Apparently geeks only require security for their own personal data or that of their company and believe everyone else's is better off left wide open.
It also means you need to know a little about nature as well, knowledge it's sometimes difficult to develop in a technology smitten world.
Which is the dependent variable, technology or nature? Which one can be perfected? If you can answer the last one, please don't study business.
By definition, the reason the price of ____ is ____ is because, "that is what the market will bear."
Fundamentally, the idea that neoclassical economics should be allowed to determine the course of human events or the development of civilization has revealed itself to be false. That's the upshot of The Enlightenment as viewed from the midst of the third wave of globalization wrapped in the second wave of industrialization, just before the shit hits the impeller. So the question becomes how to identify the necessary set of values which should replace those that were misidentifed and championed by the Cult of Adam Smith's Incredibly Invisible Hand.
It's officially one world now, according to all good wealthy western outsourcerers, and unless we're going to discriminate against those born to poverty and abandon them to the accident of birth, then redirecting the behemoth will require sacrifice from the first world to the rest. That means subsidized technological development where it's necessary to equalize the chasm of poverty, population decreases and environmental remediation to preserve the ecological integrity of a global system that's in decline and real discussion about what will characterize a heathy, sustainable system of natural and interconnected artifical human systems. It implies far better cooperation than the UN framework for (fill-in-the-blank).
Electrifying rural everwhere, if it can actually done with a net negative impact would be great. If it can't be done without increasing "globalization" as we have come to know it, then it won't matter much in 3 or 4 generations because the catastrophes associated with environmental degradation will include reductions in agricultural output, famine and social dystonia. Since we've "decided" that the natural world is the defacto sewer of industrial man, you can bet that increased envronmental stresses will usher in decreased health to go along with a few panicked incidences of pestilence requiring a little martial law. Don't be afraid, it will all be done for the good of all.
I can't say I believe any of these entrepreneurislisms holds much promise on its own, especially when they are measured in isolation. But if there is hope to be found in any of them, it will become apparent when any of them can be shown to fit into a systemic paradigm with multiple attributes that allow for energy efficiency, reduced environmental pollution, distributed and sustainable local economic development and reduced climatological impacts and a renewed respect man as an ecological participant as well as a social being. We need to establish a new metric for an acceptable level of the energetics of civilization, in much the same way scientists determine the needs of other biological species. Better yet, in the manner of parasitology which requires knowledge of interrelated species and their ecologies.
When you look at today's developments in that light, it's all quite simple.
After all, they are asking us to look askance at anything outside their rarified realm of the rigorous standards they claim to uphold. Why do their editors believe they should be able to get away without meeting the same level of scrutiny? Perhaps all is not what it seems at the top?
It seems odd that a prof would push so hard unless you had a very specific and competitive grad study program in mind, something important to offer or you prof didn't.
He didn't mean knowledge, he meant worldliness (experince that challenges belief when God doesn't smite you), verily.
Scientific methodologies used to develop knowledge don't require belief, but they demand a rational mind and offer discrete explanations. Religious sytems don't require a rational mind, but they do demand belief, offers no explanation but dogma.
The difference is in the intended purpose of each. Science seeks to explain the external world and allow people to manipulate it. Morality is an after thought. Religion seeks define the internal world, control the definition of morality and manipulate the people outside it.