Should workers die so I can have a fish dinner? (Fishing is dangerous.) Should workers die so I can wipe my ass? (So is forestry.) Should workers die so I ca

Should workers die so I can have a fish dinner? (Fishing is dangerous.) Should workers die so I can wipe my ass? (So is forestry.) Should workers die so I can charge my iPhone? (So is generating and transmitting power.) Should workers die so I can have a larger house? (As is construction.) Should workers die so I can drive to work? (Oh, and manufacturing.) We live in an imperfect world. Everything is somewhat dangerous. People are - literally - dying while making every single product you have ever consumed or seen in the stores. To phrase your argument in absolutes is to reveal yourself as hopelessly naive. There's a conversation to be had here, but it's probably going to be in the following form: "The fatal accident rate in factories supplying Apple is X per 100,000. I believe it should be Y, and I believe that because of specific reasons A, B, and C." And then we can discuss if X is really too high, and if Y is achievable, and maybe evaluate your reasons, and the likely outcome of trying to bring the rate from X to Y. But the implication here is that the rate of fatal accidents per year should be zero, and that's ludicrous. Foxconn employs around a million people. How many people do you think have died there in the last year? (Please provide citations to government statistics or independent news articles.) Meanwhile, the death rate for manufacturing workers in the UK is 1.1 per 100,000; 27 people died in fatal accidents in the UK in the manufacturing sector last year. So...what? "Workers should not have to die so Rolls Royce can build jet engines?" Are these workers being exploited? Should we be boycotting jet engines, air travel, and all products which have travelled by air? Or is, perhaps, a death rate of 1.1 per 100,000 actually an acceptable trade-off?