3 ms·
Why always assume everybody is evil ? From reading the article, I noted a few things: The forest employees did reject demands for expansion multiple times. Th
by fla 11y ago
Why always assume everybody is evil ?
From reading the article, I noted a few things:
The forest employees did reject demands for expansion multiple times. They care about their forest (of course).
These people love and protect the environment. If Nestlé was destroying it, they wouldn't let it happen.
If it was easy to re-evaluate a license in a proper way, they would do it (they did for smaller installations). They seem to lack the resources to do a proper licensence evaluation at that scale.
Maybe Nestlé is hiring people with life-long experience protecting the nature because they are good at it ?
- mexicanindd 11y agoNot evil, but focused. Nestlé as a company is focused on profits, whereas forest employees are (or should be) focused on the forest environment. These different focuses may conflict with oneanother. On a different topic, if the water licensing does not provide enough resources for a proper re-evaluate, then there is something fundamentally wrong
- fla 11y agoI think it's not that simple. Companies like Nestlé do have to care about environment for alot of reasons. Thats basically why they hire people who have these skills. The lack of license re-evaluation resources is sad and tells alot about how much some govs actually care about the environement. Strangely nobody would care about nature if oil was flowing in these pipes.
- dspillett 11y ago> Why always assume everybody is evil ? Perhaps not actively evil, but maybe amoral? Some people do things others consider bad not explicitly to be evil or for personal gain but because they "don't see the problem so why not?" or because they are focused on other priorities and are either simply unaware or consider the problem(s) being caused elsewhere to be worth a movement toward some "greater good" by there assessment of good. It happens in politics all the time: things like "we'll never get X to agree to Y so we'll have to let that slip even though we are vehemently against it, but if we do let that slip (despite the resulting anger back home) we'll probably get them to agree to Z which otherwise they never would and that is a big bonus". That is a very active and large scale example, but people make similar rationalisations on a smaller scale day-in-day-out, sometimes almost completely subconsciously.
- fla 11y agoIf he his helping Nestlé beeing more responsible about environment, how is it amoral ? Do you honnestly think this guy is actually burning trees, laughing in a jaccuzy full of dollar bills ? Joke aside, they hired this guy because they need environment experts, which is a step in the right direction cause it means they start to care.
- dspillett 11y agoI took the post I replied to as insinuating his actions prior to retirement (and subsequent employment) were a self serving attempt to gain fruitful activity in retirement at the expense of doing the right thing. I was suggesting that the actions seen could be interpreted another, less actively negative, way.
- Maarten88 11y agoIn the case of Nestlé, you don't have to assume. They have a long history of evilness, Google it. Their CEO has openly expressed his opinion that having clean drinking water as a basic human right is an "extremist position".