GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

jayeff · 08-23-2005, 12:10 AM

A naive comparison, but you could argue that the car companies should come in for more criticism than they do. Back in the mid-80's I used to write about cars for newspapers and magazines, and in the course of that work I visited several manufacturers R&D departments. They already had working models of the hybrid cars we are only just beginning to see on the market, along with many safety and anti-pollution features, some of which have still not appeared in production vehicles 20 years later.

Car manufacturers of course argue that their decisions are market-driven and that they cannot include, for example, a safety feature which buyers would not perceive as justifying an increase in the cost of their products. That is their reasoning, not only for witholding technology until they perceive a marketing advantage, but also for lobbying very effectively against legislation which would force its introduction.

Which is the same reasoning behind inadequate drug testing, unhealthy food being sold in supermarkets and restaurants, etc, etc. All of these things kill people, shorten and limit lives. And because we are unwilling to tackle in a broader arena the fundamental question of when/if profits should take a back seat to social responsibility, we end up using the courts when we think that companies have gone too far.

It's an inadequate response, even if people who are foolish enough to believe they will never be victims can be persuaded they would be better off with lower costs than allowing companies to be sued. The reality however is that a company like Merck, the producers of Vioxx, will at worst likely lose not more than half the profit they made from a product that allegedly killed or damaged the health of thousands of people. That hardly seems like an incentive to take greater care in future.

08-23-2005, 12:10 AM
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	A naive comparison, but you could argue that the car companies should come in for more criticism than they do. Back in the mid-80's I used to write about cars for newspapers and magazines, and in the course of that work I visited several manufacturers R&D departments. They already had working models of the hybrid cars we are only just beginning to see on the market, along with many safety and anti-pollution features, some of which have still not appeared in production vehicles 20 years later. Car manufacturers of course argue that their decisions are market-driven and that they cannot include, for example, a safety feature which buyers would not perceive as justifying an increase in the cost of their products. That is their reasoning, not only for witholding technology until they perceive a marketing advantage, but also for lobbying very effectively against legislation which would force its introduction. Which is the same reasoning behind inadequate drug testing, unhealthy food being sold in supermarkets and restaurants, etc, etc. All of these things kill people, shorten and limit lives. And because we are unwilling to tackle in a broader arena the fundamental question of when/if profits should take a back seat to social responsibility, we end up using the courts when we think that companies have gone too far. It's an inadequate response, even if people who are foolish enough to believe they will never be victims can be persuaded they would be better off with lower costs than allowing companies to be sued. The reality however is that a company like Merck, the producers of Vioxx, will at worst likely lose not more than half the profit they made from a product that allegedly killed or damaged the health of thousands of people. That hardly seems like an incentive to take greater care in future.