I also find it interesting from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. Reciprocal altruism and other psychological and moral traits evolved to support cooperation between humans. Why do we make laws that empower organizations (corporations) that behave like sociopaths? As society becomes more complex and large organziations more powerful, shouldnt we learn from biological evolution how to make organziation cooperative rather than sociopathic?
Btw, an interesting popular science book about evolutionary psychology is the "Moral Animal" by Robert Wright (who also writes an interesting substack on foreign politics).
You need a certain amount of sociopaths in business in order to take the risks, so that the business can stay afloat. "Snakes in Suits" is a really great book about this. It also explains why this is an important "trait" to have for entrepreneurs.
I agree, but the problem is that our current laws favour sociopathic organizations over cooperative ones. Our system is totally out of balance, in my view. The evolutionary point of view suggests that we should make sure that sociopathic organizations remain the exception.
Capitalism has no room for diversity or inclusion, honestly. There's no room for sickness or disability, because that's money that the corporation isn't making from your work, if you're not working 40 hour weeks like the rest of your working peers. This needs to change. Why am I defined not as a person, but as how much I can contribute to someone else's money pile in society?
I agree with your sentiment. But in my own thinking I try to steer away from the old capitalism vs socialism debate. Not least due to the information revolution which continues to accelerate (AI, etc) society is changing so quickly that we need to find new ways coping with the new realities. So, yes, "this needs to change", but how?
Another book I found insightful is "The Human Network" by Matthew Jackson. He is a Stanford economist who moves away from mainstream economics by putting networks in the center of his studies. I am not sure whether economists would agree with me on this, but I see that as a potential revolution that could be able to upend the stranglehold that mainstream economics has on current politics.
It infuriates me that corporations that are souless bastions of greed, have personhood.
I also find it interesting from the point of view of evolutionary psychology. Reciprocal altruism and other psychological and moral traits evolved to support cooperation between humans. Why do we make laws that empower organizations (corporations) that behave like sociopaths? As society becomes more complex and large organziations more powerful, shouldnt we learn from biological evolution how to make organziation cooperative rather than sociopathic?
Btw, an interesting popular science book about evolutionary psychology is the "Moral Animal" by Robert Wright (who also writes an interesting substack on foreign politics).
You need a certain amount of sociopaths in business in order to take the risks, so that the business can stay afloat. "Snakes in Suits" is a really great book about this. It also explains why this is an important "trait" to have for entrepreneurs.
I agree, but the problem is that our current laws favour sociopathic organizations over cooperative ones. Our system is totally out of balance, in my view. The evolutionary point of view suggests that we should make sure that sociopathic organizations remain the exception.
Capitalism has no room for diversity or inclusion, honestly. There's no room for sickness or disability, because that's money that the corporation isn't making from your work, if you're not working 40 hour weeks like the rest of your working peers. This needs to change. Why am I defined not as a person, but as how much I can contribute to someone else's money pile in society?
I agree with your sentiment. But in my own thinking I try to steer away from the old capitalism vs socialism debate. Not least due to the information revolution which continues to accelerate (AI, etc) society is changing so quickly that we need to find new ways coping with the new realities. So, yes, "this needs to change", but how?
Another book I found insightful is "The Human Network" by Matthew Jackson. He is a Stanford economist who moves away from mainstream economics by putting networks in the center of his studies. I am not sure whether economists would agree with me on this, but I see that as a potential revolution that could be able to upend the stranglehold that mainstream economics has on current politics.
"Corporations are people, my friend"--the Republican senator beloved by Democrats
Apparently, they also have values, also like people. *makes disgusted face*