it's not mostly about ethics, but it is about values and meaning. the startup someone starts for purely economic reasons is worth zip, because the founder will falter when the going gets tough. economic incentives are significant, but if they were all that mattered there would be a lot less poetry, and a lot less war.
So what is the path to changing the world, if not by spending billions of dollars? And how does one get access to billions of dollars, if not by starting a massively-profitable company?
Are you saying that if my "meaning" is derived from, say, extending the human lifespan, then starting a company that tries to do that--and fails (because extending the human lifespan is a public good nobody wants to pay for)--is more meaningful than creating some kind of SocialMobileLocal juggernaut, and then spending the money it generates to fix the problem for real?
To me, that just sounds like impatience and an unwillingness to look at the big picture. A startup itself can be a schlep, to achieve something greater.
Make a list of the people who changed the world the most in the last couple of generations. There were many paths, most of which did not involve those people spending billions of dollars. No one ever became the best at anything because they were motivated by money.
"If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather inspire them to long for the infinite immensity of the sea."
