The
Bottom Line: Profit
By Emily Spence
29 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
In many affairs, the bottom line
involves boosting profits regardless of the method used to achieve this
aim. The reason is that unbridled greed can express itself with no limits
in sight.
Indeed, certain excessive behaviors, on a biological level, are "programmed"
into species. For example, hoarding is well known amongst rats. Sharing
is simply too hard to implement regardless that some will starve while
others, like King Midas, will guard their too large mound of corn. In
a similar vein, a closed petri dish with its own atmosphere and agar
(nourishment) supply, as well as a few bacteria, will soon be devoid
of life. The bacteria will have reproduced beyond the supply, although
sometimes, in this experiment, they die due to the overload of their
waste gases polluting the air before the surrounding food completely
disappears.
In other words, the dissipation of ambient atmospheric conditions can
initiate ruin before nutrients, sufficiently, deplete. As such, it is
hard to resist drawing some sort of loose analogy between life in a
finite petri dish and life on an atmospherically enclosed, finite planet.
Relative to human overpopulation, assorted forms of waste materials
contaminating water, land and air (including the excess carbon related
to global warming); diminishing food supply (due to increasingly abnormal
weather patterns, loss of top soil, etc.), the petri dish can provide
a simple and clear warning.
Yet with mammals, the interactions of various factors are a bit more
complicated. For example, a too large deer herd, that is not sufficiently
culled by predators (i.e., wolves), can easily outstrip its food source
and become weakened en masse to such a degree that immune systems are
compromised pretty much across the board at which point one ill deer
can more readily contaminate nearly the whole herd with a death dealing
infection. Hence, the herd, eventually, gets culled, anyway, although
not before the surrounding plant life has been almost thoroughly destroyed.
In any case, the natural world does provide means, albeit often harsh
ones, to re-balance itself after excesses. Yet, great damage to the
environment often occurs beforehand.
Meanwhile, this process transpires, in an analogous vein, for humans.
Deeply tragic although it is, widely spread death happens in those regions
wherein needs outstrip available local resources (i.e., food, clean
water, adequate housing, etc.). Particularly when overcrowded conditions
come into this mix -- diseases, including easily preventable ones, run
rampant and spread through the indigenous population, as well as to
others (i.e., via overseas travelers). In other words, there are predictable
reasons that new flu variations originate where and when they do. As
such, the deer, unfortunately, provide a largely apt model.
All considered, these assorted problems, en toto, lead to a method to
curtail human intemperance in various regions. When coupled with humans
not sharing (food, medicine, other resources) with those who have exceeded
their own environment's carrying capacity, much dire and avoidable misery
results.
Then again, many people consider that the poor and afflicted will always
be present as people, like the bacteria in the dish, keep pressing the
current limits in sustainability. Therefore, population growth will
always occur when opportunity presents based on most couple's desire
to have several children, sex drive being pronounced for a large number
of years in our species, lack of inexpensive and universally available
birth control techniques, and cultural (including religious) influences
that, overall, propel expansion.
Even so, it is unconscionable that desire for profit prevents inexpensive
malarial and other drugs to be dolled out to impoverished populations.
The same conclusion applies to other valuable resources, including birth
control measures, along with the related education concerning an imperative
for keeping our numbers reasonable relative to other species and the
overall limits of the earth.
In a sense then, this is a huge omission on our part collectively. Yet,
many, who are affluent, simply like their relative status and choose
to maintain it regardless of the impact on others. They, simply, don't
much like to share. They, also, don't care one whit about the breeding
pattern of others elsewhere as long as it doesn't lead to desperate
immigrants fleeing into their specific countries to find jobs, decent
housing, access to medical intervention, public schools and other provisions
lacking in abandoned homelands.
Nonetheless, this whole scenario is less horrific than groups of wealthy
individuals deliberately devising policies that, actually, make a profit
off of the demise of others. This goes far beyond any omission based
on indifference or inability to respond to others' needs due to alternative
causes. Nonetheless, the commission rate of such actions is high.
One of the most cold blooded and calculating sorts was one about which
I was told years ago by people urging others to boycott Nestle products
as a form of protest. It concerned the time that Nestle overproduced
powdered baby formula.
Subsequently, a large amount of product went out-of-date due to not
having been purchased beforehand. Yet, some Nestle managers refused
to subsume the related fiscal loss. As a result, they concocted a plan
to dress women up into white, nurse-like uniforms in impoverished countries
and paid them modest salaries to seek out women, who were either near
delivery or who had, recently, given birth.
Then from a rehearsed script, the pseudo-nurses stated that Nestle administrators
were happy for the new life and were giving the women gifts of baby
formula to celebrate the occasion. (The supply was just large enough
to ensure that mother's own milk would not develop were the formula
solely used.) The women were, also, told that modern women in first-world
countries didn't breast feed in that it was considered primitive and
animal-like. Then they were asked whether they wanted to be like modern
successful mothers or like stupid farm animals. They were, also, given
a cut rate for purchase of further outdated formula -- to be used when
the cost-fee gift was entirely depleted.
