nickpp

> They want to maximize their paychecks and bonuses in the short term before they leave to other companies.

You could say that about pretty much any employee - and you'd be completely wrong. What makes you right in the case of CEOs and boards?

> this time its actually different

The older I get the more time I heard this. Never actually true. But always used by somebody asking for power, to protect me - of course.

Greg Egan's Diaspora is one of the best explorations I know for the fates of various humanity factions in the age following a technological singularity.

Last time I checked building companies that offer goods and services was considered good for society.

I actually lived in a society where this was illegal and we were all starving and freezing.

You can say all that about pretty much any technological advancement, like the computer itself. Heck, people said it about the invention of writing or the printing press!

However, looking back, each single invention was a net positive for us as a species.

What exactly do you think should be the motivator for people working in healthcare then? For companies creating healthcare products and services? For investors pouring money into health care research? The goodness of their hearts?

Most people's definition of rich is "one dollar more than I have". Just look at laptop class's hate on the 1 percenters - which actually includes them.

> Almost the entire planet where this debate is raging, is the part of the planet where people have full bellies.

Exactly. And most of the pollution happens in the other part.

We’re crippling our economies and render our companies uncompetitive to merely export environmental effects around, while pushing our voter base to the extremes.

All for naught too, because when the orc armies come (attracted by our weakness to even defend ourselves) they will do the the environment what they did in Ukraine…

> If you want good markets you need good regulation and incentive structuring.

Actually, in the real world, the worst markets are also the strongest regulated: housing, education and health care.

Meanwhile the fields that got to be regulated last brought us the most wealth, advances and innovation: high tech & software.

> all workers around the world want the exact same thing, a livable planet for their children

Actually, they don't. First of all they want livable conditions for themselves. Ecologism is a hobby for people with full bellies.

I remember during communism which failed to even feed and clothe us - but The Party kept telling us that we were actually winning and we were so morally superior to those "corrupt capitalists". This is what happens when ideological justifications replace rational thought.

> regulation [...] is not free

> that amount can't be zero because

Sounds like you're agreeing with my point.

> I would fund a DRAM maker in Europe.

I wouldn't. I can think of at least 10 regulations (labor and environmental chef amongst them) that would render such a maker uncompetitive from the start. Chinese makers would eat its lunch.

Maybe you should get that list from the European AI products that came from those awesome EU regulations.

Great example. An highly regulated field (aerospace) put so many barriers of entry for startups and competition that the incumbents simple have to reason to innovate or even compete anymore.

I heard there used to be dozens of plane-building companies when the field was unregulated, with new, more efficient models and lower prices appearing regularly. I wonder what happened.

And it bears repeating: regulation (even well meaning regulation) is not free and it always favors incumbents and hinders startups.