[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.