Unlike fascists, I actually love the extroverts when they love me. I'm not declaring war on the extroverts who actually care about people.
If a salesman wants to sell me something which helps me, I'll consider the salesman to be a good salesman, but if the salesman tries to sell me something which hurts me, then my previous comments are correct.
Thats something I'd shy away from, I like to hang out with one friend at a time, and keep my friendships seperate. The one thing I'd never do is bring a complete strange into the mix.
I'm an extrovert who learned to be an introvert after I learned that I don't enjoy being social and was only doing it to be accepted, feel normal, or seem like I had more friends than I actually had. Most people grow out of that in highschool but some people want to be accepted and feel normal all their lives. This is why theres people with eating disorders.
Tell me, how does domestic surveillance help a corporation? It doesn't because it requires that multi-national corporations open their operations to government agencies.
This should be self evident by now. It should be common knowledge by now that if corporations control government, corporations (The big ones) want to have the ability to spy on the small competition and new businesses.
Find me one corporate officer who likes the idea of having the government spying on its operations.
Google? I don't know, but the fact is, the government and corporations share information for their own mutual benefit. If you actually think that any corporation cares about your privacy, or any government agency cares about your privacy, you are wrong.
No, the only way to survive is to BECOME a corporation.
Exactly. You have to own a corporation. Becoming a corporation is difficult.
Yeah, I've got ya: "This has been the bash America show."
Thank you for your insights.
No ones bashing America. We are simply discussing the new rules of the game. Bashing America would be bashing the game itself. So unless you are rich, own a corporation, or you have become a corporation like you say, are you really in a position to claim I'm bashing America?
I'm just interested in honest debate. Now please explain how someone can become a corporation? if becoming a corporation is the way to survive?
This means, extroverts can't keep a secret, can't do something without telling the world about it, and like to gossip.
Gossiping is not something an introvert would ever do because whats the point? There is no logic behind gossip. So think of it this way, introverts are good planners, strategic thinkers, and this is good for certain fields and tasks. Extroverts are good salesmen, good with words, perhaps better with expression.
The problem is, expression without reason is art. Extroverts would make a good artist, but would you really want an extrovert to be handling strategy or any of the planning? All your plans would be gossip and sooner or later all your ideas and plans will be stolen.
So yes, its a catch 22, extroverts are great at marketing, but bad at planning. If you are running a business, it takes more than just marketing, because you cannot even get a patent or use your idea if your extrovert partner tells everyone the idea before you can patent it or actually build a business around it.
The planners therefore have to be introverts. The salesmen have to be extroverts, there can be exceptions for fields such as law in which you'd want to be capable of both.
I'd say that extroverts trust more than introverts.
Introverts quickly learn they will never be accepted, and cannot trust the common individual.
Also, its not like someone who is an introvert cannot fake being an extrovert. Thats the difference. Any introvert can decide to pretend to be social. All you have to do is learn the body language and words which initiate certain patterns, conversations, etc.
Ultimately, if you want to be an extrovert yet be an introvert, talk to people when you have a reason to.
Extroverts simply like attention, like to talk, like to be heard, and would rather believe everyone cares than admit that they dont.
Think of it this way, why would anyone care who you hooked up with? and how exactly is this information good to put out there? I wont say introverts are smarter, but introverts are at least more cautious when it comes to the information they put out and the trust they put into individuals. It should be obvious.
Some people are built to be extroverts, figure out that it doesnt work, and decide to be introvert. Being an extrovert is nice if you like drama. If you like dramatic emotional situations, extrovert is for you.
If you want to be emotionally stable, introvert is for you. However, the way around it is to simply change your way of thinking, an extrovert can become an introvert and an introvert can become an extrovert. An introvert can become an extrovert simply by faking it.
The difference is the extrovert most likely believes in the illusion that they have a lot of friends while the introvert knows its an illusion and sees beyond it. Yes most people are fake, yes most of us will never know each other on a real life, but the introverts focus in on what they want or need from the specific individual while the extrovert just wants someone to listen to them.
As an introverted-extrovert, while it would be nice in the perfect world, to be social and be real with people, if no ones real its kinda pointless if not painful to try to be real around your fake friends.
