The Minamata tragedy - a social case study of how money eroded the humanity out of humans

[Nydex]

In this thread I'd like to take a philosophical look at a historical tragedy by focusing on the societal impacts it had more than anything else. I will avoid highlighting the political and financial nuance that made the tragedy so much worse than it should have been, because that's not the focus here. And at the end of this I will pose a few questions that I hope will spark some thoughtful discussion on topics that are unfortunately becoming ever-so-relevant.

The Minamata disease is a severe neurological disease caused by extreme mercury poisoning. It was first discovered in the city of Minamata, Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan, in 1956, and was caused by the release of methylmercury in the industrial wastewater from a chemical factory owned by the Chisso Corporation.

It's important at this point to clarify that Chisso was not just another corporation opening a facility in a rather small town. They were responsible for a quarter of all jobs in the town, and over half of its tax revenue. This solidified it as an economically important pillar of the community, and Minamata's economic heart, and plays an important role further in the case.

The town didn't just happen to welcome Chisso; they were desperate for a savior because their two main "cash" industries - salt making and coal transport - collapsed simultaneously right before the factory was built. In 1905, the Japanese government passed the Salt Monopoly Act, nationalizing salt production. Minamata's local salt fields were forced to shut down, causing mass unemployment. To make a bad situation worse, in 1906, a hydroelectric power plant was built to power the gold mines, which meant the demand for coal transport vanished overnight.

In just 2 years, Minamata went from a regular, well-functioning small town, to one on the precipice of a complete economic crash. It was not starving (they still had the sea and rice paddies), but they were cash destitute. In the Meiji era (1868 - 1912), roughly 60% of the Japanese population lived in what can be defined as poverty. The town was so desperate that they offered Chisso the now-abandoned salt fields to build their factory.

For nearly 40 years following Chisso's arrival and their pumping of toxic sludge in the water, the pattern of dehumanization that occurred bled out from the math. While the government only "certified" ~2,200 people, roughly 10,000 to 12,000+ additional people received (often insultingly small) financial compensation from Chisso in exchange for dropping lawsuits. These people had documented neurological damage but were legally labeled as "uncertified" to avoid giving them full victim status. The government purposefully made the criteria for "official certification" extremely strict to limit Chisso's potential financial payout. The two-tier system of suffering - the "Certified Patients" (who were worthy of help) and the "Uncertified" (who were inconvenient liabilities) - proved that even the definition of "victim" was dictated by Chisso's colossal budget.

To contextualize the importance of what followed, I first want to outline a few of the core societal values upheld by Japanese communities, as this will help put the ensuing development into perspective. Roughly speaking (and here I need to emphasize that I'm not Japanese nor have I ever been to Japan, so I'm absolutely receptive to corrections and criticism), these are the most fundamental pillars of the Japanese societal contract:

• "Wa" (Harmony) - The prioritization of group stability over individual needs.
• "Meiwaku" (Causing Trouble/Nuisance) - The intense social pressure to avoid burdening others.
• "Sekentei" (Appearance in the eyes of society) - The concern for how one's actions look to the "public gaze."
• "Giri" (Duty/Obligation) - The burden of debt and loyalty.

The betrayal, so to speak, came when affected Minamata residents started suing Chisso. Those that were yet unaffected by the Minamata disease turned against those among their own community that were actively suffering, because they were afraid they were going to lose their job, and the secure, comfortable paycheck they were receiving, and would have to resort back to fishing and other "less civilized" work. The pollution caused by Chisso basically destroyed the local fish populations, which meant that people would have to venture further out in the river delta or all the way out to the sea in order to catch uncontaminated fish. As a result, they physically harassed, intimidated, and ostracized Chisso's victims. They shamed them, cut their fishing nets, assaulted them, isolated them as much as possible, all because a potentially successful legal campaign against Chisso would take their paychecks away.

This wasn't done by "evil" people, but by normal citizens whose fear of financial loss successfully overrode centuries of cultural conditioning regarding kindness and community. From their perspective, the 4 values above were being upheld to the highest standard. From everyone else's perspective, though, these same values were weaponized.

• "Wa" - ironically weaponized to silence the victims because they were seen as a disruption to the town's harmony.
• "Meiwaku" - the victims seeking compensation were not viewed as justice-seekers, but as people causing meiwaku to the company and, by extension, the town's economy.
• "Sekentei" - to sue the company that feeds the town was considered shameful behavior that damaged the town's reputation.
• "Giri" - the unaffected people felt a massive sense of giri toward Chisso for providing jobs and infrastructure, creating a conflict of interest where loyalty to the paymaster outweighed empathy for the neighbor.

