It goes back to a clarification I added to my original post after you responded, namely:
This is a complex dynamics. From an ecological standpoint, it's quite evident that the current situation is quite unsustainable and there's a risk that human carrying capacity will be cut on half or even to one quarter over the course of this century... clearly that much die-off is "bad for society". But then again, maybe that's just my opinion, because "what" is society after all. Many people tend to think about themselves first, and then about their family second, and do not go beyond this. So many people actually do not care about what they do for society---only what society do for/to them. And market supply/demand intersections reflect that.jacob wrote: IOW, real investors are in the business of allocating capital so that the supply meets the demand. (Now we can argue who is to blame if consumers demand stuff that's bad for themselves ... and investors supply it ... where does responsibility begin and end here?)
So being pragmatic about this ... Here we are in 2018 with a surplus of money because our personal demand reflects this. What to do with the extra money? Burn it? Invest it "ethically"? One could even argue that investing it in shite-projects in order to destroy future demand is a good idea or at least thinking somewhat further ahead than the next quarter. One could also argue that more wealth will free more minds to think about solutions, but that ship has pretty much sailed by now.
And all that's before even starting to consider what advertising does to the whole curve.
Clearly there are some ethical concerns here ... but most people act as if they don't have those.