Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial • Hacker News Board

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#251

Post by LunaSea » Sun, Nov 05, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

projektfu wrote: post #230

LunaSea wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long after the dangers of smoking were known? Aren't these same companies owners of large vaping brands now btw?

How far do you want to move the goalposts?

Thanks for answering the question.

So it seems that it takes 80 years for the American government to do something about it. Well past the golden age of profit of the tobacco industry.

Now please explain to me again how this is the justice system suddenly genuinely caring about people's health instead of a strategic case to kill European competitors and extort money out of them?

Chemical companies like Dow, 3M and DuPont are in the same basket and don't seem to get fined much.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#252

Post by tremon » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #116

rudyfink wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by "reform" you mean weaken class actions, I would argue that is a bad idea. Larger businesses have already gone to great lengths to eliminate / curtail class actions. I'd argue that this weakening is the root cause of a chunk of the aggregate problems I see discussed on HN. It is in a company's interest to harm a great many people a little bit because the people often have to challenge the company as individuals…

Businesses aren't trying to harm. They aren't a Mao or a Stalin just going for The Greater Good no matter how many people they have to kill. They're trying to make a profit, and sometimes horribly unethical people in those businesses will not care about harm in order to make a profit. But the goal isn't harm.

How is "we're trying to make a profit here, we do not care about harm" any different than Mao's or Stalin's "we're doing it for The Greater Good, we do not care about harm"?

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#253

Post by RoyalHenOil » Mon, Nov 06, 2023, 11:07 PM UTC

vGPU wrote: post #241

RoyalHenOil wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>nothing against banning this and similar roundups on suspicions of them being bad (actually I'm quite in favor of that) This would be a terrible mistake. Even if it turned out that glyphosate causes cancer (it's extremely unclear that it does), it is still the least dangerous herbicide of its type, which is what makes it the most popular herbicide worldwide. The alternatives are much, much more harmful to people and…

This makes no logical sense. If a heavy penalty is established for the use of roundup, an even more prohibitive one would be appropriate for anything more harmful, making it extremely cost-inefficient to use them. This would drive the development of new farming methods and research into different classes of chemicals.

But we aren't discussing penalties for harsher chemicals. RoundUp is getting undue legal attention relative to the risk it carries, and farmers are already under enormous pressure to switch to more harmful herbicides. (There are no less harmful broad-spectrum herbicides. Glyphosate is the safest we've got.)

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#254

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #243

Zigurd wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco? Asbestos? Leaded gasoline? Uncontained mining tailings and failures of tailings piles? Oil w.r.t. global warming? They are working to continue harm. As if I accidentally stabbed someone and decided the best next step is to stab deeper.

This doesn't argue against the point I was making.

When I say "They are working to continue harm." I mean that yes, they are trying to harm. Intending to harm. Knowingly. Almost always knowing it before the public knows it.

Re: Bayer hit with $332M judgement in Roundup cancer trial

#255

Post by Zigurd » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #252

robertlagrant wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Businesses aren't trying to harm. They aren't a Mao or a Stalin just going for The Greater Good no matter how many people they have to kill. They're trying to make a profit, and sometimes horribly unethical people in those businesses will not care about harm in order to make a profit. But the goal isn't harm.

How is "we're trying to make a profit here, we do not care about harm" any different than Mao's or Stalin's "we're doing it for The Greater Good, we do not care about harm"?

Stalin wasn't a Libertarian. More on the Effective Altruism spectrum.