Well there was a hell of a lot to unpack in your first post. there’s a lot in the reply too.too many possible themes to explore them all 
I think we have alignment or similarity of concern when we talk about people planet profit. You Use the word extractive, if I substitute it for destructive or unsustainable then I agree. I’m always mindful that for example the oil companies have very strong health safety and environment cultures. I’ve no doubt that there are some in those companies who are focused on it simplistically. I also think the boards of those companies see a strong HSE performance as being prerequisite to being allowed into areas like Antarctica, or maintaining customer / brand acceptance because the product is one of the most substitutable on earth who others about the brand of petrol / gas that one puts in the tank.
So if your wasteful with the planet you might make a profit today but you won’t wait make one tomorrow. this is the territory of Kaplan and Norton - balance score card - but over generations - which hasn’t been necessary until perhaps the 20th century and wasn’t a set of concerns that had a practical response until perhaps the beginning of this century. Likewise the hierarchical organisation is absolutely right for production operations and probably absolutely wrong for design and research etc etc
The need is not for a rule but for a meta rule about the decision about which rules apply!
I’m not going anywhere near the question of agile It’s so full of garbage and baggage, relabeling of well-known paradigms, ignorant dismissal of tried and tested techniques and other sorts of ‘scent marking’ to create religion for the agile industrial complex to make profit out of being esoteric in the correct use of the word. It’s a wonderful extension when properly understood and merged to traditional paradigms that together are perhaps 60% of what we need.
Where I will go with it is it’s a marvellous example of one form of community - The invention of vocabulary makes comprehension something that you have to be one of the cognizante to participate in it creates identity, belonging. I think that’s a mechanism that discourse as well captured with badges.
agile has been a religion with zealots who are rude and intolerant of those who are not cognizantii. Likewise army cadets are trained in squads with a sergeant major who shouts at them and becomes the enemy because forming a cohesive community it’s easier when you give them a common enemy - that may play directly to survival instincts that are inbred into our species from perhaps 10 million or more years ago.
In general I think the formation of digitally enabled communities should not be based on a common negative. I also think all the definitions I’ve seen on this platform are what community is are written from the perspective of technicians, software developers, of which I was one for a couple of decades a couple of decades ago. I’m not now. The extra 20 years has led me to think that the definitions lack a whole perspective. I’ll start a thread on it at some point or post a comment to the other threads.
It was probably more divergence to throw up and kick about. They’ll then be enough themes to be convergent over. My suspicion is that converging will include themes of recognising individual rights and values and contributions and rewarding them equitably in whatever currency is relevant to the individual. Also recognising societies of sociological entities have identities that is some amalgam of the individual not an average not typical but representative.
Then I think that we have the mechanism for defining community types, then I think we have the lens for identifying the qualities that must be supported in the dialogues that those communities support .
I wonder if community actually means willingness to share a dialogue?