Main Page: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Main Page - new design/navigation}} | {{Main Page - new design/navigation}} | ||
<div id="home-content"> | <div id="home-content"> | ||
The [[ecological crisis]] demands a radical transformation of modern lifestyles, however we are all [[Cognitive dissonance|reluctant to change]]. Inducing, [[Pivotal Mental States]] can help on an individual level however it is our organisational systems which ultimately govern the fate of our biosphere. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however whilst | The [[ecological crisis]] demands a radical transformation of modern lifestyles, however we are all [[Cognitive dissonance|reluctant to change]]. Inducing, [[Pivotal Mental States]] can help on an individual level however it is our organisational systems which ultimately govern the fate of our biosphere. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however whilst many have good initial intentions their efficacy is often limited by their primary tenet of unfettered profit maximisation. This dynamic pits the maintenance of positive externalities against the generation of the more easily profitable negative externalities. The answer is to remove the profit incentive however, this, for various reasons leads top heavy, ineffective institutions. | ||
When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however a conundrum arose. If a machine is developed which has autonomy and was sufficiently enabled, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans? Without any protective laws a machine with the purpose of purely making money will destroy everything in its path to achieve its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, distinct ethical rules to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines: | When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however a conundrum arose. If a machine is developed which has autonomy and was sufficiently enabled, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans? Without any protective laws a machine with the purpose of purely making money will destroy everything in its path to achieve its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, distinct ethical rules to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines: | ||
Revision as of 12:17, 17 October 2022
Welcome to BurnZero.
An exploration to find new ways of thinking.
The ecological crisis demands a radical transformation of modern lifestyles, however we are all reluctant to change. Inducing, Pivotal Mental States can help on an individual level however it is our organisational systems which ultimately govern the fate of our biosphere. Corporations are rushing to solve the crisis, however whilst many have good initial intentions their efficacy is often limited by their primary tenet of unfettered profit maximisation. This dynamic pits the maintenance of positive externalities against the generation of the more easily profitable negative externalities. The answer is to remove the profit incentive however, this, for various reasons leads top heavy, ineffective institutions.
When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however a conundrum arose. If a machine is developed which has autonomy and was sufficiently enabled, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans? Without any protective laws a machine with the purpose of purely making money will destroy everything in its path to achieve its goal. As such, Asimov developed the Four laws of robotics, distinct ethical rules to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines:
- Zeroth Law - A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- First Law - A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
- Second Law - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- Third Law - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
So using these laws, if a corporation is a type of machine, profit maximisation cannot be the primary tenet. is Transparency, which many people might think is the WORST thing you can do in business, as profit is seen as the lifeblood and is often made behind closed doors. However, its Burnzero's argument that in a hyper liquid sector with low barriers to entry such as purely digital middleman services such as tickets sales, online education, and cloud services the only point of differentiation is within the moral relativism space.
This opportunity seems only available to ethically unencumbered newcomers[1], as can be seen with Stripe's Climate Service vs the more traditional services like Paypal, Humanitix vs Eventbrite or even in the success of companies like Patagonia. However, only a minority of companies in each sector are forging ahead, one elephant in the room remains, the authenticity of ethical claims. This has led to the establishment of an abundance of startups flooding the space to certify each other as supremely "green" or "ethical". The prime example of which is the "B Corporation" which relative to traditional businesses has done a world of good, however these types of governance systems mask a fundamental conflict of interest within the commercial third party governance space.
For instance, if a company pays a third party to certify itself as green, what if after the payment has been taken the third party fails to certify the company under the criteria? In a market with only one certifier (such as the government in the medical sector) the company has no choice but to fold. However in an open market, where there is little to no regulation and a bevvy of certifiers a negative feedback loop is generated where the lowest price with the lowest standards means the this type of regulation, ethically is ultimately doomed.
So where to go from here? Government eco/ethical certification would be great, but that isn't going to happen as meeting the Paris Agreement requirements will require a contraction in living standards GDP. i.e. any governmental democratic power is massively reliant on lots of non-eco/ethical activity (See most recently September 8, 2022: "UK to announce dozens of new North Sea oil and gas licences"). Self, third party and governmental regulation isn't going to solve this problem. So instead of putting a plaster on the symptoms, perhaps its the machines themselves that are in error? Perhaps a new, competitive machine can be designed that avoids these issues from inception?
The Transparent Company
The T-Corp is an experimental new type of company which intends to solves many of these issues by baking 100% transparency into the machine from the start. This is done in a number of ways:
Financially
All revenues are centrally received into a Stripe account, where they are held. The current balance and all previous transactional data is then openly published to a Decentralised Repository (burnzero.com). This gives the ethical assurance that retrospective falsification of records cannot occur as all changes are publically via its own automated Twitter account, Transparent122.
Strategically
Historically, many businesses have failed due to human error, whether this is simple miscommunication, embezzlement of funds, or general skullduggery. The Transparent Company mitigates this by only entering markets with low maintenance requirements increasing automation into a DSAO structure.
Current Progress
The primary investment in setting up the DSAO is complete and up and running (https://prepare.online/). The current rate-limiting step is the open source publication of The Transparent Company Incorporation Statement via GitHub and subsequent Australian ABN Incorporation. Once complete, this will lead to the creation of a bank account which will then lead to the Stripe account which will then lead to revenue generation which will fund the Proposal and Commission system which will help publicize this project.Start editing
The BurnZero is made by people like you! Be Bold and get started here!
Check out our mail list
Check out new education site
- ↑ Can Corporations Have (Moral) Responsibility Regarding Climate Change Mitigation? Journal of Ethics, Policy & Environment, Volume 20, 2017 - Issue 3. Pages 314-332. First published online: 18th October 2017, accessed online on 4th October 2022 via https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2017.1374015