[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Survival is not the driving force behind humanity

Survival is the driving force behind humanity. It may be that nothing lives forever but that doesn't mean living things don't try to live as long as they can. Survival is why humans developed communal living, hunting and gathering societies, and money. Money is just another manifestation of this survival command. What came before money? Accumulation of land and livestock. What came before accumulation of land and livestock? Pretty looking baubles used to trade for food. And so on down the line. In time money, as we think of it now, will also fade away.

Originally Posted by davidgow77 I am not an anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe that true capitalism is a system of working where society as a whole capitalises on the gains made by society as a collective.

I think what you are refering to is called socialism, perhaps even communism. That being said, capitalism is always evolving. Maybe in time people will be able to achieve socialist values without sacrificing democratic right.

Originally Posted by davidgow72 If you take money out of the equation, companies like GlaxoSmithkline and Lilly by making more of their drugs available to a mass market could easily stop alot of inhumane suffering in Africa, Asia, and even in America and Europe. However, because these companies are not concerned with corporate social responsibility issues to the extent that they could really make a differance, they are just money-making entities, no better that tobacco companies or beer brewers.

Taking money out of the equation is not a simple thing to do. If these companies just give their product away there are serious consequences for them. Their investors may pull their financial support, they won't be able to pay for the expenses they incurred creating the product, they open the door for even more people expecting free product, etc. If they continued to give their product away their employees could suffer wage cutbacks or even loss of jobs, they could operate at a profit loss, their company could effectively go under. These are real concerns of 'big business'.

Do these concerns justify their lack of social conscience? I would have to say no. Each person has a choice and each of these companies are run by people. As such each individual either working for the company or guiding it must take it upon themselves to effect this type of change.

Originally Posted by davidgow77 If you're just in it for the money, it doesn't matter what you do....you're a whore for the coin.

I agree