Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
> But if you see it as a complicated tradeoff where whats right for one country can be wrong for another then it's unproblematic.

How can anyone entertain that belief unless:

a) they think people in other countries have a different biology

b) profits matter more than the health of people in other countries (mostly former colonies of Europe)

They can believe that:

Capitalism is the most effective driver of progress known.

Capitalism has lifted enormous numbers of people out of absolute poverty and is a great positive for the world.

Inequality is an unavoidable side-effect of capitalism.

The optimal risk:benefit tradeoff depends on the resources you have available.

It can be rational behavior for a poor person to take greater risks with their health than a rich person, because the value of wealth has strongly diminishing returns. I personally believe we should have state-enforced wealth redistribution to limit this scenario to a reasonable minimum, but I'm not so naive as to think eliminating it entirely would be the globally optimal solution. In practice, "everybody gets identical protection from pesticides" means "everybody is poor".