As I worked with more milennials I think I've stumbled across something, and Google (consciously?) tapped into it, brilliantly. The children of the baby boomers, so eager to use social networking, or live in communes in the city (see yesterday's SF Gate) are so willing to believe in this shell of an idea passed down from their parents. They are much more social and communal than us in generation X. They're often morally adrift (religious worship is declining), financially adrift (the economy), and grew up with tales of free love. They're delicately raised to have great self esteem, but often crumble in the face of adversity or criticism. They're a brittle group, it seems. So the social nature (if my friends do it, it's ok) makes them so eager to buy into this.
I can't say it's a new concept. I remember showing up to work at big mega tech corp at 8 am (after a 1 hour commute) and being told "nice of you to show up today." I routinely worked 12 hours a day and we were never allowed to work from home. There it was forced on us, but how ever so much nicer to just gently slide into being a company man with free food, etc. Sort of like the Matrix.
That said, daycare is an important perk, I cannot deny Google the kudos it deserves for caring for parents who work for them. More companies should do this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-a-...
From grammarist:
The adjective immoral means contrary to established moral principles. Immoral actions are corrupt, unethical, sinful, or just wrong. Amoral means (1) neither moral nor immoral, or (2) lacking moral sensibility. So while immoral and amoral might share a little common ground, there is a clear distinction: immoral things are bad, and amoral things are either neutral from a moral perspective or simply removed from moral considerations.
I had a look at my own OED, and it agrees with your definition. It's still not an accurate depiction of the morals of anyone I know.
I more think about it this way--and hey, if I chose the wrong word, do correct me.
When we are changing the world with our technology we don't really stop to think about all the people who will be put out of work by it. We don't as a community really care much about the impact of our companies on our communities (giving to local arts organizations and volunteer efforts in SF are not rising concurrently with population or wealth).
To be fair, this thinking isn't limited to milennials, it's just that as children they were more likely to have been raised without the early foundation of morals which are usually taught by religion.
I do not in any way mean to imply religion is necessary for morals, just statistically that's how most people get them. I also don't mean to imply milennials are criminals, just that well, it doesn't occur to them to think sometimes about the impact of their choices; or if they do, they don't care. Hell, maybe I was that way in my 20s and I've conveniently forgotten it...so maybe it's a function of youth.
The brittleness though? absolutely. Most of them are deeply insecure, fundamentally needing a lot of praise. I don't mind , because that's the kind of leader/manager I like to be; but adversity is hard for them to deal with.
I sometimes think one's attitude toward all this is dependent on when one arrives in the area; for myself having arrived during the bust of 2002 I feel perpetually like "winter is coming." for those for who it has always been prosperous springtime, it's hard to realize how important it is to squirrel away money, karma, connections, etc.
Random musings. YMMV.
My feeling is that, today as a hundred years ago, the bulk of moral education comes from watching and interacting with other humans. Parents, teachers, friends, and neighbors hurting you, helping you, being hurt by you, being helped by you, and discussing all of the above.
If one wanted to, one could argue the baby boomers were pretty amoral and self-oriented; leading to millennials seeing and adopting that.
1) Didn't fall on its sword to spite the federal government. 2) Wanted to unify the identity systems across its products.
Are you serious?
The third party doctrine is something out of dystopian fiction. Congress and SCOTUS's behavior regarding national security is very 1984. But Google? Really?
[0]http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/goog...
David Krane, a senior spokesperson for Google, told SVW: "I never liked it. I always felt that it would come back to bite us in some way, that we would end up building concentration camps, or something even worse. The universe seems to love irony, why leave ourselves wide open?"
Well, the universe does love irony, but concentration camps are unnecessary in this day and age. Knowledge is power, and building a company whose purpose it is to collect and use as much personal information as possible is bad enough.
https://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ (point 6)
Presumably the written bit is "but that's not to say we won't anyway".
How to Deconstruct Almost Anything--My Postmodern Adventure http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
In short, neither scientists/mathematicians/engineers nor historians/literary critics are stupid (well, most of them aren't). If this is your starting point, then if before dismissing the other discipline you realize that it's being studied by smart people who know what they're doing, and give yourself time to understand the premise, you might actually learn something. The writer of that article simply does not have the tools necessary to determine whether a "reading" is bogus or not, because he does not know what "non-bogus" or "true" is in the framework he has tried to explore.
Having said that, there was very little deconstruction in my interpretation of "don't be evil". In fact, I think it's a pretty straightforward interpretation once you've decided to interpret the motto seriously. It is a literary failure on my part to interpret it so unimaginatively, but it's only meant as a starting point.
You mention work. As you say, Google does not just want their employees' time. They want their complete identification with the company. In a way, they want their souls.
As for business, Google is a company whose business model is tricking people into sharing as much private information with the company, and then using this information for profit.
One of the most interesting things about Google is their "don't be evil" motto. I want to write a complete literary interpretation of it some other time, but here are the highlights. Obviously, it's a short and catchy motto that is not intended to be taken too seriously, but that does not preclude literary interpretation.
First, let's consider the motto as a whole. It could be a motto for anyone, but how come it's Google's and not mine (or yours)? The reason is that they accept the premise that corporations do often turn out to be "evil" (whatever that means). This is analogous to the reason physicians swear to "do no harm"; they swear it because doctors can easily do harm.
Now let's take the motto apart and analyze it word by word. First, the word "evil". The word assumes such a thing exists and can be recognizable. Second, the word "be". It implies that evil is something you are, not something you do. Lastly, the word "don't". It assumes that you can choose not to "be" "evil", and implies that those who "are" "evil" are so because they chose to be that way.
If a motto can guide a corporation, and if this motto guides Google, we can see why they've become so monstrously terrifying. Evil is not always easily recognizable. Often, it's in the eyes of the beholder. Second, evil is rarely something you are, and almost always something you do. Third, "evil" creeps up on you, and is often the result of the best intentions. People other than James Bond villains don't choose to be evil. Similarly you can't simply choose not to be. To abstain from "evil" you must be vigilant. You must constantly analyze your actions and their consequences separately from your intentions, and listen to other viewpoints.
Going back to dystopias, well known ones, like Orwell's 1984, insist that the masses love their oppressors rather than fear them. This is a crucial point that is largely overlooked when people discuss the NSA surveillance scandal. It is crucial because true power, absolute oppression, cannot exist if its wielder is generally considered suspect.
When I read 1984 many years ago I couldn't understand that. Do people not notice that they're being manipulated and exploited? Can they actually enjoy being exploited? Now we have the answer.