5 ms·

this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN

this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN crowd can appreciate what it means to work at scale. The fact that J&J knows these consequences exist and plans for them makes them evil? If your company planned on extra engineering resources strictly to assist launch issues, is that evil? Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.

romseb 5y ago
There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide not to in order to make more profit.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  why would they add benzene to products? how does adding it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide. Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k). https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92799 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
  - an_opabinia 5y ago
    They don’t add anything to their products. Someone in China submits the lowest bid to make the thing, passing on sweatshop savings to J&J. So how then does the manufacturer make a profit? By skimping on the raw materials. The root cause isn’t the supply chain or transparency or QA or whatever. It’s the attractiveness of too-good-to-be-true deals.
saiya-jin 5y ago
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else. Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
  - msrenee 5y ago
    I'd say greed falls somewhere much closer to malice than stupidity.
  - TheTester 5y ago
    Its evil in the sense of the banality of evil. They likely did not choose to put benzene in there but they have to think "nobody ever got in trouble for buying IBM" or in this case "nobody ever got in trouble for choosing the cheapest sweatshop (with some credentials to appear almost ethical) in China". There is no evil Doctor laughing in a castle planning to add benzene to things however it is pretty evil to dismiss QA and client safety in a way as reckless as they have. At the end of the day they can always say " I was just following orders" or " I was only trying to maximize profit"

romseb 5y ago

There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide not to in order to make more profit.

abfan1127 5y ago
why would they add benzene to products? how does adding it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide. Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k). https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92799 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  They don’t add anything to their products. Someone in China submits the lowest bid to make the thing, passing on sweatshop savings to J&J. So how then does the manufacturer make a profit? By skimping on the raw materials. The root cause isn’t the supply chain or transparency or QA or whatever. It’s the attractiveness of too-good-to-be-true deals.

saiya-jin 5y ago

One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else. Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.

abfan1127 5y ago
agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
- msrenee 5y ago
  I'd say greed falls somewhere much closer to malice than stupidity.
- TheTester 5y ago
  Its evil in the sense of the banality of evil. They likely did not choose to put benzene in there but they have to think "nobody ever got in trouble for buying IBM" or in this case "nobody ever got in trouble for choosing the cheapest sweatshop (with some credentials to appear almost ethical) in China". There is no evil Doctor laughing in a castle planning to add benzene to things however it is pretty evil to dismiss QA and client safety in a way as reckless as they have. At the end of the day they can always say " I was just following orders" or " I was only trying to maximize profit"