this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43826 readers
783 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's only one thing I would alter in your statement. You said:
I would say, "and to focus on shareholder profits over ~~making a good product~~ anything else, including life itself.
It's more profitable for a health insurance company to deny someone's claim than to pay for their healthcare in the US. The insurance company won't care if that ultimately leads to the person's death - they have to answer to their shareholders.
It's more profitable for Nestlé or Google to siphon water from countries in the global South than it is to have sustainable practices that don't exacerbate climate change. So what if that means that millions of people will die in the years to come? That's their problem for being poor.
We need to bring about the kind of change that has politicians recognize that there is more to human life than a dollar amount, and that poverty is not a moral failing on the part of the individual. But until that happens, poverty is akin to a death sentence.
Ok but what you are asking is to crash the market, that will lead to more harm than good. Any better less drastic idea?
If the market can’t survive without being detrimental to human life on a large scale, it deserves to crash.
Sounds exactly what an evil super villain would say.
Is it evil to prioritize human life over the state of the market?
Is it good to prioritize the economy over human lives?