[rudyfink]

To be clear, I was not suggesting the intent was harm for harm's sake. I was suggesting that it was in the company's/businesses' interest to harm. I agree that, often, that interest is framed as making profit, but it can also be framed as reducing cost, not having to care, etc.

The bigger point is that such an incentive exists and that it is further incentivized if the individuals who are harmed are deprived of a mechanism to resist.

[robertlagrant]

> framed as making profit, but it can also be framed as reducing cost

Reducing cost does increase profit. Profit is (basically) revenue minus cost.

> The bigger point is that such an incentive exists and that it is further incentivized if the individuals who are harmed are deprived of a mechanism to resist.

Of course. Russia is invading Ukraine right now, as causing harm can benefit you, if you don't care about harm. This isn't a business thing; it's a people thing.

It's just that the blast radius of a business's harm is much smaller than a state's, and it's possible to shape rules so that profit incentives line up (even better) with harm minimisation. There's no harm minimisation you can do when a power-hungry person gets into a political position.

[Zigurd]

Future archaeologists will find the global layer of lead in soil, ice, etc. and wonder who these supervillains were and why they were not promptly shot.