SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Do-you-know-where-you-are-going-to? dept.
A technology genius always has two basic options. For example, he can dedicate his work to creating a medical breakthrough that will save thousands of lives—or he can develop an app that will let people amuse themselves. In most cases, the technology genius will be pushed to focus on the product that has the potential to create millions of dollars in profits. Profit is the North Star of conventional economics. Lacking a collective destination, the only highway sign we follow is the North Star of profit. Nobody is putting up any highway signs that will lead the world toward a collectively desired destination.
It raises the question, does the world have a destination? If not, should it?
As I've explained, the UN's sustainable development goals (SDGs) are an attempt to define an immediate destination over a very short period. They represent a good beginning. The SDGs give us a destination over a 15-year stretch— just a moment in time out of the human journey of hundreds or thousands of years. Many people and institutions have made commitments to travel in the direction that the SDGs reveal—but, unfortunately, most for-profit companies are not redirecting themselves in meaningful ways to reach those goals because the market definition of success does not include them.
Toward what SDGs should tech people direct their work?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 17 2017, @12:46PM (2 children)
There's nothing wrong with being idealistic, but there must be some contact with reality. Individuals need motivation. Money is a great motivator. That's why capitalism works.
Telling someone "don't work on things that make you rich - work to end world hunger" is just stupid. Overall, capitalism has done more to end world hunger (and solve all of the other SDGs) than the UN has accomplished in all of its history.
"A rising tide floats all boats". Living standards today are - worldwide - massively higher. Poverty has been massively reduced. And this is almost entirely due to capitalism, and the individual motivation that it provides: you get to keep the fruit of your labors. Sure, the results are uneven, but the countries lagging farthest behind are - on average - the ones that have done the most to squash capitalism, be it through corruption, or through tyranny.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @03:45PM (1 child)
"Capitalism" is but an euphemism for "selfishness".
It is a blind force which neither can be assigned any credit, nor blame.
It exists because it is intrinsic to us as sentient beings under command of our instincts and inner urges.
It produces world hunger and it could also decrease world hunger, it all just depends on "But what is in it for ... (me, you, him, her, ...) ?"
Whoever sits on the top of the global food chain could probably influence where other people's selfishness drives them to.
The point is, when you are firmly on top, you lose some of your fears, and your selfishness blunts a fair bit.
Some of those people may freely feel a little bit of compassion for the not so well off, without getting punished for that compassion.
So they give some. They motivate other selfish people to do things to help hungry and poor by giving to those selfish people something in exchange.
But you can't give credit for that to Capitalism (selfishness).
The way it helps is the longer road around.
It creates too few able helpers, even though their ability to help is somewhat enhanced from ordinary.
The rest down bellow them are still afraid that their luck may run out eventually, so they stick to selfishness.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:51PM
The obvious rebuttal is no, it's not. Let's head over to the dictionary for the actual definition [oxforddictionaries.com] of capitalism.
"Selfishness" is a emotion or state of mind. Capitalism is a economic and political system - very different things right there. As a system - no matter how blind, capitalism thus has functionality which we can evaluate to see how well or poorly it is doing. Here, a key thing is being ignored. Selfishness exists in all economic and political systems, not just in capitalism. Capitalism just handles it better.
A great example of this is in the pathologies of the Communism ideology. Selfishness and other deviations from the Communist moral ideals are dealt with poorly as "counterrevolutionary" behavior and thought via ostracization, imprisonment, and worse. This devolves into deeply hypocritical behavior when the people making the decisions on who is a counterrevolutionary are the selfish ones.
Capitalism turns this vice of selfishness into a neutral emotion about which the system doesn't have to care. It's a superior approach both from a moral and economic efficiency point of view.
But there's no point to criticizing capitalism, if you don't understand it and don't have any suggestions for improving it. For example, this complaint of "selfishness" is a classic display of ignorance. You then double down with a complaint about hierarchical class structure - which is present in all real world economic and political systems ("sits on the top of the global food chain").
What is the shorter road?
The key missing part here is that the rest down below feed themselves. That's what makes capitalism the best approach for today. It's feeding a lot more people than a system that has the necessary levels of feelgood, but higher population growth and an inability to properly feed its citizens due to a less adequate food distribution system.