industry and the individuals therein includes a confidence that may border on arrogance. Tech workers are used to building something out of nothing. They live in a world where billion dollar companies can be founded in garages and dorm rooms. The idea of failure disappears quietly with bankrupt startups, only to be funded and refunded with a seemingly unlimited bankroll of venture capital. This sort of work environment produces a feeling of invincibility. Tech workers can solve any issue, fix any problem, regardless of the scope or magnitude.

When one asks if tech can save the world, I think a more relevant question may be who tech is saving the world from. And in this case, it looks like tech is trying (and failing) to save the world from tech itself.