Introverted or not, its better to have a few real friends than a dozen fake friends, and the only way to learn the truth of these words is to actually experience the results of surrounding yourself with fake people.
The main reason people decide on the introvert approach is because people don't actually care. If people actually cared then introverts would have a reason to be more outgoing. Think of it that way.
One key difference among introverts, introverts know you don't really care and stay in their own world. An Extroverts world and entire reality only exists if people in that reality allow for it.
View it like this, if you are an introvert because you don't want an overly dramatic, painful, insane life, and want actual control over your life, thats just the logical way to have control.
If you are an extrovert, you care what other people think of you, you care about others more than others care about you, and I'm not saying its wrong to care about others, but extroverts simply get attached to everyone, or no one, while introverts are very selective with whom they attach to and connect with.
It's just different strategies, if a person can put up with the pain of being an extrovert, then theres nothing wrong with it, but for others being an extrovert is impossible or difficult unless its in a very artificial way. The artificial way of being an extrovert is to pretend to care, pretend to listen to people, pretend to trust people, and pretend to be social. Example, being social at work or at school because you are supposed to, not because you actually like to or need to, this is how an introvert views.
An extrovert HAS to be social or they go insane with bordem. An extrovert HAS to feel loved or they get depressed. An extrovert MUST feel accepted, MUST feel normal, and so on and so forth.
introverts want to simply stay in their own world and enjoy their time here, and are much more time conscious in that they know its a complete waste of time to play social mind games with people.
Yes they are reading it, but how do they know which among us actually means what we say?
Even if freedom of speech is gone, anyone can interpret any speech as positive or negative, it all depends on how those in power want to view it at that moment.
It's not like the government governs itself and is a seperate entity. The government cannot function without businesses, big powerful businesses. $1 = 1 vote? or should it be 1 business = 1 vote?
If all the small business owners in the country could vote and people who don't run businesses cannot vote, then the owners would most likely vote for a much fairer, free market economy. If all the business owners could vote, there would be no more monopolys like Microsoft. The RIAA would most likely be given an equal share but not all the money and power and we'd actually have more of a competitive economy. Right now I don't know, the government says we are at war, but wont say what we are at war with. A war on "terror" is like a war on "fear" or a war on "scary", it does not really make much sense and its not precise. All of this deception just makes people not trust the government at all anymore, and while some people might still fear the terrorists, even more people fear a government that keeps getting bigger, that no one, not even the politicians involved can trust.
If the politicians don't trust the government, if the courts, the department of justice, the CIA, and the richest men in the world don't trust the government, it leaves the citizens in a complete state of confusion. If citizens cannot trust the government, it makes a war very difficult if not impossible.
So right now it seems like it everyone for themselves, in that people are just trying to secure their own futures and financial situations, if you have money, go ahead and buy your stocks, if you run a business, prepare your business for every possibility, and most importantly, figure out how to actually profit from the instability, otherwise if we face another depression, there will not be an FDR to bail you out.
These are your rulers, the people you selected, and the system you chose. It's not as if you are defending your privacy, so you must not want it.
Look, if you want a solution, its the market. The free market, the private corporations, these entities run our society, but until recently, we had the ability to decide where to shop.
This will change soon, because once all the corporations have dirt on us all, they'll be able to force us to pay them to keep it quiet. If you want to do something positive, start a business like Google, become profitable, earn billions of dollars, and then you'll actually matter in the political world. If you can't start a company like Google, then you'll have to work with these companies because lets face it, Google owns us, just as bankers, insurance companies, oil companies and Walmart own us. We are owned by corporations, and the only way to own yourself is to start a corporation.
If you want to own America Inc, you'll have to start a business if you want a vote, and I'm surprised that we havent changed voting laws so only business owners have the right to vote. Maybe this would actually be a good idea.
The difference is, Google has a caste system which values the workers on the grassroots level.
It's just a matter of which is the caste, in some systems, being a worker is the caste system, in other systems being the wrong race is a caste system, and in google, being a salesman is a caste.
Honestly its just word play, suddenly we are expected to abandon caste systems and go communist because the software developers are making too much money?
