Or is it simply a lack of perspective? Sometimes, a change of perspective is in order.
Childhood diseases used to have a fearsome mortality rate. Then vaccination came along, and those diseases became first a nuisance, then pretty much ignored. Measles, mumps, rubella, polio - all pretty much vanished. Now the worry is that mercury based preservatives might possibly cause autism - though you'd think if they did there'd be an immediate, very noticeable uptick in autism cases starting in the '50s when the polio virus became common.
But although autism was already on the books, no significant upturn was noticed in autism numbers. And even if there had...

It might have been looked at as a lesser of two evils. When faced with diseases killing tens of thousands, would a statistically difficult to correlate side effect be something worth worrying about?
On to other things. There used to be some significant problems regarding food growing and distribution here in the US. Not any more, with the use of pesticides and fertilizer, better sanitation practices and refrigerated shipping. Yet there are those who criticize mightily folks who use such things as pesticides and fertilizers. Could they be used in more environmentally friendly ways? Certainly. Should they be eliminated? No, not unless you want to see food prices shoot up and quality take a dive.
Again - it's a matter of perspective.
Food costs used to consume a major portion of the household budget. Now, not so much. Food is now, by historical standards, pretty darn cheap. In fact, it's actually difficult to find someone who cannot get enough to eat. Indeed, for poor and rich alike, weight gain/obesity is a problem.
CNN.com - Working poor face higher obesity rates - Mar. 4, 2004
Fruits and vegetables are key to a healty diet - but starches and carbs are cheap. One source of inexpensive fruits and vegetables is a very reviled capitalist institution - WalMart. (It's also a source of more and better paying jobs than were available in an area before - so it's a double threat.) Supposedly one main complaint about WalMart is it will move into an area and provide so much competition to local businesses that they can't compete and end up shutting down.
Having, in the early '80s, done a fair bit of travel in rural areas courtesy of the USAF, and having shopped in a lot of small-town groceries and stores, I don't see this as a bad thing. The prices were usually high, the quality was usually low, and the selection was pretty skimpy. And with no alternative, what would cause things to change? Local hardware stores, while picturesque, didn't necessarily have what you needed.
I doubt any businesses relocated primarily due to the availability of a WalMart, but I'm pretty sure there's not many that might consider locating out to a rural community who go "Um, there's a WalMart - we're not gonna go there!" WalMarts tend to provide a lot of jobs - and better paying ones than the people locally would be able to find. A cheap-jack grocery might employ a couple of dozen people, a WalMart several hundred. A mom&pop grocery or hardware store won't be able to provide affordable health care - and WalMart can. (Whether the employee takes it is his choice, and 'affordable' is certainly subjective.)
But plenty of people hate WalMart, to the point where Penn & Teller devoted an episode of their show to an analysis of Wal-Mart criticism as a social movement. They theorized that despite the noble rhetoric, the real motivation of "Wal-Mart haters" was rooted in human psychology. They suggested that hating Wal-Mart permits a person "to feel better about themselves" for three main reasons: They "don't run a greedy international conglomerate", they aren't Wal-Mart workers, widely considered "low-skilled, minimum wage drones", and they aren't Wal-Mart customers thought of as "toothless, welfare-getting hillbillies". (Preceeding paragraph cribbed shamelessly from Wikipedia's entry on WalMart.)
One thing noted, however, in my quick look-over of WalMart, is that the criticism seems to be following a standard binary activist trait. If WalMart is not perfect, it must be stopped. Regardless of what results might accrue, or what benefits the company may provide, it must be stopped. That it will impoverish millions of Chinese isn't important. Or that jobs will disappear or food cost more.
Students for a Free Economy > Home - Wal-Mart Helps the PoorThe full article's worth reading. This 'social justice' idea - I'm a bit leery of it.An unreflective passion for social justice may be one of the biggest obstacles to creating peace and prosperity in the 21st century. While there are most certainly factory owners in China whom we would rightly regard as criminal in their treatment of their workers, it is very important not to confuse these incidents with the phenomenon of globalization. It is a good thing that Wal-Mart is encouraging more humane standards in its supplier's factories. And yet it is also important to remember that Wal-Mart's "vast pipeline that gives non-U.S. companies direct access to the American market" is a vast pipeline of prosperity for the hundreds of millions of rural Chinese whose lives are more difficult than we can imagine.
Act locally, think globally: Shop Wal-Mart.
Let's go on to government. There are those who argue that Communism/Socialism is good - because it pretty much guarantees everyone a fair shake. Well, that 'fairness' is certainly subject to arguement, but there's no doubting that those in the higher echelons of the Party get more. Socialism has been touted, again for the egalitarian aspects - but is that a good thing or a bad? When you force everyone into a 'one size fits all' arrangement whether through taxation or coercion, is it beneficial to society as a whole?
Certainly there are some who would say yes.
From the perspective of the WalMart haters, it's evil and must be done away with. From the perspective of those who distrust/dislike vaccination, the process is iffy and dangerous. For those who believe in Communism, the idea that someone can make a fortune off their own merits and business acumen borders on the criminal. Take ANYTHING providing a benefit to someone, and you'll find someone else that thinks it should be stopped.
Perspective - it's a wonderful thing.
And something to think on...
J.
Comments (2)
People forget that the notion that the death of a child while the parents are still alive as being a rare and special tragedy only dates to around WWII, when antibiotics became widely available. Also, modern medicine benefitted the poor more than the rich, because until modern medicine made recovery from illness more rapid and certain, the normal way to treat someone who was ill was constant treatment of symptoms (one "remedy" for appendicitis was hot compresses, so the appendix would burst so the patient would then either recover or die, but would in either case not have appendicitis anymore), and this duty normally fell on the wife. In poor families, where the wife worked also, there would be no one to tend the sick and their likelihood of recovery was much less.
Posted by John C. | November 24, 2007 9:44 AM
Posted on November 24, 2007 09:44
>>They "don't run a greedy international conglomerate", they aren't Wal-Mart workers, widely considered "low-skilled, minimum wage drones", and they aren't Wal-Mart customers thought of as "toothless, welfare-getting hillbillies".>>
Somehow this immediately brought to mind the gospel in which Jesus compares the prayers of the Pharisee and the poor man...the Pharisee starts out with "I thank
Thee, Lord, that I am not as these others..." (I'm Catholic - don't do the chapter and verse thing!) It's the heart and soul of the liberal today - that they are somehow heads and shoulders above all others because of having well-being through no effort of their own. In other words, the less you work for your "toys", the more entitled you feel you are to have them.
Posted by suek | November 24, 2007 11:02 AM
Posted on November 24, 2007 11:02