Main Page: Difference between revisions

Line 7:

<hr />

It's [[Ecological Crisis is difficult to see|difficult to see]], but [[we]] are amid the greatest [[Ecological crisis|crisis]] ever seen in the history of humanity, our planet is dying. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, their efficacy is limited by their primary need for profit maximisation. This results in corporate [[greenwashing]], unfettered profit maximisation encoded into their founding incorporation statements creates a [[Fiduciary Duty|fiduciary duty]]. This pits easily obtainable negative [[Externalities|externality]] generating profit against the creation and maintenance of positive externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]], competitive marketplace such as the internet there is a rapid race to the bottom. A common proposed remedy is to remove the profit incentive and form a [[Not For Profit]] (NFP) however, this, for [[Why NFPs Dont Work|various reasons]] generates top-heavy often extremely ineffective institutions. ''This then begs the question, is there a way to design a new, efficient, [[Machines|machine]] which does [[Relativity of ethics|good]] for us all?''

It's [[Ecological Crisis is difficult to see|difficult to see]], but [[we]] are amid the greatest [[Ecological crisis|crisis]] ever seen in the history of humanity, our planet is dying. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, their efficacy is limited by their primary need for profit maximisation. This results in corporate [[greenwashing]], unfettered profit maximisation encoded into their founding incorporation statements creates a [[Fiduciary Duty|fiduciary duty]]. This pits easily obtainable negative [[Externalities|externality]] generating profit against the creation and maintenance of positive externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]], competitive marketplace such as the internet, there is a rapid race to the bottom. A common proposed remedy is to remove the profit incentive and form a [[Not For Profit]] (NFP) however, this, for [[Why NFPs Dont Work|various reasons]] generates top-heavy often extremely ineffective institutions. ''This then begs the question, is there a way to design a new, efficient, [[Machines|machine]] which does [[Relativity of ethics|good]] for us all?''

When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however, a conundrum quickly 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 ~~achieving~~ its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled 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 quickly 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, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled 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.

Line 18:

''So, if corporations are types of [[machines]] approaching [[Autonomous Organisations|autonomy]] with the aid of new technology, could these laws be adopted to ensure any new machine only does good?''

As of yet, full autonomy does not exist, any business ~~therefore~~ must adopt at least one human to at least turn the machine off and on again if it fails. However, humans themselves make errors, therefore from a design sense from the outset, the weakest necessary part needs not to be ignored but dealt with first. [[Transparency]], which many profit maximisers 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, Burnzero's argument is that in a hyper-liquid sector with low barriers to entry such as purely digital middleman services such as ticket sales, online education, and cloud services, increasingly the only point of differentiation is within the eco/ethical space.

As of yet, full autonomy does not exist, any business must adopt at least one human to blame or at least turn the machine off and on again if it fails. However, humans themselves make errors, therefore from a design sense from the outset, the weakest necessary part needs not to be ignored but dealt with first. [[Transparency]], which many profit maximisers 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, Burnzero's argument is that in a hyper-liquid sector with low barriers to entry such as purely digital middleman services such as ticket sales, online education, and cloud services, increasingly the only point of differentiation is within the eco/ethical space.

This opportunity seems only available to ethically unencumbered newcomers<ref>'''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: 18<sup>th</sup> October 2017, accessed online on 4<sup>th</sup> October 2022 via https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2017.1374015</ref>, as can be seen with [https://stripe.com/gb/climate Stripe's Climate Service] vs the more traditional services like Paypal, [https://www.humanitix.com/impact Humanitix] vs [https://www.eventbrite.com/ Eventbrite] or even in the success of companies like [https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/ 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 this is the "[https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/ 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.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <hr />
-It's [[Ecological Crisis is difficult to see|difficult to see]], but [[we]] are amid the greatest [[Ecological crisis|crisis]] ever seen in the history of humanity, our planet is dying. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, their efficacy is limited by their primary need for profit maximisation. This results in corporate [[greenwashing]], unfettered profit maximisation encoded into their founding incorporation statements creates a [[Fiduciary Duty|fiduciary duty]]. This pits easily obtainable negative [[Externalities|externality]] generating profit against the creation and maintenance of positive externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]], competitive marketplace such as the internet there is a rapid race to the  bottom. A common proposed remedy is to remove the profit incentive and form a [[Not For Profit]] (NFP) however, this, for [[Why NFPs Dont Work|various reasons]] generates top-heavy often extremely ineffective institutions. ''This then begs the question, is there a way to design a new, efficient, [[Machines|machine]] which does [[Relativity of ethics|good]] for us all?''
+It's [[Ecological Crisis is difficult to see|difficult to see]], but [[we]] are amid the greatest [[Ecological crisis|crisis]] ever seen in the history of humanity, our planet is dying. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, their efficacy is limited by their primary need for profit maximisation. This results in corporate [[greenwashing]], unfettered profit maximisation encoded into their founding incorporation statements creates a [[Fiduciary Duty|fiduciary duty]]. This pits easily obtainable negative [[Externalities|externality]] generating profit against the creation and maintenance of positive externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]], competitive marketplace such as the internet, there is a rapid race to the  bottom. A common proposed remedy is to remove the profit incentive and form a [[Not For Profit]] (NFP) however, this, for [[Why NFPs Dont Work|various reasons]] generates top-heavy often extremely ineffective institutions. ''This then begs the question, is there a way to design a new, efficient, [[Machines|machine]] which does [[Relativity of ethics|good]] for us all?''
-When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however, a conundrum quickly 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 achieving its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled 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 quickly 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, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled 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.
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ''So, if corporations are types of [[machines]] approaching [[Autonomous Organisations|autonomy]] with the aid of new technology, could these laws be adopted to ensure any new machine only does good?''
-As of yet, full autonomy does not exist, any business therefore must adopt at least one human to at least turn the machine off and on again if it fails. However, humans themselves make errors, therefore from a design sense from the outset, the weakest necessary part needs not to be ignored but dealt with first. [[Transparency]], which many profit maximisers 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, Burnzero's argument is that in a hyper-liquid sector with low barriers to entry such as purely digital middleman services such as ticket sales, online education, and cloud services, increasingly the only point of differentiation is within the eco/ethical space.
+As of yet, full autonomy does not exist, any business must adopt at least one human to blame or at least turn the machine off and on again if it fails. However, humans themselves make errors, therefore from a design sense from the outset, the weakest necessary part needs not to be ignored but dealt with first. [[Transparency]], which many profit maximisers 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, Burnzero's argument is that in a hyper-liquid sector with low barriers to entry such as purely digital middleman services such as ticket sales, online education, and cloud services, increasingly the only point of differentiation is within the eco/ethical space.
 This opportunity seems only available to ethically unencumbered newcomers<ref>'''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: 18<sup>th</sup> October 2017, accessed online on 4<sup>th</sup> October 2022 via https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21550085.2017.1374015</ref>, as can be seen with [https://stripe.com/gb/climate Stripe's Climate Service] vs the more traditional services like Paypal, [https://www.humanitix.com/impact Humanitix] vs [https://www.eventbrite.com/ Eventbrite] or even in the success of companies like [https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/ 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 this is the "[https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/ 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.

Share your opinion