It appears that money acts as a dehumanizing agent because it abstracts human suffering into balance sheets. Anything that threatened the favorable numbers in those balance sheets was seen as a liability, completely stripping the human aspect of the situation. If this could happen in Japan - a culture that explicitly prioritizes social cohesion and harmony - what does that say about human nature globally? What chance does western society have to withstand a major disruption of that nature without completely collapsing?

Could it be, perhaps, that every human has a price where their empathy shuts off, often triggered not by the desire for luxury, but by the fear of poverty? And keep in mind - Minamata wasn't bathing in luxury and excess before Chisso showed up, but they weren't starving either.

All in all, the Minamata tragedy proves that economic dependence can weaponize a community against itself, even if that community is the product of centuries of cultural conditioning targeting kindness, empathy, and love for others.

Now I want to leave you with three main questions:

1. Is money truly the root of all evil, or is it simply the most efficient tool for exposing the cracks in human morality?
2. If your livelihood was threatened by a neighbor's lawsuit (even a just one), can you say with 100% certainty you wouldn't resent them?
3. Is anyone immune to this corruption, or is "morality" a luxury we only uphold when we can afford it?

Thank you for reading, and may our fortune be good enough to shield us from ever having to experience such things firsthand.

With love,
Nydex

 

[northape]

1. Is money truly the root of all evil, or is it simply the most efficient tool for exposing the cracks in human morality?

I vote for the second one. Money is just a mental construct and lacks any sentience. We are responsible for our relationship to it and how it affects us.

2. If your livelihood was threatened by a neighbor's lawsuit (even a just one), can you say with 100% certainty you wouldn't resent them?

I'd resent them right away, period. With time, some kind of understanding and acceptance would develop, and I'd see the whole situation in a different light. That is how my psyche works. I don't know about others.

3. Is anyone immune to this corruption, or is "morality" a luxury we only uphold when we can afford it?

If you invest enough time into investigating your own psyche, your morals and awareness develop. Sadly, many people are just robots who react to external stimuli. It is not a criticism, but a fact, imo. The entire system on this planet is built to keep the masses at a certain level so they can be perfect gears in the machine. Inner freedom is hard to find.

Here in the North, we have the Law of Jante, which is supposedly the basis for local society. From my perspective as an outsider, it is used as just another system of control. Locals tend to talk about equality only when it benefits them; at any other time, the topic is omitted as if it were nonexistent. People are not equal; they never have been and never will be. In an absolute sense, yes, but in this mundane reality, that is a fairy tale. Giving the same voice to a child, an uneducated immigrant, and a PhD professor sounds like idealism and mental illness, honestly. Rich Western societies have played the game of civilization so well that they have forgotten the basic truths of being human. Perhaps that was the plan all along: to enslave the masses and create a strict system of control. That is just how I see it all. Working on yourself is an individual project in the end, and very few see any value in it.

Peace

 

[EmeraldAtomiser]

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 6:10 states "for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."
The Latin, Radix malorum est cupiditas, greed is the root of all evil, famous from The Pardoner's Tale in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, conveys a similar sentiment.
The ubiquitous, modern day misquotation, money is the root of all evil, goes that step further, equating money itself as the root of all mankind's ills.
If the love of money is at the root, then what does that make those who focus on, and build their lives around it? Jesus was pretty clear about what he thought of the moneylenders, and usury in general, and in the early days of Christianity, teachings were clear and stern. Usury was not only seen as a financial issue but as a sin against charity and community welfare. Usury was morally wrong.
Funny how this has not only been forgotten, but seemingly reversed, with the usurus banking system being at the very heart of the modern world. Debt is an integral part of the capitalist system, and is inescapable for the vast majority.
Whether money is, per se, the root of all evil, would seem to be something of a moot point, as the system created around it, seems undeniably responsible for the development of the hideous inequality that defines the shape and path humanity has taken.

I guess it's impossible to say whether I would harbour resentment towards a neighbour's search for justice, if it was going to negatively affect me, but every fibre of my being is screaming that I would not. I certainly would try not to, and believe I would not, as my desire for justice and equality is deep in my soul.

