Genuinely curious.
Have you given any thought to the long term consequences of the zero sum game in a society where rapid technological innovation is making it increasingly easy for a single individual to say, release an already developed bioweapon, to end the species?
I'd really like to believe this.
Thus far, I've seen the same kind of ruthless self-interest in startups as well.
If you know of anywhere this is NOT the case, please share as I would love to work in an environment of people with good character who are genuinely seeking to do good. This is more important to me than money.
If you really think about it, in a zero-sum game, those who are born with an inability to experience affective empathy have a competitive advantage.
Over time, they will outbreed those who are constrained by conscience.
What happens when an ecosystem accumulates too many predators?
The ecosystem destabilizes.
Does this not explain the present state of the world?
if "Humans are known to compromise their ethics for relatively small amounts of money", how does transferring the ability to choose how money is spent from "humans who have money" to "humans who do not" solve the ethics problem?
I'm not sure why people prefer to cling to tribal preferences rather than actually resolve disputes in a mutually agreeable fashion.
Surely there is a way for everyone's needs to be met with creative solutions?
If this were purely a battle for economic gain, as many in Silicon Valley are inclined to believe, then you are certainly correct that the CCP has more staying power.
But, with respect, I think you vastly underestimate the human desire for freedom from tyranny.
This ends when the Chinese overthrow the CCP and China takes its rightful place amongst the democratic nations.
All companies in China are required to do whatever the CCP tells them to do.
If you have more than 100 employees, you must have a member of the CCP to provide oversight.
Zhang Zhiming, the CEO of Byte Dance publicly grovels to the CCP. Here is his public statement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZa0FGThXak&t=5m4s
You might be too young to know this.
But there was a time, not long ago, when bringing politics into the workplace was considered to be a really bad idea because it divides and thus weakens the team and hinders our ability to work together to achieve the common mission of contribution that we presumably all signed up for.
This healthy culture has been largely destroyed by a toxic culture of conflict coming from the indoctrination camps that we used to call universities.
I’m uncertain why we allowed this to happen but I know for sure that most people were happier when we were united as one team seeking to use our creative energy to contribute rather than looking for enemies to attack and destroy.
I suspect that many genuinely kind hearted people think they are doing the right thing by silencing the speech of those whom they find repulsive but have never stopped to ask themselves “Why are the oligarchs on my side?”
Project Dragonfly is alive and well and unfolding before our very eyes.
This is how democracy dies.
Good idea. Psychopaths are apparently 1% of the population. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) apparently have very a different brain anomaly. It might be necessary to have separate tests for each: https://bit.ly/2zMPGqB
It’s a fair point and a genuinely real phenomenon.
However, in my experience, people with low PCL-R scores who make bad decisions when in emotional states are likely to change their position when they realize they have inadvertently harmed the innocent.
Genuine psychopaths, on the other hand, are incurable predators.
It’s a fair point and a genuine real phenomenon.
However, in my experience, people with low PCR-L scores who make bad decisions when in emotional states are likely to change their position when they realize they have inadvertently harmed the innocent.
Genuine psychopaths, on the other hand, are incurable predators.
If Jeffrey Epstein had preyed upon the children of the coastal elites instead of the children of the poor, I suspect that the subject would be less “tricky”.