3 ms·

Call it greed if you want, but this is just the emergent result of the economic system we have in our society. Corporations are optimization algorithms to maxi

Call it greed if you want, but this is just the emergent result of the economic system we have in our society. Corporations are optimization algorithms to maximize revenue. Not because they have to, but because its comprised of rational individuals who are incentivized to maximize their own revenue. The natural result is an ever-growing entity, adaptive to dangers and emergently intelligent. It's possible to run a corporation differently but it actively takes energy to resist the natural gravity of every individual's interests.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
This does not seem too dissimilar to a country or tribe’s leader promising their constituents a better life in the future. And I cannot imagine a country/tribe selecting a leader that does not promise progress and growth over one that does.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  I'd far rather live in a country where the rulers choose not to start wars for territory, especially if we were the richest country in the World. I'd have guessed that would be common. Indeed as one of the richest countries, with global climate change, the responsibility is to lower consumption (which many would see as reduce the standard of living). But maybe the analogy doesn't stretch that far.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >I'd far rather live in a country where the rulers choose not to start wars for territory, especially if we were the richest country in the World. I'd have guessed that would be common. If it was common, then they would not have gotten to be the richest country in the world in the first place. The same game plays out over and over in nature where the one that fights for resources gets more of it, and while they can choose to stop fighting for it, in the long run they will not be the survivors. Cooperation works best if the goal is maximizing the average return over all participants in the game, but inevitably, tribes will split off and start prioritizing their own populations over others. On a global, national, and even familial scale.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

This does not seem too dissimilar to a country or tribe’s leader promising their constituents a better life in the future. And I cannot imagine a country/tribe selecting a leader that does not promise progress and growth over one that does.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
I'd far rather live in a country where the rulers choose not to start wars for territory, especially if we were the richest country in the World. I'd have guessed that would be common. Indeed as one of the richest countries, with global climate change, the responsibility is to lower consumption (which many would see as reduce the standard of living). But maybe the analogy doesn't stretch that far.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >I'd far rather live in a country where the rulers choose not to start wars for territory, especially if we were the richest country in the World. I'd have guessed that would be common. If it was common, then they would not have gotten to be the richest country in the world in the first place. The same game plays out over and over in nature where the one that fights for resources gets more of it, and while they can choose to stop fighting for it, in the long run they will not be the survivors. Cooperation works best if the goal is maximizing the average return over all participants in the game, but inevitably, tribes will split off and start prioritizing their own populations over others. On a global, national, and even familial scale.