4 ms·
So it's okay to expose people to whatever might kill them and only do something decades later when proof overwhelms companies and politicians trying their best
by Hikikomori 3y ago
So it's okay to expose people to whatever might kill them and only do something decades later when proof overwhelms companies and politicians trying their best to do nothing in the name of profit?
- qwerasdf5 3y agoI see you used the word 'when' instead of 'if'. Are you from the future? How do you know this?
- Hikikomori 3y agoSure, proof might never overwhelm corporate power and politics and people will be exposed to something bad forever.
- qwerasdf5 3y agoSorry, that's not what I meant. What I mean is: You are predicting that the overwhelming proof will ever exist. This prediction may turn out to be true, but why should I believe your prediction over that of anyone else's? Do you have some insider knowledge or expertise that you can share? Edit: Also, what do you give the odds of your prediction, by severity of outcome? I want to see how the odds you provide stack up against the economic and thus social consequences of under-regulation or over-regulation.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoI hear what you're saying but foundationally this is a bullshit argument. The entire debate evaporates if you simply shift the burden of proof where it belongs and state that Things must comprehensively prove their safety before being released onto the market or otherwise into the wild.
- Hikikomori 3y agoAbout pfas? I dont know. Wasn't commenting about that specifically, just how bad our system works in general.
- lazide 3y agoThat profit pays your paycheck, at least a little, and is part of your retirement. And the product is part of the product you and everyone else decided they wanted to own.
- Zigurd 3y agoAnd the cleanup and health care costs are deducted from that.