But I think that the most common side effect is an increase in class stratification--which I'd argue undermines the political stability of the future that you're hoping to retire into.
Assuming all eco-tech companies on WS are trustworthy enough (not Enron-esque), and investing in eco-tech will "create a world worth retiring in", most people would have seen a significant part of their retirement go to zero.
Or if they decided to invest in a publicly traded life-sciences company in hopes of finding more breakthroughs, they would see their investment go towards funding some pricey acquisition instead.
"Create a world worth retiring in" is as vague as it gets.
All I'm saying is that it's a shame that we're taught that the point of investing is to make money, rather than make a difference with a side effect of having more money. Because left to its own devices, money tends to motivate some pretty awful things.
I don't want retire rich, I wanna retire post-scarcity. I hate letting my money sit in an account while smart kids can't afford college. Those kids are gonna develop the tech that saves my ass one day--or not--depending on how we play our cards now.
Blindly picking a fund based on performance just feels like shooting my future self in the foot.