If your morals can be swayed by financial or physical things, then I would argue you do not possess these morals you speak of. Sure, they could give you pause for thought, but unless your decision is guided by what is in your heart, and is changed by a shiny bauble, then you have been denying yourself all along.

Thus endeth the lesson for today

Peace.

 

[CosmicRiver]

In my opinion and understanding of the matter,
Money is a symbol but it's sought after as if it were real. This is the first layer.
Even if people could see the symbol for what it is, there would be yet another layer that is seeking what money can provide.
The need for what money can provide is driven by the next layer that is our genes, as we have progressively accumulated genes that facilitate their inheritance. The things that money can provide, through transactions or other indirect means, are security for survival, high reproductive success and high parental care and offspring survival, with each one necessary for the next and then starting the cycle again in the next generation, even if many people don't go beyond the first step.
These same needs are the ones that bring some people to use the knowledge of these biological mechanisms and of their manipulation to shape other people's behavior, blowing everything out of proportion.
Behind all these layers at the core there is dualistic thought.
People on the "money as a symbol" layer, or any other symbolic layer with something else instead of money, are the ones that are more likely to do evil things that seem out of proportion or irrational from a sound mind's point of view. But people that have strong survival impulses because of ongoing or perceived-as ongoing life situations also have a great capacity for evil actions. A mix between the two is the worst.
This is the basic scheme i came out with but it's obviously more complicated than this.

 

[Nydex]

Thank you all for the replies, some really thought-provoking stuff in here.

The entire system on this planet is built to keep the masses at a certain level so they can be perfect gears in the machine.

While I do agree that some aspects of "the system" are indeed geared towards making people easier to control, I think there's a real danger in the argument that "the system is rigged."

Yes, it definitely is rigged in some regards, but that belief is also psychologically attractive, because it removes the burden of performance. If the game is rigged, there is no shame in losing. Using those perceived systemic barriers as a blanket excuse for inaction is a defense mechanism. It allows a person to view their lack of progress as a sign of oppression rather than a lack of adaptation or effort.

In other words, if you believe the system demands you be a mindless gear, you will likely act like one. You will do the minimum, avoid taking risks, and suppress your own creativity because "what's the point?" Ironically, by accepting this narrative, you voluntarily become exactly what you claim to hate - a passive, controllable unit. The system doesn't need to force you to be a gear; your own cynicism has already done the job for them.

I'm certainly not saying you fall into that category, @northape. I agree with the way you see things. I also experienced the Janteloven double standard when I was in Norway, where I was exposed to certain ways of thinking that betrayed how utterly detached locals felt from others, especially where the concept of equality was concerned.

If your morals can be swayed by financial or physical things, then I would argue you do not possess these morals you speak of. Sure, they could give you pause for thought, but unless your decision is guided by what is in your heart, and is changed by a shiny bauble, then you have been denying yourself all along.

I can 100% agree with that. I'm not familiar with Christianity enough to comment on the rest of what you said, but something has to be said about money being the root of all evil. If that were indeed the case, we would never see any crime committed that didn't have a path that led back to money. And we definitely see a lot of that, unfortunately. Crime of the worst, most immoral kind, unrelated to monetary gain, and most often committed purely out of hatred or uncontained desires.

So in that sense, I guess money cannot be held as the ultimate culprit, which is an even more terrifying thought, because it suggests evil is rooted somewhere even deeper than a human's financial concerns or manifestations of greed, which are things that are already rooted considerably deep in the modern human's soul, as the story I told above depicts.

I suppose the question can be reframed as "Can evil be considered a fundamental part of what makes a human, and what governs the level and form of its expression?"

In my opinion and understanding of the matter,
Money is a symbol but it's sought after as if it were real. This is the first layer.
Even if people could see the symbol for what it is, there would be yet another layer that is seeking what money can provide.
The need for what money can provide is driven by the next layer that is our genes, as we have progressively accumulated genes that facilitate their inheritance. The things that money can provide, through transactions or other indirect means, are security for survival, high reproductive success and high parental care and offspring survival, with each one necessary for the next and then starting the cycle again in the next generation, even if many people don't go beyond the first step.
These same needs are the ones that bring some people to use the knowledge of these biological mechanisms and of their manipulation to shape other people's behavior, blowing everything out of proportion.
Behind all these layers at the core there is dualistic thought.
People on the "money as a symbol" layer, or any other symbolic layer with something else instead of money, are the ones that are more likely to do evil things that seem out of proportion or irrational from a sound mind's point of view. But people that have strong survival impulses because of ongoing or perceived-as ongoing life situations also have a great capacity for evil actions. A mix between the two is the worst.
This is the basic scheme i came out with but it's obviously more complicated than this.

