# The Existential Engineer
## An Existential Framework for Technical Decision-Making

---

## Introduction: The Existential Engineer

Every technical decision you make is an existential act. When you choose a technology stack, design an API, or refactor legacy code, you're not just solving a problem—you're defining who you are as an engineer.

Sartre would argue that you are "condemned to be free" in your engineering choices. There's no hiding behind "industry best practices" or "that's how we've always done it." Every commit, every architecture decision, every code review is a declaration of your professional identity.

> **The Core Premise**
>
> Technical work is not merely instrumental—it is fundamentally an expression of human freedom and responsibility. How you build reflects who you choose to become.

---

## Core Existential Concepts Applied to Engineering

### Freedom & Responsibility

Every technical decision creates your professional identity. When you choose sustainable materials over cost-cutting, when you prioritize security over speed-to-market, when you advocate for accessibility features—these choices compound into the engineer you are.

**Freedom = Choices × Responsibility × Consequences**

Consider open-source contributions: the decision to release code publicly, to choose a permissive license over restrictive, to invest time in documentation—these are existential acts. They reveal your values about knowledge sharing, community, and the nature of software itself.

### Bad Faith (Mauvaise Foi)

Bad faith in engineering manifests as self-deception about our technical choices. It's the justification we construct to avoid confronting the weight of our decisions.

**Examples of bad faith:**
- "Everyone plagiarizes code anyway" → avoiding responsibility for original innovation
- "The product manager decided this" → denying your agency in technical implementation
- "Users don't care about accessibility" → hiding behind assumptions to avoid difficult work
- "We can fix the security issues later" → deferring ethical responsibility

The existential engineer recognizes these patterns and asks: *"Am I deceiving myself to avoid discomfort?"*

### Authenticity

Authentic engineering means creating solutions that align with your personal values while acknowledging the constraints and consequences. It's not about ideological purity—it's about clear-eyed recognition of what you're building and why.

When you choose an open-source license, you're making a statement about knowledge ownership. When you advocate for privacy-preserving architecture, you're declaring what you believe users deserve. These are authentic acts when done with full awareness of their implications.

---

## Sartre's Technical Implications

### "Hell is other people"

In engineering terms: Hell is other stakeholders. Product managers with impossible timelines. Clients with contradictory requirements. Team members with incompatible coding styles.

But Sartre's point isn't that others are inherently problematic—it's that they force us to confront our freedom. The stakeholder with unrealistic demands reveals that *you must choose* how to respond. You can't hide in pure technical rationality; you must navigate the human dimension.

### "Freedom is what you do with what you don't have"

Resource constraints don't diminish freedom—they define its parameters. The most innovative engineering often emerges from limitation: open-source tools built with zero budget, elegant algorithms born from CPU constraints, accessibility features that improve experiences for everyone.

Your freedom isn't in having unlimited resources; it's in how you respond to scarcity.

### "Condemned to be free"

As a technical leader, you can't escape responsibility. Even delegation is a choice. Even following orders requires your participation. The junior engineer asking for guidance, the architecture decision that will constrain your team for years, the production incident at 3 AM—these are moments where your freedom is inescapable.

The existential burden of technical leadership is that there's always another choice you could have made.

---

## Practical Framework: Existential Engineering in Practice

### Five-Step Decision-Making Process

1. **Recognize the freedom-responsibility pair**
Name the choice explicitly and its consequences

2. **Surface potential bad faith**
Ask "What am I avoiding by framing it this way?"

3. **Evaluate alternatives through authenticity lens**
Which option aligns with your technical values?

4. **Make the choice with full awareness**
Own it completely, no hedging

5. **Document the reasoning**
Future you needs to understand the existential context

---

## Expanded Case Studies

### 1. Sustainable Material Innovation

**Problem:** Companies often choose cheaper, less sustainable materials to meet budget constraints.

**Existential Lens:** Apply the Freedom-Responsibility Equation—evaluate freedom of choice (material options), responsibility to future generations, and long-term consequences.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Am I avoiding the discomfort of higher upfront costs?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Conduct a life-cycle analysis for each material option
2. Score options on environmental impact vs. cost using a weighted matrix
3. Present findings to stakeholders with a clear recommendation that aligns with both freedom and responsibility

---

### 2. AI Ethics Dilemmas

**Problem:** Deploying AI that makes decisions affecting human lives without transparent accountability.

**Existential Lens:** Freedom of algorithmic design vs. responsibility for outcomes. Consider the authenticity of delegating moral agency to machines.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Am I hiding behind the 'black box' to avoid personal ethical responsibility?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Implement explainability modules (e.g., SHAP, LIME) for decision paths
2. Establish an ethics review board that audits AI deployments
3. Create a "freedom audit" checklist for each AI project to ensure alignment with human values

---

### 3. Open-Source Contribution Dilemmas

**Problem:** Engineers contribute to open source while employed, risking conflicts of interest or IP violations.

**Existential Lens:** Freedom to share knowledge vs. responsibility to employer contracts and proprietary code.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Am I using my job's resources under the guise of community work?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Review employment agreements for open-source clauses
2. Separate work environments (different repos, accounts) for personal contributions
3. Document contributions clearly to maintain transparency

---

### 4. Cloud Infrastructure Decisions

**Problem:** Choosing a cloud strategy that balances cost, vendor lock-in, and resilience.

**Existential Lens:** Freedom of provider choice weighed against responsibility for data sovereignty and long-term operational risk.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Am I favoring a vendor because of personal convenience rather than strategic fit?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Perform a vendor lock-in risk assessment
2. Model total cost of ownership for multi-cloud vs. single-vendor
3. Draft a migration plan that includes fallback strategies

---

### 5. Hardware Development Priorities

**Problem:** Pushing cutting-edge features can compromise product reliability and safety.

**Existential Lens:** Freedom to innovate must be balanced with responsibility to users' safety and trust.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Am I ignoring reliability metrics to chase hype?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Define reliability thresholds (MTBF, failure rates)
2. Use a staged rollout process with rigorous testing at each stage
3. Incorporate user feedback loops to validate real-world performance

---

### 6. Freedom Audits for Decision Transparency

**Problem:** Organizational decisions often lack clear documentation of the freedom-responsibility trade-offs.

**Existential Lens:** Institutionalize a "Freedom Audit" that records choices, responsibilities, and projected consequences.

**Bad-Faith Check:** "Are we glossing over uncomfortable trade-offs?"

**Actionable Steps:**
1. Create an audit template (choice matrix, stakeholder impact, risk assessment)
2. Require audit completion before major project sign-off
3. Review audits quarterly to ensure alignment with company values

---

## Conclusion: The Future of Human-Technology Relationship

As AI becomes more capable, the existential dimension of engineering becomes more critical. When algorithms make decisions, when models generate code, when systems operate autonomously—the question of human responsibility intensifies rather than diminishes.

You cannot outsource your freedom. Even if an AI writes the code, you chose to deploy it. Even if a model makes the recommendation, you chose to follow it. The existential engineer recognizes that every delegation is still a decision, every automation still carries human intention.

> **The Central Challenge**
>
> Creating technology that aligns with human authenticity requires us to first be authentic about what we're building and why. The framework isn't about perfection—it's about clear-eyed recognition of our freedom and responsibility.

Engineering is philosophical practice. Every line of code is a statement about what we believe technology should be. Every system we build reflects our answer to the question: What does it mean to build with integrity in a world of constraints?

The existential engineer knows there's no escape from this responsibility. And perhaps that's exactly as it should be.

---

*An exploration of Sartrean existentialism applied to technical decision-making.*
*Framework by Jason / @jaxcoder*