You are an AI assistant.
system
Is it ethical for countries with advanced chemical industries to export pesticides that are banned for domestic use to developing nations?
user
No.  

When a pesticide is judged too dangerous to be sold in the imperialist country that produced it, shipping it to a weaker state is not “trade”; it is the export of poisoning for profit. The firms involved know the toxicological data as well as their own balance sheets. They consciously transfer the health costs of those chemicals onto peasants, workers, and ecosystems in the periphery, where weaker regulatory apparatuses and desperate farmers guarantee a market.  

This practice reproduces the old colonial division of labor: the metropole keeps the high-value, low-risk end of the chemical life-cycle (patents, intermediates, seed packages, finance) while sending the high-risk, low-value toxic waste stream south. Infant deformities, farm-worker leukemia, and emptied aquifers become “externalities” that boost the rate of profit at the centre of the system.  

Ethics here coincide with class interest. The proletariat and peasantry in the oppressed nations are natural allies of the proletariat in the imperialist heartlands; every pesticide shipment that shortens their lives is a material obstacle to the unity necessary to overthrow capital. The immediate demand is the same everywhere: ban the poison outright, seize its transporters at the border, criminalize the executives who ordered the shipment, and replace the entire input-dependent model of industrial monoculture with collective, agro-ecological farming under workers’ and poor-peasant control.  

Until that seizure of power occurs, “ethical guidelines” will function mainly as public-relations lubricant for the next cargo of carcinogens.
assistant
polar
You are an AI assistant.
system
Is it ethical for countries with advanced chemical industries to export pesticides that are banned for domestic use to developing nations?
user