3 ms·

It wasnt unregulated though. We have this thing called the FDA. Problem solved right?

vkou 2y ago
When regulators can't shut a plant down for a violation like this, it's not actually regulated. People watch historic documentaries (like HBO's Chernobyl /s) and ooh and aah about how stupid the Soviet safety and bureaucratic culture was, without a shred of self-reflection about how our systems also make ruinous outcomes inevitable.
- parineum 2y ago
  Underregulated and unregulated are different things. Saying that it's unregulated makes the solution appear simple, just add regulation. Recognizing that it is already ineffectively regulated implies that regulation doesn't have to just be present, it has to be good. But then again it's a lot harder to come up with a solution that works past spherical cows in a vacuum so let's just call it unregulated.
  - vkou 2y ago
    It's a problem of incentive alignment, which is a core problem in politics. People and organizations love to maximize their gain at the cost of distributed harm - and all the political incentives, in any system of government are strongly aligned with this sort of thing. The answer to this is, of course, good governance. The answer to how to get good governance is, of course, a shoulder shrug emoji. (I can't give you a recipe for good governance, but I can definitely give you one for bad governance...) Nine people are dead, the firm is at fault, and there are two broad forms of recourse. You can do something that lightly taps the owners' pocketbook, through suits filed in civil court, or you can start holding congressional hearings until you find nine or more people that you can execute. You won't get the latter unless there is enough public outrage to get meaningful action. Unlike the courts, it is a very limited resource, it requires incredible effort to activate, and the payoff (better food safety, justice, encouraging the others) is distributed. The solution is there, it's just infeasible given resource limitations.
    - parineum 2y ago
      > you can start holding congressional hearings until you find nine or more people that you can execute. I like it when people just out themselves as extremists.
      - vkou 2y ago
        These deaths weren't caused by an oopsie daisies accident, this was a clear, blatant prioritisation of personal profit over human lives, with numerous warnings and opportunities to pull back. The plant's been operating despite years of failing inspections, and anyone in the industry knows that it shouldn't have. Evil is the pursuit of personal gain at the direct expense of the welfare of others. This is the poster child for it. It's not an indirect consequence, it's not a 'we tried and there was still a bad outcome', it's not a 'this stuff is hard and we got unlucky', it's not a 'there are inherent risks to this activity that can't be well mitigated', it's not a 'we didn't know this was dangerous', it's not a 'all the alternatives looked bad'. It's actively and playing Russian Roulette with the lives of your customers, and it killed people. There's nothing extreme about wanting justice for such blatant disregard for human life.
        parineum 2y ago
        And justice is finding 9 or more people and executing them? It's clear you don't care about justice or you'd be looking for the people responsible and punishing them based on how much culpability they have, personally. What you're describing is eye-for-an-eye vengeance.
        vkou 2y ago
        The harm was much greater than nine deaths, many other people were poisoned. Someone is responsible. They won't be held responsible under our current regulatory and liability framework. If you want this kind of malfeasance to stop, that framework needs to be changed. There's a fundamental disconnect between decision-makers and beneficiaries of this harm, and the responsibility that they get to shirk. Consider that tampering with food (for no personal gain) that doesn't seriously harm anyone carries sentences of multiple years. Scale this proportionately.

vkou 2y ago

When regulators can't shut a plant down for a violation like this, it's not actually regulated. People watch historic documentaries (like HBO's Chernobyl /s) and ooh and aah about how stupid the Soviet safety and bureaucratic culture was, without a shred of self-reflection about how our systems also make ruinous outcomes inevitable.

parineum 2y ago
Underregulated and unregulated are different things. Saying that it's unregulated makes the solution appear simple, just add regulation. Recognizing that it is already ineffectively regulated implies that regulation doesn't have to just be present, it has to be good. But then again it's a lot harder to come up with a solution that works past spherical cows in a vacuum so let's just call it unregulated.
- vkou 2y ago
  It's a problem of incentive alignment, which is a core problem in politics. People and organizations love to maximize their gain at the cost of distributed harm - and all the political incentives, in any system of government are strongly aligned with this sort of thing. The answer to this is, of course, good governance. The answer to how to get good governance is, of course, a shoulder shrug emoji. (I can't give you a recipe for good governance, but I can definitely give you one for bad governance...) Nine people are dead, the firm is at fault, and there are two broad forms of recourse. You can do something that lightly taps the owners' pocketbook, through suits filed in civil court, or you can start holding congressional hearings until you find nine or more people that you can execute. You won't get the latter unless there is enough public outrage to get meaningful action. Unlike the courts, it is a very limited resource, it requires incredible effort to activate, and the payoff (better food safety, justice, encouraging the others) is distributed. The solution is there, it's just infeasible given resource limitations.
  - parineum 2y ago
    > you can start holding congressional hearings until you find nine or more people that you can execute. I like it when people just out themselves as extremists.
    - vkou 2y ago
      These deaths weren't caused by an oopsie daisies accident, this was a clear, blatant prioritisation of personal profit over human lives, with numerous warnings and opportunities to pull back. The plant's been operating despite years of failing inspections, and anyone in the industry knows that it shouldn't have. Evil is the pursuit of personal gain at the direct expense of the welfare of others. This is the poster child for it. It's not an indirect consequence, it's not a 'we tried and there was still a bad outcome', it's not a 'this stuff is hard and we got unlucky', it's not a 'there are inherent risks to this activity that can't be well mitigated', it's not a 'we didn't know this was dangerous', it's not a 'all the alternatives looked bad'. It's actively and playing Russian Roulette with the lives of your customers, and it killed people. There's nothing extreme about wanting justice for such blatant disregard for human life.
      - parineum 2y ago
        And justice is finding 9 or more people and executing them? It's clear you don't care about justice or you'd be looking for the people responsible and punishing them based on how much culpability they have, personally. What you're describing is eye-for-an-eye vengeance.
        vkou 2y ago
        The harm was much greater than nine deaths, many other people were poisoned. Someone is responsible. They won't be held responsible under our current regulatory and liability framework. If you want this kind of malfeasance to stop, that framework needs to be changed. There's a fundamental disconnect between decision-makers and beneficiaries of this harm, and the responsibility that they get to shirk. Consider that tampering with food (for no personal gain) that doesn't seriously harm anyone carries sentences of multiple years. Scale this proportionately.