> Making a lot of money is considered the primary goal in our capitalist society
It might be the goal of people lacking empathy and people who think happiness comes with money, which is true only up to an amount far below 1M. Unless, again, the money is meant to be given to others. I am not sure what you mean by considering my argument a non-sequitur, could you elaborate?
> the sheer mechanics of our economy would guarantee it to be a net positive
By "Making a positive impact on others" I didn't mean making a positive impact on the economy. I meant helping actual problems like hunger, diseases and pollution.
> I am not sure what you mean by considering my argument a non-sequitur, could you elaborate?
It shouldn't matter what I do with the money. I don't even have it. The larger point I disagree with is that it's a losing battle to somehow tune their career to fix all the ills of the world, it's better to make as much money as possible to hope that our economy will efficiently distribute the resources for the greater good.
> it's better to make as much money as possible to hope that our economy will efficiently distribute the resources for the greater good.
This is inaccurate on several levels.
Trickle-down capitalism does not work well. Current mechanisms ensure that an increasingly elite few own the vast majority of resources and means of controlling those resources.
Making a ton of cash personally does not equate with distributing wealth. Taxes and the tax system are poorly organised for this purpose.
If you are serious that you want to work hard in in order to benefit society then perhaps consider health care, politics, farming, irrigation, renewable energy, or even space travel. You can be an engineer in these fields. Don't kid yourself that simply by becoming rich personally that you are a benefit to larger society. The evidence indicates quite the opposite.
It might be the goal of people lacking empathy and people who think happiness comes with money, which is true only up to an amount far below 1M. Unless, again, the money is meant to be given to others. I am not sure what you mean by considering my argument a non-sequitur, could you elaborate?
> the sheer mechanics of our economy would guarantee it to be a net positive
By "Making a positive impact on others" I didn't mean making a positive impact on the economy. I meant helping actual problems like hunger, diseases and pollution.