3 ms·
Generally because environmentalism is luxury for wealthy countries. When you stack up carcinogens that may or may not kill you in four decades against feeding
by gozur88 9y ago
Generally because environmentalism is luxury for wealthy countries. When you stack up carcinogens that may or may not kill you in four decades against feeding your family today, the food will always win.
- stale2002 9y agoOk, so, what you are saying is, that we as privileged first world countries, should remove their ability to choose to feed their family? If they really prefer that, then why should we decide for them, or take away their option to do that?
- gozur88 9y agoOh, I agree people should make their own decisions on this kind of stuff. I was just pointing out why things are the way they are.
- linkregister 9y agoI disagree; the laws are lax because oligarchies in developing countries typically don't get harmed by dangerous working conditions. The people with the power to enforce safe workplace laws have no external incentive; it is at odds with maximizing their cut of the revenue.
- msimpson 9y ago> ...laws are lax because oligarchies in developing countries typically don't get harmed by dangerous working conditions. This holds true even for developed nations. If a particular company or industry can skirt workers rights, environmental laws, etc. and bear the impact as merely a negative return, they will. > The people with the power to enforce safe workplace laws have no external incentive... Right, and the only force which affects such oligarchies is unionization. However, as gozur88 said above, feeding your family is more important than any potential health impacts. And when you're in a situation where thousands of others will gladly assume your position, regardless of the cost, there is no feasibly to unionized striking.
- linkregister 9y agoUnionization fails when an oligarchy can reliably imprison union leaders. Looking at the track record of developing countries, this is the typical path, not a lack of interest by local workers.
- msimpson 9y agoUnionization fails for many reasons. Even in the US, with all of our protective laws, Wal-Mart is and remains a union-busting force. Also, I'm not implying this is the fault of local workers. It's simply a terrible mess at every angle.
- gozur88 9y agoI don't think so. The problem is environmental regulations raise the cost of doing business. Which is fine, if you live in a place like the US, say, or Australia. But if you live in a country where people are already going hungry, a small increase in costs means people on the margins are going to literally starve to death.