When I am presented with information about something I ask myself a question. How has this been filtered?
Activist groups use propaganda (filtered information) to get people excited and afraid. A false dichotomy is often presented. Black vs White thinking is a sign of this.
Left-wing groups and right-wing groups, when they become radical, often create a fear based agenda.
Examine the information for telltale adjectives that paint people and organizations in a negative light.
"GREEDY CORPORATIONS" is an example of this.
A corporation exists to make a profit (*unless they are non-profit).
How much of a profit you are willing to allow in a free market is a subjective call on your part. As long as arms are not twisted, nobody is forced to buy anything. If a product or service is overpriced the consumer has personal responsibility to avoid doing business with any company that indulges.
Throughout history life on earth is a lungful of air away from extinction. Always and ever is this the case. In fact, 99% of all living things that have ever existed are now extinct.
So?
So, we need to put information that is negative in the context that best illustrates a course of action motivated by common sense.
If you want a perfect example of how propaganda is used to push an initiative forward read the Watchtower publication from 1968: THE TRUTH THAT LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE. It is filled with scare tactics. All good information is filtered out and only the shocking predictions remain.
********************************************************************************
Thomas Malthus 1766-1834
Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, man's misery of famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man. Malthus' view that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply was not popular among social reformers who believed that with proper social structures, all ills of man could be eradicated.
Although Malthus thought famine and poverty natural outcomes, the ultimate reason for those outcomes was divine institution. He believed that such natural outcomes were God's way of preventing man from being lazy. Both Darwin and Wallace independantly arrived at similar theories of Natural Selection after reading Malthus. Unlike Malthus, they framed his principle in purely natural terms both in outcome and in ultimate reason. By so doing, they extended Malthus' logic further than Malthus himself could ever take it. They realized that producing more offspring than can survive establishes a competitive environment among siblings, and that the variation among siblings would produce some individuals with a slightly greater chance of survival.
Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than they can support. Does this sound familiar? China has implemented a policy of one child per family (though this applies to all families, not just those of the lower class).