[talideon]

> I don't see how the things he discusses have to do with empathy in Silicon Valley. Driverless trucks, for instance, have nothing to do with empathy and a lot to do with simple economics. Someone is going to build them if they can make a buck doing it, and empathy isn't going to somehow stop that.

But whether or not you consider what happens to the people who used to drive those trucks and what they, their families, and their communities are going to do when they no longer have work has everything to do with empathy.

[robbrown451]

Ok, tell me what good it is going to do to consider those things. Are you suggesting that if we all collectively decide that building such things hurts people, no one will build them? And that such an idea is remotely realistic?

[talideon]

> Ok, tell me what good it is going to do to consider those things.

Well, assuming you're American, you can look at the decline of Detroit to see what happens when you don't think of these things. Or Wales and the North of England, if you're from the UK.

> Are you suggesting that if we all collectively decide that building such things hurts people, no one will build them?

No, I'm suggesting that we consider the implications of what we're creating and try to ensure that, even as we build them, we ensure that we don't damage whole swathes of society in doing so. But that's just me, and it might just be that I'm a bleeding heart. All progress comes with its benefits and its downsides, and if you think rendering people unemployed without giving them an alternative means of supporting themselves is OK and/or shouldn't be part of the calculus of how progress is made, then that's your decision.

[mercer]

Another option would be to commit to setting aside some of the profits for a fund of some kind to address the externalities in whichever way seems most effective at reducing the negative effects. I'm not saying I expect a company to do this, but why can it not be considered an option?

[rescripting]

Because in a competitive marketplace the company that doesn't do that has an edge over one that does.

I don't think it's Silicon Valley that lacks empathy, I think it's the system that rewards profits and growth over anything else...

[mercer]

We're still humans within this system, and there are a number of examples of companies that do things differently and stay in business.

To be clear, I agree with what you're saying as an observation of how things work much of the time. I also don't think Silicon Valley is any better or worse than the rest of the 'system' (honestly I don't know).

But generally speaking I'm inclined to believe that 'this is just how things are' is one of the main reason why things don't change. Things don't have to be the way they are and it takes individuals working within (as well as outside) the systems that are in place to change this.