[dsfyu404ed]

>But what even shocked me more than these stories was how people thought about them. Somewhere between pride and it-is-just-like-that. From all levels, workers, managers, chemists with PhDs, their families...

Other cultures have different priorities. I can't quite put my finger on it but there's something I really don't like about how your comment just takes for granted that their prioritization is wrong. Of course Germany has changed since the 80s but your comment may as well apply to the Ukraine or India.

[hef19898]

Well, basically trading in your health, knowingly, and risking death in exchange for a salary in private industry is kind of weird to say the least. And to be somehow proud to voluntarily become a corporate drone in the process even more so.

One interviewee even went so far to attack environmental activists because one of the more polluting production was shot down. Same guy didn't have any issue with letting his kids play in the polluted waste dust and sand. I assumed that in that case you would be grateful as the improvement directly impacted your own lively hood.

But I get how you can be sucked into that, kind of. Especially if you are otherwise poverty struck. From the management and the chemists I found that attitude very cynical.

Reminded of Burke in Aliens and the question which creature is worth, but at least the Xenomorphs did get themselves killed for a percentage.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Well, basically trading in your health, knowingly, and risking death in exchange for a salary in private industry is kind of weird to say the least.

If you're a not in a wealthy nation that's not necessarily a bad deal.

[prolepunk]

I find this comment to be highly cynical.

Not only you are proposing someone to trade off their health for some money but also you get to trade off your children's health.

Poverty sucks, but is it a really an ethical choice to give to anyone, it's almost a biblical choice you're giving in this case -- sacrifice your first born.

Is this what people in power, want to be? Give devil's bargain to anyone who has only bad option to save a few percent on environmental scrubbers; or continue a business that is at very core environmentally unsustainable.

[hef19898]

Pretty much seems so, doesn't it?

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Especially if the alternative is to starve to death.

[hef19898]

True in these edge cases. Not sure how that applies to Germany in the 80s, so.

[CraigJPerry]

> your comment just takes for granted that their prioritization is wrong

Firstly i doubt it's a prioritisation choice of which they have agency over. I find it more likely that they were powerless to change it, but i have no evidence of that so i accept it could still be their choice.

Secondly, this prioritisation - whether by these people or whether, as i suspect, by others and forced upon those people - IS wrong Unless it is explicitly negotiated in the offer of employment. Which, we know it was not.

I.e. in the case of a public venture then you are joining a military function - i do not think civilian police should expect to give their life. In the case of employment with a private venture then there's a dedicated line item on the paycheck "danger money" and the worker is suitably educated of its meaning before they are allowed to accept the offer of employment.

This is not hard. Enterprise can be accomplished, profit can be made, and human capital can be fairly compensated. Greed does not need to prevail in all business decisions.