Love has 3 parts to it: affection, trust, respect.

Respect is the foundation of love. One can respect someone and not love them. I differ from the philosophy of "you have to earn my respect". I respect everyone by default. People may take actions to lose respect, but it's always there. For instance, I respect the US justice system, regardless of whether I consider the laws just or not. I respect it because there are legitimate and very real consequences for not adhering to it. 

Trust is also default, but its more limited in scope, and it requires going through more doors to unpack. One can trust someone in the small capacity they share, such as in business, one can trust that a colleague will finish their work, but it may not extend past the business paradigm. 

Affection, however is the aspect most associated with our modern understanding of love. Affection comes in many forms, romantic affection, affection from a family member, affection from a friend, or just emotional affection overall. I carry emotional affection for everyone by default, that's the essence of empathy, but it's shown and used sparingly. For me to transcend default affection towards someone requires a strong showing and feeling of respect and trust that motivates me to move forward. 

Love isn't all hugs and kisses or hallmark cards, love is also the feeling of working together towards a common goal for the goodwill of the whole. 

Love

Modern Business is too competitive and moves too fast.

Modern business, or modernization, requires the World to be at a constant speed to "keep up" with. (AKA China is the leader of this, Russia is the leader of that, yada yada yada) YET, how does that competition benefit the well-being of the average person on the planet? Does it at all? Does scientific and military progress (to be the leader of___) benefit a population that is mostly poor Worldwide? If so, at what rate? Is the rate of progress and its rewards celebrated by those in power, equivalent to the rate of progress of a mostly poor global population?

I'll further elaborate. If one CEO were to gain a 2 Million dollar prize, would that 2 million dollars be used as well as 1.5 million dollars of it going to funding a well-planned organization that deals with community rebuilding? In what scenario would that money benefit society more? The way our economics are structured, its as if just having money to have money is more revered than actually doing something productive with it. What keeps it going IMO, this idea that we gotta keep moving and competing all the damn time.

Esoterically, the opposing school of thought goes hand in hand with the concept of Zen, which observes stillness.

In tasks that need to be done, such as the upliftment of our people, collaboration takes precedence over competition, IMO. We should always have roles established for everyone. Everyone should have a job and a role they feel good about, everyone. Nobody left behind. If we approached that topic with the same seriousness as a group of residents banding together to clean a tornado-ravaged neighborhood, we could go much further than we have already. Competitions for sport, good, but for most other reasons, invalid, especially for glory and imaginary statuses.

What was the unsung pollutant of the Martin Luther King legacy?

IMO, When all the organizations decided to have competitions on who was leading the movement.