Why The Chemical Companies, Now Biotechnology Companies, Are Evil

The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of chemical companies is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would a create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ‘making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical sort.

Before the chemical companies became biotechnology companies they only dealt with chemicals that interacted with life processes.  Repeatedly these companies produced new chemicals (thousands daily)  that  they had no way of knowing what the full long term effects would be on living systems.  They were released without sufficient study. I know this because the needed pre-release experiments would have involved the study of such long term high level multivariate interactions that it would have been impossible to do these experiments in principle (though some have theorized it was possible albeit too costly to perform such experiments in practice).  In actual practice the environment itself was the testing ground, and the lawyers and the public relations propagandists delayed the inevitable lawsuits until a profit could be turned, a subsidiary company divested and the inevitable move to another product accomplished.

This was bad enough when these harmful chemicals, which are now lodged in every living thing on earth, were the product of the chemical companies.  Now these same companies want you to believe that they are both competent and moral enough to patent life and license its product in combination with the same subsidiary chemicals that they released to the detriment of billions around the globe. If they couldn’t consider the interaction of molecules, in principle, then even the lowest forms of life must still be beyond their reach. Let us not even consider the human impact or higher order systems.

The only morality a corporation has is its profit.  Death is the golden skeleton that is cost of such companies doing business.  Such is the nature of evil. I am not saying profit is evil, but those that profit from death are evil incarnate.

The linkage I make of biotech with medicine is no shallow metaphor.  The ethical policy of these companies must have in it a ‘do no harm‘ provision. The researchers in these companies also must follow the tripartite role model of the physician as a clinician, public health expert and scientist. To date all we have seen is Doctor Josef Mengele.

3 responses to this post.

  1. Now that you’ve defined the problem, two questions emerge: a)What do you propose be done from here forward? and b)What alternative would you have preferred in the past?

    You posit that that “chemical companies” produced all sorts of new chemicals without sufficient study, since truly sufficient study would be impossible. Are you suggesting then that none of these developments should have been allowed in the first place? If so, where are you drawing the line between “chemical companies” and “manufacturing companies (non-chemical)”? No, the line is NOT obvious. Polytetrafluoroethylene, computer chips, Gatorade, Cheerios, sewage treatment – which is on the “good” or “bad” side of the line.

    Have some companies performed unconscionably? I’d be a fool to deny that. Do blanket statements across all industries do much outside of the talk show circuit? Not really.

    Reply

    • You have a point. I just have a hard time believing that any of the Chemical Companies were or are in any way moral. But, since I have only collected history on Monsanto, I have rewritten this article as Monsanto specific.

      My issue here is mostly is not that they do the damage, the issue is that they lie about it, cover it up and set it up to do it again and again and again. Risk is essential, yes, otherwise we never get anywhere. The problem is that we need to be informed participants in the risk, not guinea pigs.

      The other lesson here is that you can be too big. Once you are big enough to control governments, then governments must control you. There is little choice here. Either corporations submit to ethical control or we all remain slaves to the corporation.

      As for the obvious solutions, well the dirty fucking hippies had it right all along. Small systems with self sustaining technology would work. this is exactly what the giant monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to debunk. Hopefully in the last forty years we have learned enough to not let the bastards grind us down. Illegitimi non carborundum or more correctly operor retineo non forensis liberi attero vos.

      Reply

    • You have a point. I have rewritten the blog as Monsanto specific and added an alternative.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: