Exploring Meaning and Agenda

Skipping some things, but I'm looking at two pieces of meaning/agenda in actions. The first is feeding into the capitalist system, the hunger for progress, as a means for contributing to society. When the question is "What piece of the progress would you like to be?" And potential answers are, a teacher of progress, a businessman/dealmaker, a builder, a discoverer & enabler, an organizer, a leader, a line worker... there is value in many contributions, and a line worker building out Amazon's fultillment network is building out a different world for tomorrow than the one we have today. Economics is loves consistency, and yet progress is inherently inconsistent.

So anyway, contributing directly to progress in a fiscally motivated direction feels like a valuable contribution in a leading by example way. Instead of trying to fix problems in India that have been solved in the US, why not try to solve the new problems that await us all, motivated by the wealth of the most advanced? There are many questions from the previous statement, and a glaring flaw which I buy is that the problems in India are different from the problems that have been solved in the US and require different solutions. My next question is how to buy in both ways? I think it's worth advancing "the wealthy" position to sponsor research into new technologies that could have profound and debatable impact, like AR and virtual worlds, gene editing (curing diseases? intelligent genes? <-- probably quite a controversial one here).

Embarrassing to have so many qualifiers, and yet another qualifier needs to be added asking about the fact that new advance is current fiscally motivated by the wealthiest/most successful (unfortunately these aren't one and the same because of inheritance, luck, etc), so basically their desires drive our progress, instead of having progress be equally driven by the desires of all people. I don't know if this would push research in a different direction, if it would promote short term thinking, or solve insurance problems, but it's definitely a question worth asking.

Ok, so on top of a contribution to progress, I'm looking at another contribution, focused on addressing needs of people broadly, assuming progress is focused on the needs of the rich (because it is right now, and that system seems to have resulted in the most progress, although this statement isn't backed by evidence anyway so who knows). Broad contributions could be political, they could focus on education. I am preferring "leading by example" to trying to solve somebody else's problems (teach a man to fish). Also feels uncomfortable/debatable to say there are xxx problems in China and that tech will solve them, having satellites broadcast the internet probably won't change the status quo (even if it's a great convenience in the US). There are yyy problems in the US, and other countries, and outlets like education are interesting. Leaning away from politics because I prefer to speak through action, and my greatest fulfillment is from creation and enablement. (Obviously things can be done through politics) Teaching people english is "marketable" and increases their economic availability, teaching people to program is "marketable" and drives long term impact. Teaching people to engineer likewise. Teaching people to think critically? Is this a function of regional economic stability? Regional stability (non-violence, economic sustainability, etc) is a huge deal. What are the blockers to economic stability in the US? Is it true that if everyone had money for food, that would drive up the price of food? Nationalize food? Killing R&D in the food industry? Or rich people eat advanced research food and poor people eat nationalized old-fashioned food? Probably the last one.

I think open access to information is a huge deal, and I have a question about how that system is going to stabilize economically (can I pay for membership to the internet archive?) As the volume of information grows, how do we finance it's existence? Who wants to pay for it and what is the value of it for them? Would your business invest in a consumer community to get more business by increasing the wealth of the community? What does that look like? Since they're investing but all of the other businesses are profiting, will they lose price battles with their rivals? Lots of questions, answers not required.