Hacker News Reader

Comment by aristofun | Hacker News Reader

Every real and legally existing company makes the world better than without it.

Even if only by providing income for employees and paying taxes.

But most companies also take part in producing or redistributing something valuable.

And yes, to make an omelet you need to break some eggs.

Show me a living person (let alone a company) who doesn't produce any waste and who never does any evil - and yet here we are, still evolving, still growing economy, still improving the quality of life all over the world.

Despite all the problems, crisises, setbacks etc.

That is as objective as you can possibly get in such a generic discussion.

What’s the point of the question?

View on HN

Here's a list of the Top 20 Global Polluters:

https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/new...

I don't know how much they're making the world better (cranks up the AC).

And here's an article about (slurps coca-cola) the biggest plastic polluters, who in 2021 were named as such four years running.

https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2021/10/25/the-coca-col...

I guess they're “distributing” something, but I don't think it's really that valuable. I guess it means some folks can pay their rent, so that makes it morally and ethically okay!

If you make generic judgement about better/worse — you can't take only one of many sides of the story.

Every human being produces a lot of waste - natural and synthetic.

Does it make every human being morally and ethically bad?

I follow the same logic that you implied in your comment.

If you're going to solve for example plastic problem — would you need money and other resources for it? Where those money gonna come from if not from the biggest taxpayers?

Shutting down plastic producing companies is not a solution because — you solve plastic (and maybe few more) problem, but you A. reduce the quality of life B. yes, increase unemployment C. reduce wealth and money that could be invested in solving more problems than originally created.

Therefore it is extremely stupid to call a company generally "bad" just based on some environment related variable and ignoring thousands of others.

Don't you see how complex and fragile this good/evil balance is?

A wild and mostly poor take. I understand the guidelines requiring more substantive posts, but I believe the overwhelming examples of detrimental companies are self evident.

Sorry, nope.

Something so vague as “making world better/worse” can be “self evident“ only for ignorant and arrogant, or brainwashed people.

Anyway, give us please couple examples of detremential companies and also a source of authority to judge “objectively”, to have a meaningful debate.

I think part of the complication is that perhaps different people have different definitions for "better". For example, I posted about an organization that is working to eradicate a hideous disease that harms poor people in developing parts of the world and it was downvoted. (It’s ok, I take no offense) Perhaps it is easier to agree that any company that helps make you wealthier is helping to make the world "better"?

Increasing wealth in general (!) is always better for the world even if only because it makes more humanitarian missions possible (you need money to help others).

Not every company increases wealth though. Selling addictive poison (cigarettes) for example does not increase wealth.

It does increase wealth for shareholders. This is why there is so much capital allocated for opioids as well as other extralegal pharmaceuticals.

I thought we were discussing total wealth and not wealth for some portion of the population, at the cost of somebody else's wealth (computed holistically, not just money but also health and overall wellbeing). By this logic, stealing increases wealth of the thief.

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.

Except directly stealing - wealth is created.

For example — even if all the profits from oil on earth goes to few pockets it is still benefitial for the world.

Because those pockets still gonna spend those money one way or another and contribute to economy growth eventually.

This is how Russia was flourishing on 2000s - oil profits mostly wen to putin's gang, but ordinary people quality of life still grew substantially.

I agree this is a good example.

Another one is weapons selling companies.

But even then a strong case can be made that without those companies people would still satisfy the demand via black market causing same harm bit without money benefits to society.

So still it is better with companies than without.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com