What makes you think that hackers arent experts
on
The Google Caste System
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How can you believe that hackers arent experts in social engineering? Theres a reason why hackers like Bill Gates and the Google founders get rich. It's because manipulating people is not something that only elite businessmen can do, anyone can do it with enough practice.
Also, what makes you think Google would hire manipulators or people who seem like a threat? And if they did don't you think they have security mechanisms in place? You make it seem as if its as simple as someone just walking in and hiijacking the company, its not easy to do a hostile take over of a corporation with an educated workforce.
Lets look at the politics here for a moment, if you dare try to mess with Google, and you ever looked up anything on their search engine such as porn and anything private, they'll have so much political dirt on you that they'll have all the information they need to shut you up, or blackmail you, your bosses, etc.
It's generally very difficult to hiijack data mining companies, because these companies know way more about the people who they hire than whats in the resume.
The US always had a caste system, as had India, the difference is in the situation with Google, it seems to actually be a meritocracy. I never thought I'd see a merit based corporate environment but Google may be one of the first.
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
Without artists you can't have culture, or designers for all the stuff you want but don't really need.
Face it, without artists then theres no one to handle the marketing of products, theres no one to make the movies, the music, the novels, the games and anything else which isnt essential but happens to be fun.
If we want fun in our society, we need artists, its just a matter of making the art industry competitive (open source?, p2p? creative commons?) Who knows, but I'm guessing art does matter to most people, how much? Perhaps not as much as law, or business, but on other levels of course.
Solar, Hydrogen fuel cell, wind power, water power, even gravity power, but in general, each method is workable in certain environments. It does make sense to grow certain things in the tropics, just like it makes sense to build certain parts in China, or to buy shares in America.
Energy is profitable in general for everyone if the industry is greatly expanded.
Why focus on biodiesel when theres hydrogen fuel cells?
Not to mention, the money isnt in production, its in laying the foundation. Just microfinance or buy stock in foreign companies. This way Americans profit along side the third world. I see it as a win win situation.
Maybe the fact that we haven't found any substantial evidence of aliens means that they're less advanced then we are.
This arguement makes no sense. If they are less advanced we'd discover them first, and if they are more advanced they already have discovered us.
Just like we can scan radio and certain ways, they may have even greater scanning abilities, for all we know they might be able to read our brainwaves and predict our behavior on a level which would make even an attempt to fight back futile. If the aliens can read your thoughts, well its already over, trying to use a slingshot isnt going to work if the alien knows more about the slingshot than you do.
Killing is naturally wrong, just like suicide is wrong. 1-1=0, thats the obvious math. Logically killing is wrong, logically, population reduction is wrong, logically we should be going into space about now, but the world is illogical. We do not do what is best for the species or for the individual, we just care about moment to moment interaction and day to day interactions with no real long distance view.
So if there is a universal moral code, its something which has to be in the best interest of humanity and of the individual. In the situation of child abuse, this isnt something that is universally wrong on the world stage, killing on the other hand is universally wrong and everyone understands this. Rape is universally wrong, certain things are universally wrong, and I don't think Google would want to assist in a direct way.
On the other hand, its impossible to have a company as big as Google and not assist bad people indirectly. If Google wants to do something, Google can put up an optional filter. I don't think its Googles job to do anything but provide a tool for good and bad people. However Google should follow a code of ethics for sure, every company should follow a code of ethics, and we need a global ethics standard. Maybe we need an open ethics standard modeled around open source, to allow people to collectively decide on an ethics standard and then request that Google follow it.
Ultimately, Google will follow a code of ethics because it makes good business sense as a technology company, to make safe technology which is sustainable, it does not make sense as a technology company to make technology which speeds up the destruction of the world, or which increases crime all over the world. People may do this, but I'm saying it doesnt make the world safer and better, and a less safe more dangerous world is always less profitable than a safe world. We could profit off virtual wars at this point through quake, starcraft, etc, theres no real need anymore to have real wars other than for resources and oil. This means the economic reasons, the logic, is swaying towards a sustainable economy.
I could be wrong, if I'm wrong, please correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not fact, thats speculation. The brain rewires itself throughout life, but how much and where, this is unknown.
Unlike fascists, I actually love the extroverts when they love me. I'm not declaring war on the extroverts who actually care about people.
