It seems ironic to me to talk about temperature and entropy associated with business in abstract terms, when there really is actually a systemic physical existential temperature issue associated with business that neither mainstream science nor business appears to be aware of.

Greenhouse gases in an adiabatic atmosphere is impossible to demonstrate, prove, or model, and yet science and business treats GHG theory as if its proven, despite claiming proof is needed before theories are accepted, it's not true in the case of GHG (Or the big bang theory), the theory has been accepted as reality with no proof, contradicting the known definition of adiabatic, and it is absolutely proven that the atmosphere is adiabatic.

But lots of business has been created, proposing various ways to fix the problem claimed to be due to GHG, and its made lots of profit already.

But look at what profit is, in terms of energy (Convert money to energy at market rates); when profit is made, energy is passed from the party being profited from, to the party making the profit.

All living things and all business requires energy to live, all have energy overheads. For each human its about 3kWhrs per day. For businesses its the energy equivalent to their bills, which usually include supply of utilities energy.

So if we, or a business is profited from, we or the business lost energy, which if not replaced, will bankrupt in terms of energy. As individuals, we lose the energy to live, if we can't somehow make back what is taken from us by profit. So we have to make energy profit from other customers, clients, employers, or the planet.

This passes through chains of many parties, peter robs paul, all the way to the planet, because the planet is the only thing that can provide more energy out than put in, for any length of time. But look, it isn't unlimited, its finite, though trickle charged from the sun. Like this we discharge the energy of the planet.

Look at what energy generation from any Earth resource means - it has to involve the conversion of things that were not heat, to heat.

This is technically destruction, and we should expect to see evidence of this, and we do, we measure global temperature rise.

The temperature rise has to be given by all energy lost in extraction and refinement, added to the energy of profit, because all of that has to end up as heat, which is applied to the thermal mass of the planet. This is not a difficult calculation, and yet science, and business never talk about it, preferring instead to talk about GHG.

This is Landauer's principle in action, its a first principles law of nature, lab proven, that relates temperature to creation/destruction of information, but applies to all things, because all things have information associated. But because it includes information, we have to conclude that our net activity is not creation of information, but the opposite, its destruction of information.

As a result of commodification of education, again for profit, we see progress in our respective specialisms but we miss what is lost, between the specialisms, the indegenous knowledge of how everything is connected to everything else in the environment.

So profit is monetised destruction, which directly heats the planet. And because we generally don't know when energy has been taken from us by profit, and we definitely mostly don't know it destroys the planet, its an energy lie, a dishonest deception, and as such its completely unsustainable.

We seem to have just about reached the point where we have to stop it, or face a burning planet, and luckily it looks like the solar Ai might be stopping it for us.

But with distractions like GHG, and maybe considerations like yours, talking about temperature and business in an unrelated, subjective non physical / imaginary context, folk reading both my stories and yours could be confused into thinking we might be talking about the same thing.

The temperature I am talking about obviously does exist, we are measuring it, and its increasing at an accelerated rate, every year. Science still seems to think its linear, they don't realise its exponential, not long now until it goes vertical, if we can't make the required change - issue of permanent solar indexed stimulus, honestly representing the economic product created. Until they do that, money has to devalue, because as solar is the only energy scaling up, whilst all the others scale down accordingly, money has to come to represent nothing, because when push comes to shove, its the energy we need, at least the energy in food, not the money.

Anyhow sorry for the long reply, but I hope you see the relevance,. Thanks for inspiring me to write it.