Does that make them bad in and of themselves, or is it the fact that they act so differently than many of us that disturb us so? I personally try to be guided by the questions, "is it legal? is it moral? is it ethical?" Two people can have different answers to these seemingly simple questions. 

   - This is true.  But what is also true is the Socratic argument that no one can consciously perceive there own decisions as ever being harmful to themselves, even in suicide. People are irrational--  and at their own imperceptible  expense. 

Not sure what you are driving at here? Profit can be at or below zero, but if operating costs exceed operating expenses, growth is still attainable, even though it may not appear rational (farming for nothing).  

   - My argument:  'Growth' is perceived and relative only to the observed business, and not actually reflective of change in output of a sector rather market share capture. 'Growth' can actually be negative utility if production base is allocated to a less efficient operator.  Growth is a buzzword you tell your investors, efficiency pays the bills.  I think the is the defining feature of the 21'st century (not growth; our population is stabilizing and living standard converging).   Changing production between operator is not = increase in net economic output, per se for the operation nor for the economy at large. The other issue with "Growth' has obligatory inverse scale economies related to exceeding span of control required for efficient operation - even with big data.  There is a sweet spot in farm 'size' in every location, likely dependent on field size, soil uniformity, and other infrastructure constraints, not to mention the competence of the proprietor  

again, maybe.....someone can make the right move, but have it be at the wrong time where the commitment of capital adversely effects some other part of the operation. Innovators may have the right idea, but it may be an idea ahead of its time, or they may be chasing an unproven concept. Too often, we don't know until after the fact. 

  - I agree with timing and risk of overpaying during early adoption phase, but also I disagree to a point.  The #1 logical bias is that of availability heuristics.  We deal in commodities so our widget will always seek cost of production (with discounting) , therefore only those who seek and remedy inefficiency (both on annual cycles and long timescales) are those most likely to exceed alternative investments.  The alpha is often over hyped, but the beta is too.   A result of availability bias of the "devils we know".