Taking Action, Saving Lives (Part 2 - Inequality)

I find this book a lot more readable than the previous SF book but I guess this book is geared towards a different audience. SF talks mainly about science and the conflict of private interest science with public interest in the 3rd chapter of the book. I was in class on Monday and I thought I overheard someone say that she seems to be giving scientists a hard time. I agree somewhat with that but then again, she does give credit to those who actually do the right thing - like Warheim and Finkel (in Chapter 5). All of her arguments make sense; they really do. We should be moral citizens and uphold justice and equality etc etc. but unless a really dramatic chain of events occur, I don't think it is possible just because of the way the economy and society is set up at the moment.

I've always thought that Americans had a pretty good standard of living but finding out that it is much lower than 41 other developed countries is rather shocking. The horrible part about reading such a thing is that the information that SF produces to explain such a phenomenon is actually logical and makes a whole lot of sense. The US usually has so much clout in world affairs but then again, is this country fit to be in such a position?

I know this class is targeting environmental injustices but I think the biggest barrier to this issue is the way the US economy works. I am no business major but I think I can see how why things are the way they are in American society. Lets not talk about ethics and what not right now but focus on economics.

The US economy to me seems closer to the ideal "free-trade" economy compared to many other countries and this is probably the root of the problem. In an unregulated economy, corporations are geared to maximizing their profits with as little inputs (costs) as possible and the same goes for people who are part of this economy. Because there is fierce competition, people want to get more bang for their buck...making their money go a long way.

Inqualities like low pay (even with regulation) is market dynamics at work. Which company in a "free-market" economy would want to pay Worker A $10 an hour when Worker B is willing to work for $5 an hour? There is a constant demand for cheap labor not only in this country but in the world to cut down costs and maximize profits. Immigrant workers who earn much less if they work back home are willing to accept what is considered a low pay over here but is still much more than what they would earn back home.

This is why the rich keep getting richer and the gap between the rich and poor keeps increasing. To address this issue of economics, we cannot just foster change in the US but it has to be worldwide. If a US company is unable to meet their target spending over here because of high costs, they will most likely outsource their work to countries with cheap labor such as China. We worry about the environmental injustices that American workers face but what about the workers in the developing world?

We constantly want cheap goods to make the most of our money. Consumerism is probably the result of large scale advertising by corporations to purchase their products. The whole system is run by the amount of profits one makes. As a corporation, the more they sell, the more they earn. As consumers, the more we get for our money, the more satisfied we are. Logically, why would we want to change the way this system works because consumers and corporations technically benefit from such an arrangement.

Lets bring ethics into the picture now. According to SF and many other philosophers, we have a moral obligation to do the right thing. Especially since we are part of a demoncracy because the outcomes are due to the choices that we make. We owe it to other human beings to be treated as well as we are just because they're people too. I think everyone will agree with that but when it comes to how the economy and society is so intertwined, it it hard to put it into practice.

Private-interest science is no different; people get paid to do their job. People want to better their lives and they just so happen to be scientists but then, scientists have an ethical responsibility to report the truth. But they're people too, with wants that may not be fulfilled if they chose to report the truth. Could you really blame them for doing the wrong thing? I find it hard to point a finger because if I were put in such a position; with losing my job and being labelled a junk scientist, it would be tough to make a choice.

I think most people, if they really thought about it, do know what is going on. SF's book is a reminder as to why we should do the right thing. We all know what the right thing is but the main issue I feel, is to take a step into doing the right thing. Are we willing to sacrifice our money, time and standard of living to ensure that justice is being practiced everywhere?