Originally Posted by
bundabergdevil
No, I find it pretty abhorrent, too. I guess there are just lots of business cases that go something like this --- Company X makes and sells product Y, which either through its manufacture or use results in human harm. But Company X wants to continue to make and sell product Y because doing so is how they make good money and there aren't any specific regulatory measures to prevent them from continuing to make money on Y even though they know good and well that Y causes harm, even lots of it. So, somewhere in a room, the company discusses risk mitigation strategies, legal set-aside fees, document controls, and other strategies to help them continue to sell Y more.
And, having worked in a large company that did the above, I've also been surprised at how many rank-and-file employees adopt a victim blaming mindset. Oh, those people downstream from the chemical plant that all got cancer? They're just after the money. I'm sure somewhere in the Perdue/McKinsey discussion ranks there is some of that going on, too.
This quote is most appropriate here:
Upton Sinclair (b. 1878, d. 1968) in
The Story Of A Patriot: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Sage Grouse
---------------------------------------
'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013