If a salesman wants to sell me something which helps me, I'll consider the salesman to be a good salesman, but if the salesman tries to sell me something which hurts me, then my previous comments are correct.
You socialize in groups but you are an introvert?
Thats something I'd shy away from, I like to hang out with one friend at a time, and keep my friendships seperate. The one thing I'd never do is bring a complete strange into the mix.
I'm an extrovert who learned to be an introvert after I learned that I don't enjoy being social and was only doing it to be accepted, feel normal, or seem like I had more friends than I actually had. Most people grow out of that in highschool but some people want to be accepted and feel normal all their lives. This is why theres people with eating disorders.
Tell me, how does domestic surveillance help a corporation? It doesn't because it requires that multi-national corporations open their operations to government agencies.
This should be self evident by now. It should be common knowledge by now that if corporations control government, corporations (The big ones) want to have the ability to spy on the small competition and new businesses.
Find me one corporate officer who likes the idea of having the government spying on its operations.
Google? I don't know, but the fact is, the government and corporations share information for their own mutual benefit. If you actually think that any corporation cares about your privacy, or any government agency cares about your privacy, you are wrong.
No, the only way to survive is to BECOME a corporation.
Exactly. You have to own a corporation. Becoming a corporation is difficult.
Yeah, I've got ya: "This has been the bash America show."
Thank you for your insights.
No ones bashing America. We are simply discussing the new rules of the game. Bashing America would be bashing the game itself. So unless you are rich, own a corporation, or you have become a corporation like you say, are you really in a position to claim I'm bashing America?
I'm just interested in honest debate. Now please explain how someone can become a corporation? if becoming a corporation is the way to survive?
This means, extroverts can't keep a secret, can't do something without telling the world about it, and like to gossip.
Gossiping is not something an introvert would ever do because whats the point? There is no logic behind gossip. So think of it this way, introverts are good planners, strategic thinkers, and this is good for certain fields and tasks. Extroverts are good salesmen, good with words, perhaps better with expression.
The problem is, expression without reason is art. Extroverts would make a good artist, but would you really want an extrovert to be handling strategy or any of the planning? All your plans would be gossip and sooner or later all your ideas and plans will be stolen.
So yes, its a catch 22, extroverts are great at marketing, but bad at planning. If you are running a business, it takes more than just marketing, because you cannot even get a patent or use your idea if your extrovert partner tells everyone the idea before you can patent it or actually build a business around it.
The planners therefore have to be introverts. The salesmen have to be extroverts, there can be exceptions for fields such as law in which you'd want to be capable of both.
I'd say that extroverts trust more than introverts.
Introverts quickly learn they will never be accepted, and cannot trust the common individual.
Also, its not like someone who is an introvert cannot fake being an extrovert. Thats the difference. Any introvert can decide to pretend to be social. All you have to do is learn the body language and words which initiate certain patterns, conversations, etc.
Ultimately, if you want to be an extrovert yet be an introvert, talk to people when you have a reason to.
Extroverts simply like attention, like to talk, like to be heard, and would rather believe everyone cares than admit that they dont.
Think of it this way, why would anyone care who you hooked up with? and how exactly is this information good to put out there? I wont say introverts are smarter, but introverts are at least more cautious when it comes to the information they put out and the trust they put into individuals. It should be obvious.
Some people are built to be extroverts, figure out that it doesnt work, and decide to be introvert. Being an extrovert is nice if you like drama. If you like dramatic emotional situations, extrovert is for you.
If you want to be emotionally stable, introvert is for you. However, the way around it is to simply change your way of thinking, an extrovert can become an introvert and an introvert can become an extrovert. An introvert can become an extrovert simply by faking it.
The difference is the extrovert most likely believes in the illusion that they have a lot of friends while the introvert knows its an illusion and sees beyond it. Yes most people are fake, yes most of us will never know each other on a real life, but the introverts focus in on what they want or need from the specific individual while the extrovert just wants someone to listen to them.
As an introverted-extrovert, while it would be nice in the perfect world, to be social and be real with people, if no ones real its kinda pointless if not painful to try to be real around your fake friends.
Introverted or not, its better to have a few real friends than a dozen fake friends, and the only way to learn the truth of these words is to actually experience the results of surrounding yourself with fake people.
