6 ms·

The problem is we're effectively using the public as a guinea pig. Then when lots of issues are detected, the specific chemicals used are banned. Then industry

The problem is we're effectively using the public as a guinea pig. Then when lots of issues are detected, the specific chemicals used are banned. Then industry quickly replaces it with a very similar compound(see e.g Bisphenol A being replaced with Bisphenol S and F in "BPA free plastics" even though it's not known that they are safer) which is likely to have similar problems, but not proven to yet, kicking the can down the road. Some possible regulations come to mind. For instance, maybe a ban or very strict regulations on the widespread use of compounds like PFAS that have no known biological or other natural path of degradation. Because it's become very clear that such compounds are inevitably going to end up spread all over global ecosystems. Edit: So I did some more research. Not only are BPS and BPF not known to be safer, they are already known to have many of the same problems as BPA. To make things worse BPS and possibly BPF are even less degradable than BPA. So they may even be worse. This is not even a little surprising. Their structure is identical except for the linkage between the phenol groups. From pharmacology it's well known that highly similar structures tend to have similar pharmacodynamic properties. So they're not even remotely likely to have been good replacements before the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary appeared. Clearly this blatantly irresponsible behaviour from industry needs to be stopped.

theropost 4y ago
Corporations need to focus on being efficient, and doing what they do best within the rules. Government should concern itself with doing its best to continue a healthy, happy nation. Regulation does not always need to be complex, and it should put public interest ahead of corporate agency.
- nebulousthree 4y ago
  Corporations are people and how dare you threaten peoples' agencies like that! You wouldn't propose that of a human group, so why do it to non-human persons??
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I know you're being sarcastic here. But man it depresses me how many people seem to unironically think this way.
  - moonchrome 4y ago
    I don't get the satire - you would propose the same regulation for individuals ? Don't see anything corporation specific about the comment.
  - theropost 4y ago
    I actually like that corporations want to be considered people - that means they are not above the law, no matter the size, therefore if they cause harm to people(s), and it is intentional/illegal it is entirely within the right of government to stop them.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Economists might favour something like a progressive tax on untested chemicals in consumer products. The less safety testing you do, the more expensive they will be to use. Because you put your finger on the sociological problem at hand here. It's just cheaper to do the wrong thing right now. I always think that capitalism has this evolutionary nature where inevitably the biggest coroporations will be the ones that are maximally unethical within(or just enough outside that lawyers can handle it) the confines of the law. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. I think regulations need to be designed more with this evolutionary model in mind. It seems lost on most politicians currently.
  - kaashif 4y ago
    The problem with such taxes are that the proposed tax amounts are never actually high enough to account for the damage done. Should the tax be equivalent to the amount required to reverse the damage? This is assuming the damage is going to or can be repaired. For carbon emissions, I think the case for a tax is fairly clear, since we _can't_ just outright ban emissions, the harm is 100% known, and we can even estimate the cost of reversing the emissions through carbon capture. For these chemicals, it seems much less clear. The uncertainty is so great I don't think I could estimate an appropriate tax rate. The danger is that the alternatives presented are a ban, and a low tax that wouldn't solve the problem. Vested interests would push for the second option and present the problem as solved.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      These are all good points. Making corporations more accountable for external costs is maybe the great challenge of our time. I think markets and capitalism are necessary. I can't help but think there must be some more fundamental selective pressure that can be applied that will lead to corporations that take externalised cost into account being more successful over time. I have no suggestions. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't quite get it out my mind lately. I even caught myself considering going off to study evolutionary economics. The 25 year old me would stare at me in incredulity upon hearing this. I feel like the social sciences have a ways to go still before being able to answer questions like this.
- 8note 4y ago
  Would consider an assassin service blameless because government regulation was good enough. While good regulations are good, companies are made of people, and the people need to act like it
efnx 4y ago
Along with banning the chemicals, the corporation could be “murdered”. Like a death sentence for a corp. They would cease to exist in that country. I’m sure this would make them think much harder about the effects of their actions.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  I sort of like this line of reasoning. Though in penal contexts I'm against the death penalty and favour a rehabilitation based approach. So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it?
  - henry_bone 4y ago
    You'd trust a government with that? I wouldn't. It may be simplistic but I think that the judiciary applying firm measures designed to protect the public and the biosphere, is the best approach.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      I tend to agree. But I could see scenarios where "corporate jail" might be an option in extreme circumstances. I.e where the corp is too integral to the public to leave to whatever power games result from shaking up the company theough fines and sending executives to jail(which we should do far more of by the way...). It also depends though. Which government? I would have far lower credence in trusting the US government with this compared to some European governments that came out of a healthier democracy than the US. But that also goes for the regulations necessary for your less radical approach.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    Sounds a bit 1984. Ultimately most CEOs are probably psychopaths. What would be useful is banning psychopaths from there positions as they lack empathy. Not sure if we can reliably tell who is a psychopath but it’s always going to be an issue.
MisterMower 4y ago
Can you post those links for inquiring minds?

