I love BNW. It is such an magnified representation of the post-war world. Like all literature, it's a metaphore, not to be taken too literally as a prophecy--although it was clearly a possibility in Huxley's mind. BNW may never be, but we're already there, in many ways. We are not clones, but we are expected to specialize, to identify with roles that aim to produce value, get paid, buy things, entertain ourselves, to feed the system and forget about it. It is a really seducing utopia--compared to the more openly overt dystopia of 1984, at least. Huxley, I believe, saw it coming and wanted to warn us about its costs and limitations.
People said about Aldous Huxley that he could have an in-depth conversation about virtually any subject. As a well read person, he was aware the current developments at the time in the fields of psychology, management and life sciences--to name a few. It is no surprise that he came to speculate about the rise of advertisement and human resources management, which turned psychology on its head by applying it as a tool to generate and maintain a compliant supply of consumers and producers before anything else. His utopia is one where life is ruled by convenience, from the crib to the death. The more alarmist speculations of managed births and intitutionalized overmedication are simply logical extensions of this philosophy. It may be too easy to just go along with it without asking ourselves if life shouldn't be about something else than finding purpose through our given social functions. There's something deeply tragic about BNW, which isn't so unfamilar and requires us to take a step back from such ideals. The questions it raises are terribly current to us.
BNW is far from perfect, but the last century showed us that Huxley was right. Most of us want to love their servitude, and we're willing to work pretty hard in order to do so. The spectre of 1984, of surveillance and repression, is mainly reserved for those who stray away from what's expected of us. It stands as a menace to keep us in check. When people occupy the streets or participate in activity that undermine the accepted order, only then does it show its ugly head. In a way, 1984 and BNW are complements to each other.
In the current context, I would say that being self-taught is more of an advantage. Programmers today are normally expected to be pragmatic and demonstrate their autonomy and dedication, which I assume you did. While a computer science degree is a nice addition, it is no substitute for having something to show for. Unless you're applying for a position which focuses on a CS curriculum, it really comes down the the value you have to offer.
However, because ignorance is bliss, try to keep humble about your advantages over those university graduates who came to focus on other aspects of the trade. Be aware of your own value and sell what you're good at. Also, make sure that you are legally allowed to refer to yourself as an engineer. In some countries, it's a very specific title controlled by a professional organisation.
Believe me, it's much harder for a CS graduate to get a job without adequate practical experience than it is for someone with a decent portfolio.
Can you please elaborate on your comment concerning the lack of talent in Canada? What's wrong with the large pool of CEGEP and university graduates or more experienced developers who are well able to pick up new technology?
What does U.S. talent have that's missing in Canada? Are the good ones really all moving away to where the money is? Or could it be that, despite all the available funding, Canadian entrepreneurs are less prone to risk training new recruits?
It might be a good thing if university graduates from computer science programs could apply for software engineering positions... Consequently, most educated hiring managers don't hire for engineers, which brings us back to square one.
People said about Aldous Huxley that he could have an in-depth conversation about virtually any subject. As a well read person, he was aware the current developments at the time in the fields of psychology, management and life sciences--to name a few. It is no surprise that he came to speculate about the rise of advertisement and human resources management, which turned psychology on its head by applying it as a tool to generate and maintain a compliant supply of consumers and producers before anything else. His utopia is one where life is ruled by convenience, from the crib to the death. The more alarmist speculations of managed births and intitutionalized overmedication are simply logical extensions of this philosophy. It may be too easy to just go along with it without asking ourselves if life shouldn't be about something else than finding purpose through our given social functions. There's something deeply tragic about BNW, which isn't so unfamilar and requires us to take a step back from such ideals. The questions it raises are terribly current to us.
BNW is far from perfect, but the last century showed us that Huxley was right. Most of us want to love their servitude, and we're willing to work pretty hard in order to do so. The spectre of 1984, of surveillance and repression, is mainly reserved for those who stray away from what's expected of us. It stands as a menace to keep us in check. When people occupy the streets or participate in activity that undermine the accepted order, only then does it show its ugly head. In a way, 1984 and BNW are complements to each other.