The main reason people decide on the introvert approach is because people don't actually care. If people actually cared then introverts would have a reason to be more outgoing. Think of it that way.
One key difference among introverts, introverts know you don't really care and stay in their own world. An Extroverts world and entire reality only exists if people in that reality allow for it.
View it like this, if you are an introvert because you don't want an overly dramatic, painful, insane life, and want actual control over your life, thats just the logical way to have control.
If you are an extrovert, you care what other people think of you, you care about others more than others care about you, and I'm not saying its wrong to care about others, but extroverts simply get attached to everyone, or no one, while introverts are very selective with whom they attach to and connect with.
It's just different strategies, if a person can put up with the pain of being an extrovert, then theres nothing wrong with it, but for others being an extrovert is impossible or difficult unless its in a very artificial way. The artificial way of being an extrovert is to pretend to care, pretend to listen to people, pretend to trust people, and pretend to be social. Example, being social at work or at school because you are supposed to, not because you actually like to or need to, this is how an introvert views.
An extrovert HAS to be social or they go insane with bordem. An extrovert HAS to feel loved or they get depressed. An extrovert MUST feel accepted, MUST feel normal, and so on and so forth.
introverts want to simply stay in their own world and enjoy their time here, and are much more time conscious in that they know its a complete waste of time to play social mind games with people.
Yes they are reading it, but how do they know which among us actually means what we say?
Even if freedom of speech is gone, anyone can interpret any speech as positive or negative, it all depends on how those in power want to view it at that moment.
Why exactly do we need government force? Corporations can simply hire their own force outside of government can't they?
It's not like the government governs itself and is a seperate entity. The government cannot function without businesses, big powerful businesses. $1 = 1 vote? or should it be 1 business = 1 vote?
If all the small business owners in the country could vote and people who don't run businesses cannot vote, then the owners would most likely vote for a much fairer, free market economy. If all the business owners could vote, there would be no more monopolys like Microsoft. The RIAA would most likely be given an equal share but not all the money and power and we'd actually have more of a competitive economy. Right now I don't know, the government says we are at war, but wont say what we are at war with. A war on "terror" is like a war on "fear" or a war on "scary", it does not really make much sense and its not precise.
All of this deception just makes people not trust the government at all anymore, and while some people might still fear the terrorists, even more people fear a government that keeps getting bigger, that no one, not even the politicians involved can trust.
If the politicians don't trust the government, if the courts, the department of justice, the CIA, and the richest men in the world don't trust the government, it leaves the citizens in a complete state of confusion. If citizens cannot trust the government, it makes a war very difficult if not impossible.
So right now it seems like it everyone for themselves, in that people are just trying to secure their own futures and financial situations, if you have money, go ahead and buy your stocks, if you run a business, prepare your business for every possibility, and most importantly, figure out how to actually profit from the instability, otherwise if we face another depression, there will not be an FDR to bail you out.
These are your rulers, the people you selected, and the system you chose. It's not as if you are defending your privacy, so you must not want it.
Look, if you want a solution, its the market. The free market, the private corporations, these entities run our society, but until recently, we had the ability to decide where to shop.
This will change soon, because once all the corporations have dirt on us all, they'll be able to force us to pay them to keep it quiet. If you want to do something positive, start a business like Google, become profitable, earn billions of dollars, and then you'll actually matter in the political world. If you can't start a company like Google, then you'll have to work with these companies because lets face it, Google owns us, just as bankers, insurance companies, oil companies and Walmart own us. We are owned by corporations, and the only way to own yourself is to start a corporation.
If you want to own America Inc, you'll have to start a business if you want a vote, and I'm surprised that we havent changed voting laws so only business owners have the right to vote. Maybe this would actually be a good idea.
Buy stock in Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado! Know what company he plans on starting, know where he works, and buy stock.
The difference is, Google has a caste system which values the workers on the grassroots level.
It's just a matter of which is the caste, in some systems, being a worker is the caste system, in other systems being the wrong race is a caste system, and in google, being a salesman is a caste.
Honestly its just word play, suddenly we are expected to abandon caste systems and go communist because the software developers are making too much money?
