[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.