(Fwd) Re: Nuremberg - misunderstanding

["Mark Robinowitz" <mrobinowitz@igc.apc.org>]

One of the industry representatives on the list has complained that I've 
compared industry to the Nazis, and that I'm allegedly full of hate.  
Neither is true, and this is my response to him.

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------


You miss the subtle nature of my point.  It is NOT the same thing to 
deliberately expose populations to unknown substances that the Germans 
did.  The Nuremberg Code doesn't only apply to fascists and others with 
such extreme violence -- it applies to everyone.  What it states is that 
everybody has the right not to participate in medical experiments, 
including those of random mutagenic distribution in a population, such as 
the effluents from the organic chlorine industry.

The intent may not be malicious, but the damage happens anyway regardless 
of intent.

(Although surely you must know that the I.G. Farben chemical conglomerate
was one of Hitler's strongest backers, without I.G. Farben, there would
not have been a World War Two in Europe due to their products.  I 
recommend "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben," which details their
involvements, including the Auschwitz synthetic rubber factory, built
with slave labor.)

And no, I don't "hate" the bio-stitutes of the various Earth destroying
and polluting companies who value short term convenience more than the
continuation of evolution.  In fact, I feel a bit sorry for those who are
so divorced from the natural world that they can decide in board rooms the
fate of entire ecosystems and peoples far from their offices. It's
definitely a sign of spiritual decay, something the native peoples of
this continent have noted repeatedly.  (For the record, I'm a pacifist,
too.)

Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet h-bomb designer, estimated that atmospheric 
nuclear weapons testing killed as many (or more) people as the Nazi 
holocaust.  But those numbers don't mean that the testers were as mean as 
the Nazis -- it merely gives a handle on the numbers, a way to realize how 
huge the damage is.   Something to think about as you look as PCB levels 
in the Arctic, far from any PCB producing facility.  DNA that's damaged 
doesn't care about the intent of the polluter, whether they are nice 
people personally or not.  Future generations won't particularly care 
about our intent or politics either.

The industrialists are made of the same DNA flesh stuff as everyone else,
even if those who are better paid often seem to think that they can hire
a better lifeboat than the rest of the public.  If you were to turn the
immense talents of the chemical industry into producing biomass materials
instead of petrochemicals, solar/wind/other renewables instead of fossil
fuels, and other less noxious technologies, you'd be hailed and
congratulated. Businesses that seek public support for the 21st century
will be those that didn't have to be dragged into such changes, and not
those who "greenwash" obvious toxins (the list is too long to cite, but
I'm sure you know what I mean).  But these changes are needed if homo
sapiens desires to continue to exist, since destroying Spaceship Earth is
not compatible with our long term survival. I realize that few polluters
want to admit responsibility for adverse impacts due to liability
problems, but since our 18th century legal system doesn't understand
delayed causality and few citizens can afford huge legal teams, you should
not let such concerns stand in the way of the overwhelming need to change
production practices.  The longer you wait, the more intense the public 
reaction will be when they realize the extent of the poisoning.  Think of 
your great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren and act as they would want.

Mark