DOLLARS & DEATH
aMan Bloom, Sept 2009
Being part of a conversation between a bright young male apologist for a major corporation and a bright young woman news journalist, both viewing and interviewing each other as possible romantic partners. We enter at a point after the usual introductions and cultural practices, when they’re testing each other’s intellect and moral capacities:
“…yeah, so, what we do is follow all the statistics in relation to public sentiment. Right now, as you’re well aware, being green is popular, so we’re working hard to temper our footprint…”
“You mean, your carbon footprint…?”
“Yeah, that, of course. It’s legislated. But bigger than that…”
‘Bigger?”
“Like a mathematical formula. Overall profit and public acceptability factored against collateral deaths, for example…”
“Such as animals, plants…”
“And people, too. Can’t get away from that. All major corporations have to factor in these eventualities.”
“But you certainly do everything possible to limit…”
“Well, that’s in the best of all possible worlds, isn’t it.”
“So, you’re saying that you allow these…eventualities to occur, even though…”
“Okay, listen. We’re talking off the record here, right? Like friends, right?”
“Well, of course. This is just a…social exchange we’re having here. Relaxing.”
“Cool. Thanks. Sorry if I suddenly seemed paranoid. It’s just…”
“Not at all. I’m just fascinated…”
“Some of your kind can be so ruthless…”
“Only thing ruthless about me is my name...”
“Can I buy you another drink?”
“Tell me more. I mean, what would people think if they knew about this?”
“I think people actually do know about this. They simply accept it as well. Just like flying, or driving on the highway…”
“But why let it happen if you can do something about it?”
“Well, it’s a consequence of risk-management thinking. Balancing costs of improvement over legal suits for wrongful death… That sort of thing.”
“That sounds medieval… In a way…”
“Suppose so. But, see, we’ve got our stockholders. Our loyalty to them, to their investments.. They’re very demanding.”
“I thought you were in business to make a profit by providing goods and services to your customers. Your stockholders get served if you deliver…”
“Hmmm, that’s kind of old-school…”
“Oh.”
“But, couldn’t it happen that some of your stockholders get victimized? Less of a chance for the very wealthy, perhaps, but there’re a lot of small-time investors…”
“Sure. We’ve even got a Stockholder Loss Quotient for that. Got to keep that low…”
“And for the general public…”
“That’s called ‘Ancillary Death Ratio,’ which is pro-rated over time. I don’t really get into these mathematical dodges, however.”
“Your job is more…?”
“Cover up, I guess you’d call it.”
“I think I will have that drink now.”
“It’s your funeral, ha-ha…”
“So, it seems you try to protect your stockholders more than the general public?”
“Oh, no way. Don’t get me wrong. Otherwise we could get accused of selective collateralism. Very bad for the industry, obviously.”
“Obviously…?”
“Well, that’d be more like, well, murder, I guess…”
“Criminal?”
“Well, almost…(?)”
“Hmmm…”
“Say, we’ve had such a good talk, maybe we could go out on a date sometime…”
“With me, after this, never.”
