I don't need different perspectives if I execute a vision as efficiently and fast as possible. I need different perspectives if I want to calcify a business model (sometimes, of course, that's also worthwhile to do).
I don't see how that follows. I certainly didn't feel atomized or depressed when I was part of a highly functional team.
Maybe you mistook my comment for a statement on society at large? That was not my intention at all. My post is about small software engineering teams, not democracies.
All engineering intersects with the real world, and having multiple perspectives is crucial to making "good" strategic decisions. For example, those who executed quickly on their vision of social media and advertising lacked the alternate perspective that algorithmically strip mining human attention and relationships could, in fact, lead to a worse world.
Making companies, or individual contributors even, responsible for society's continued failing seems to distract from the real task: democratically ensuring that no profit can be made from worsening the world. Otherwise it's rational to do so, and somebody will.
Btw, my team's objective was to strengthen a specific law, beneficial for the general public. Which we did. Just to provide some perspective on your view, which seems to be that executing fast with limited impediment by diverging opinions necessarily causes bad outcomes for society. Sometimes those diverging opinions are themselves harmful, and need to be ignored.
