Money, it's just business. I think every big corp is morally bankrupt (otherwise they wouldn't be big). There are some exceptions, of course, if a company found a sustainable way to monetize their output.
This is basically it. There are a dozen ways to become huge, and they all are essnetially anti-humanity.
There's an expression: normalization of deviance.
This is where we are now. People idolize others because of their wealth, and that wealth is always gained by means which are ultimately harmful to the greater population. Even the wealthy philanthropistMS which will remain unnamed acquired their greatness by cheating and stealing. But as long as you make a great show and give it all away eventually (while living lavishly the entire time), you look good.
As a 90s teen growing up with Grunge and in a DYI punk scene, I remember my youth being a lot about authenticity, and it felt weird reading about how the 80s were all about money and fame and how selling out was ok.
To me that sounded absolutely absurd and a freaking caricature, something out of "American Psycho".
Today I was just discussing with a friend how we're perhaps even more materialistic and cut-throat...
A fear of mine is that we are speedrunning Cyberpunk 2077. And that’s not something to expire to. It’s a bleak no-hope hell.
Hope is about finding and using that moral compass. To change worse outcomes to better outcomes for everyone. The “I’ll take mine” or “My group needs to win” attitude is poison to yourself and to the world, and if you don’t see that your conscience is blind or broken.
This is nothing new, in numerous books on moral philosophy and people who have been in these situations have spoken out on it.
As an old-school leftist that feels politically orphaned, I feel like there's a huge group that is hating all the current bullshit. Even terminally online people.
I don't see a way out, though. I just hope we can leave a planet for the animals.
EDIT: On the other hand: the internet is already a dystopia if you look closely. Maybe it will prove to be a fad and people will go back to their lives. One can hope!
> There are a dozen ways to become huge, and they all are essnetially anti-humanity.
Offering customers lower prices is a way to gain more customers. Software allows for automation and efficiencies of scale. The end result will be a few big organizations that win, without cheating or stealing. (Although, there most likely is cheating or stealing due to other factors).
But I would not classify the success of most larger modern businesses solely due to cheating or stealing. It was simply being at the right place at the right time and executing correctly to take advantage of developing technologies to take advantage of economies of scale.
In this specific case, I know my family and friends benefit greatly from the “free” instant communication and file transfer capabilities that Meta offers (WhatsApp). There obviously might be costs, but international communications have been made far, far cheaper and higher quality due to WhatsApp.
The problem is that there aren't ethical ways to build a sustainable business, it's that unethical businesses have all those options and then also all the unethical ones so they will always come out ahead.
Its way less bad than some investors ie on Wall street or arms/military business, by huge margin. Folks scamming old people out of money or encrypting their HDDs for ransom should be shot in sight. But - this topic affects billions very directly, and its not about the effect now, but helping general direction which is outright evil by any moral standards.
I can pull out usual godwin's law plug but I guess we all know what would be there. People like to feel great about themselves, its subconscious. And if slightly tilting reality in their favor can achieve that then what's the problem, right. Again, this is not a conscious decision so most don't even notice that, and who would complain about feeling better about themselves.
Old enough, when you want to see such things like these biases in people around you, its very easy once you start looking for them. I guess we really are all heroes of our own stories (but what I mention is far from uniformly distributed, some folks are really stellar human beings and some opposite)
Buy they very actively push and lobby to end those peaceful times, ie second Iraq invasion for completely made up reasons, or stay in Afghanistan way beyond anything reasonable, when it was clear there is no winning possible.
Big companies are paperclip maximizers, for money instead of paperclips. It’s strange how many people can see the danger of a hypothetical nonhuman intelligence with a goal of making as many paperclips as possible, but not the danger of actual nonhuman intelligences with the goal of making as much money as possible.
In theory optimizing for money long term should align everyone's interests. The problem is that (for a number of reasons) public executives have far more incentive to be short sighted.
No, it doesn't. You're assuming that markets have a computational efficiency and smoothness that simply isn't there. P != NP.
Markets are a heuristic based around mediating between the interests of different parties precisely because the overall problem is computationally hard. If markets achieved the kind of optimality you're thinking, then top-down central planning would also be workable.
Sure, but the usual counterargument is that the air and water need to be made legible to the market (through private ownership or the correct externality taxes), and then everything will be perfect. While in reality that's demanding a level of computation from markets that they simply do not possess.
But the baseline is really bad.