How can you believe that hackers arent experts in social engineering? Theres a reason why hackers like Bill Gates and the Google founders get rich. It's because manipulating people is not something that only elite businessmen can do, anyone can do it with enough practice.
Also, what makes you think Google would hire manipulators or people who seem like a threat? And if they did don't you think they have security mechanisms in place? You make it seem as if its as simple as someone just walking in and hiijacking the company, its not easy to do a hostile take over of a corporation with an educated workforce.
Lets look at the politics here for a moment, if you dare try to mess with Google, and you ever looked up anything on their search engine such as porn and anything private, they'll have so much political dirt on you that they'll have all the information they need to shut you up, or blackmail you, your bosses, etc.
It's generally very difficult to hiijack data mining companies, because these companies know way more about the people who they hire than whats in the resume.
The US always had a caste system, as had India, the difference is in the situation with Google, it seems to actually be a meritocracy. I never thought I'd see a merit based corporate environment but Google may be one of the first.
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
It all depends on the company, if the company wants to have the smartest and brightest engineers in control then thats who is in control.
A company like google the engineers and scientists have to be in control of it. It's beyond the scope of the typical exec.
Without artists you can't have culture, or designers for all the stuff you want but don't really need.
Face it, without artists then theres no one to handle the marketing of products, theres no one to make the movies, the music, the novels, the games and anything else which isnt essential but happens to be fun.
If we want fun in our society, we need artists, its just a matter of making the art industry competitive (open source?, p2p? creative commons?) Who knows, but I'm guessing art does matter to most people, how much? Perhaps not as much as law, or business, but on other levels of course.
Walmart is the largest employer.
Solar, Hydrogen fuel cell, wind power, water power, even gravity power, but in general, each method is workable in certain environments. It does make sense to grow certain things in the tropics, just like it makes sense to build certain parts in China, or to buy shares in America.
Energy is profitable in general for everyone if the industry is greatly expanded.
Why focus on biodiesel when theres hydrogen fuel cells?
Not to mention, the money isnt in production, its in laying the foundation. Just microfinance or buy stock in foreign companies. This way Americans profit along side the third world. I see it as a win win situation.
Maybe the fact that we haven't found any substantial evidence of aliens means that they're less advanced then we are.
This arguement makes no sense. If they are less advanced we'd discover them first, and if they are more advanced they already have discovered us.
Just like we can scan radio and certain ways, they may have even greater scanning abilities, for all we know they might be able to read our brainwaves and predict our behavior on a level which would make even an attempt to fight back futile. If the aliens can read your thoughts, well its already over, trying to use a slingshot isnt going to work if the alien knows more about the slingshot than you do.
Killing is naturally wrong, just like suicide is wrong. 1-1=0, thats the obvious math. Logically killing is wrong, logically, population reduction is wrong, logically we should be going into space about now, but the world is illogical. We do not do what is best for the species or for the individual, we just care about moment to moment interaction and day to day interactions with no real long distance view.
So if there is a universal moral code, its something which has to be in the best interest of humanity and of the individual. In the situation of child abuse, this isnt something that is universally wrong on the world stage, killing on the other hand is universally wrong and everyone understands this. Rape is universally wrong, certain things are universally wrong, and I don't think Google would want to assist in a direct way.
On the other hand, its impossible to have a company as big as Google and not assist bad people indirectly. If Google wants to do something, Google can put up an optional filter. I don't think its Googles job to do anything but provide a tool for good and bad people. However Google should follow a code of ethics for sure, every company should follow a code of ethics, and we need a global ethics standard. Maybe we need an open ethics standard modeled around open source, to allow people to collectively decide on an ethics standard and then request that Google follow it.
Ultimately, Google will follow a code of ethics because it makes good business sense as a technology company, to make safe technology which is sustainable, it does not make sense as a technology company to make technology which speeds up the destruction of the world, or which increases crime all over the world. People may do this, but I'm saying it doesnt make the world safer and better, and a less safe more dangerous world is always less profitable than a safe world. We could profit off virtual wars at this point through quake, starcraft, etc, theres no real need anymore to have real wars other than for resources and oil. This means the economic reasons, the logic, is swaying towards a sustainable economy.
I could be wrong, if I'm wrong, please correct me.