That is a quite nuanced way to put it, and I agree. The combination between the two types is indeed the most dangerous one.

Overall, I feel like this is a deep well, and there's a lot more water to pull out of it before we reach the bottom. But we're talking about the human psyche, after all, so anything less would be surprising.

Thank you all for indulging me in my philosophical wanderings...

 

[EmeraldAtomiser]

I suppose the question can be reframed as "Can evil be considered a fundamental part of what makes a human, and what governs the level and form of its expression?"

I really don't agree with concept of 'evil', as if it is an entity in and of itself. It's something of a get out clause, to my mind, allowing humans to put the blame for their actions on something other than themselves. The Devil made me do it, and so forth. There are all kinds of reasons why people are driven to do wicked things, but those things, ultimately, are in their heads, however they have come to that state of mind, and have not been put there by some nefarious being.
Now, that said, nasty things that have been done to us by others may well have created the conditions in our mind that causes us to act in certain ways, but we're back to humans just having the capacity to be nasty pieces of work, not Beelzebub at work.
Let's not forget that evil, or The Devil, is a concept created and perpetuated by the Abrahamic religions to control their flocks.

 

[northape]

While I do agree that some aspects of "the system" are indeed geared towards making people easier to control, I think there's a real danger in the argument that "the system is rigged."

Yes, it definitely is rigged in some regards, but that belief is also psychologically attractive, because it removes the burden of performance. If the game is rigged, there is no shame in losing. Using those perceived systemic barriers as a blanket excuse for inaction is a defense mechanism. It allows a person to view their lack of progress as a sign of oppression rather than a lack of adaptation or effort.

In other words, if you believe the system demands you be a mindless gear, you will likely act like one. You will do the minimum, avoid taking risks, and suppress your own creativity because "what's the point?" Ironically, by accepting this narrative, you voluntarily become exactly what you claim to hate - a passive, controllable unit. The system doesn't need to force you to be a gear; your own cynicism has already done the job for them.

I'm certainly not saying you fall into that category, @northape. I agree with the way you see things. I also experienced the Janteloven double standard when I was in Norway, where I was exposed to certain ways of thinking that betrayed how utterly detached locals felt from others, especially where the concept of equality was concerned.

I agree with you on this point. To clarify, I believe our global system isn't rigged by anyone in particular. Instead, it is a natural evolution of the social order that developed over time. While some certainly try to control or exploit it, they are themselves components of the system. From my perspective, our social order exists independently within the collective psyche, drawing life from the minds of the sentient creatures who maintain it. Applying a judgment of good or bad to it is shortsighted; although I dislike the system, I recognize that I am a product of it. Hopefully, you see what I mean.

My main point was not about the system itself, but about individual sovereignty. We must be responsible for ourselves and our own lives. Cultivating awareness and presence is the most effective moral firewall a person can achieve.

"Can evil be considered a fundamental part of what makes a human, and what governs the level and form of its expression?"

I think evil is an inherent part of our psyche; without it, we wouldn't be whole. However, the dichotomy of good and evil is ultimately superseded by awareness. If you remain present in any given moment, you will respond to your situation in the best possible way. Good and evil are simply labels we place on the play of life's energy. Even in an act of absolute evil, there is an element of goodness, and vice versa. The entire play is merely energy, regardless of the form it takes.

 

[Jamie01]

The system feels entirely rigged to me, especially these days.

 

[Voidmatrix]

1. This is a philosophical question. What is evil? People are both good and fucked up, for what reasons, we may never know. Are some of us at a different developmental level than others to think a certain way? How do environments and micro-environments shape our values and such? Money allow us to see things in each other that have been there all along.

2. Idk, usually when I do something wrong and someone checks me on it, I try to remain humble and it accept it. To have resentment when you fucked up is hypocritical.

3. Frame of mind can help free one from corruption, but it's hard to not be influenced by what's around you, ie, corruption..

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

Last thing, there's evidence that shows how roles of a society are ingrained relative to what that society has to endure. The more comfortable it is, less threats of war, environmental disasters, minimal insurgency, etc. the more those roles loosen. I think the same effect can be had with morality, where as things loosen the culture attempts to address more nuanced issues on the personal level, ie women's rights, equity, etc.

One love