theropost 4y ago

Corporations need to focus on being efficient, and doing what they do best within the rules. Government should concern itself with doing its best to continue a healthy, happy nation. Regulation does not always need to be complex, and it should put public interest ahead of corporate agency.

nebulousthree 4y ago
Corporations are people and how dare you threaten peoples' agencies like that! You wouldn't propose that of a human group, so why do it to non-human persons??
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  I know you're being sarcastic here. But man it depresses me how many people seem to unironically think this way.
- moonchrome 4y ago
  I don't get the satire - you would propose the same regulation for individuals ? Don't see anything corporation specific about the comment.
- theropost 4y ago
  I actually like that corporations want to be considered people - that means they are not above the law, no matter the size, therefore if they cause harm to people(s), and it is intentional/illegal it is entirely within the right of government to stop them.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Economists might favour something like a progressive tax on untested chemicals in consumer products. The less safety testing you do, the more expensive they will be to use. Because you put your finger on the sociological problem at hand here. It's just cheaper to do the wrong thing right now. I always think that capitalism has this evolutionary nature where inevitably the biggest coroporations will be the ones that are maximally unethical within(or just enough outside that lawyers can handle it) the confines of the law. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. I think regulations need to be designed more with this evolutionary model in mind. It seems lost on most politicians currently.
- kaashif 4y ago
  The problem with such taxes are that the proposed tax amounts are never actually high enough to account for the damage done. Should the tax be equivalent to the amount required to reverse the damage? This is assuming the damage is going to or can be repaired. For carbon emissions, I think the case for a tax is fairly clear, since we _can't_ just outright ban emissions, the harm is 100% known, and we can even estimate the cost of reversing the emissions through carbon capture. For these chemicals, it seems much less clear. The uncertainty is so great I don't think I could estimate an appropriate tax rate. The danger is that the alternatives presented are a ban, and a low tax that wouldn't solve the problem. Vested interests would push for the second option and present the problem as solved.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    These are all good points. Making corporations more accountable for external costs is maybe the great challenge of our time. I think markets and capitalism are necessary. I can't help but think there must be some more fundamental selective pressure that can be applied that will lead to corporations that take externalised cost into account being more successful over time. I have no suggestions. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't quite get it out my mind lately. I even caught myself considering going off to study evolutionary economics. The 25 year old me would stare at me in incredulity upon hearing this. I feel like the social sciences have a ways to go still before being able to answer questions like this.
8note 4y ago
Would consider an assassin service blameless because government regulation was good enough. While good regulations are good, companies are made of people, and the people need to act like it

efnx 4y ago

Along with banning the chemicals, the corporation could be “murdered”. Like a death sentence for a corp. They would cease to exist in that country. I’m sure this would make them think much harder about the effects of their actions.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
I sort of like this line of reasoning. Though in penal contexts I'm against the death penalty and favour a rehabilitation based approach. So maybe if the government seized control the corporation for a time, to rehabilitate it?
- henry_bone 4y ago
  You'd trust a government with that? I wouldn't. It may be simplistic but I think that the judiciary applying firm measures designed to protect the public and the biosphere, is the best approach.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I tend to agree. But I could see scenarios where "corporate jail" might be an option in extreme circumstances. I.e where the corp is too integral to the public to leave to whatever power games result from shaking up the company theough fines and sending executives to jail(which we should do far more of by the way...). It also depends though. Which government? I would have far lower credence in trusting the US government with this compared to some European governments that came out of a healthier democracy than the US. But that also goes for the regulations necessary for your less radical approach.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Sounds a bit 1984. Ultimately most CEOs are probably psychopaths. What would be useful is banning psychopaths from there positions as they lack empathy. Not sure if we can reliably tell who is a psychopath but it’s always going to be an issue.

MisterMower 4y ago

Can you post those links for inquiring minds?