The long and short of it was that many of the women discovered, after
they were hooked on the plan, that they couldn't afford to buy enough
formula to give an adequate amount in terms of required number of calories
that newborns need. So, they thinned it down with water too much. In
addition, many of the infants, rather than receiving the immune system
benefits provided by human milk, were made drastically ill due to pathogens
in the unclean water supply used to dilute the powdered formula. In
short, the whole situation was a recipe built for disaster -- that is,
it was except for Nestle. While an uncountable number of babies either
got extremely sick or died from dysentery and lack of sufficient nutrition,
Nestle made a tremendous financial coup on the bad formula.
If this appears like an isolated incident, look again. All considered,
this is the very same practice (with varying details) that many global
companies implement.
Another case in point is Nike. As with the rapacious Nestle plan, there
were whistle blowers for this conglomerate, too: 35,000 in all inundated
the CEO with letters and voice mail telling him that they would no longer
buy his products. This was due to his not protecting workers with proper
precautions relative to toxic glue and other dangerous substances required
to make footwear in giant Asian sweatshops.
Some of those contacting him even mentioned that they would tell all
of their associates to forego Nike. Indeed, he felt so pressured by
this voluminous outpouring that he sent out announcements to all those
contacting him. He, also used mainstream advertisements to state that
the requested corrections would transpire.
However, the problem with remedies is that consumers can never know
for how long they will stay in place unless independent regulators,
ones not employed by the offending company, keep watch-dogging in all
of the factories. Moreover, we live in a fast paced societies. As such,
"out of sight and out of mind" is generally the "rule
of thumb." Therefore, a contrite CEO can easily go back to his
"old ways" without many people being informed of the relapse.
In this sense, it becomes hard to keep up with which company is doing
what to whom and where. Equally difficult is knowing when any, actually,
do revert to prior ruthlessness when not the current focus of attention.
In this vein, who knows what Nestle and most other transnational companies
are doing these days? Certainly, we cannot find out through most mainstream
sources, especially since most of these malicious operations are deliberately
hidden from public scrutiny.
Yet, some companies still do make the news. However, they are certainly
not mentioned across the board, especially as common broadcast sources
tend to, purposefully, foster the status quo. All the same, many of
us do know, for instance, about Monsanto. [i] We, also, get alarmed
when we hear about unintended trans-species modifications.
For example, a genetically altered bacteria introduced into some of
Italy's grape crop, to curtail mold growth, was found in the stomachs
of Swiss bees despite that Italian farmers were reassured by the GM
supplier that no transference was ever possible. Meanwhile, who knows
whatever will happen to the bees and the other species that might be
similarly impacted as the bacteria continues to mutate in such manners
as to be accepted into further host organisms (including, possibly,
humans)!
Then again, who is to judge whether Monsanto is better or worse that
Coke? Whether the farmers and surrounding communities are ruined by
pesticides like Roundup and Frankenseeds or irrigation water being diverted
to be bottled at a plant -- what's the difference in the end? [ii]
In the same vein, what is the difference whether it involves food, water
or any other supply on which life, absolutely, depends? There isn't
much. Nonetheless, many different kinds of industries, deliberately,
maintain unethical and criminal practices -- especially many of the
pharmaceutical one.
For example, Bayer management, knowingly, sold contaminated products
that killed users. This sort of practice goes on at many additional
drug corporations. Meanwhile, relative to the cost of lawsuits, the
income reaped by the time that the litigation proceeds, is a staggering
sum above the cost to pay wrongful death and damage suits. [iii].
All considered, the happenings with the S&L scandal, Enron, White
Water and other corporate thefts pale in comparison to the wrongs perpetuated
by executives choosing to garner revenue through deliberately meting
out death and injury. In this manner, their organizations proceed much
in the way that the US government has in Iraq --slaughtering innocent
peoples and fomenting many further forms of devastation all in the pursuit
of self-gain (oil and other, less tangible kinds).
In the final reckoning, we must resist purchase of products by companies
responsible for these outrageous horrors. We must, likewise, forego
endorsement of all war efforts and turn our back on support of any government
representatives choosing to serve their own best interests in lieu of
their constituents. Similarly, we must let all parties involved in transgressions
know of our deep and adamant ire over their unconscionable practices.
As the harried Nike CEO realized, one must seek positive (although unwelcome)
changes when enough people refuse to condone deeply vile practices.
This in mind, let us, in unison, push for this outcome to occur again
and again whenever and wherever needed!
Whether against grievous government practices or those carried out in
corporate boardrooms, critical transformations will, eventually, occur
when enough people band together to resist grave wrongdoings. Let us,
too, remember about what happens when we forget that we are all in these
circumstances together. Martin Niemöller spelled out the consequences
quite well. [iv]
[i] Please refer to: PANNA: Monsanto Hurts Texas Farmers, Monsanto—THE
model (bad) corporation, The Bad Seeds - Monsanto Co's plans to dominate
farming - Brief ..., Monsanto in the McSpotlight.
[ii] Please refer to: The South Asian: Coke Steals, Pollutes and Spins,
India Resource Center, ZNet Commentary: Coke Pepsi and the Politics
of Food Safety, Internet Archive Search: subject:"coca-cola".
[iii] Please refer to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY, Online
Journal , Evelyn Pringle: Drug Companies Want Women of Childrearing
Years, Under The Influence, 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft Reports On Drug
..., Liberty News TV--Episode 27--April 2007--Corrected.
[iv] Please refer to: http://www.serendipity.li/cda/niemoll.html.
Emily Spence lives in Massachusetts and deeply cares about the future
of our world.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.