Sorry for any confusion, but there absolutely should be serious compensation to the victims. The question is only how much. Some might consider $1B an insult to

Sorry for any confusion, but there absolutely should be serious compensation to the victims. The question is only how much. Some might consider $1B an insult to the value of a human life. Since it's impossible to compensate someone fairly when looking at it from the value of a human life, I'm wondering if there isn't another way to calculate these settlements where the end goal is still the same: 1) provide a generous payment to the victims and 2) create a financial deterrent string enough for the offending company to stop and repair their actions and prevent any other companies from thinking of doing the same thing. For #1, $10M, $100M, $1B, $10B, $100B, etc. are never enough for anyone that enjoys their life and their health. I just think it's worth considering how quickly we could create 2,000 lawsuit billionaires if the formula is $1B per terminal illness. Maybe that's a good thing for the 1% to be comprised of the descendants of victims who might spend their money in a conscious way, but I think $1B is such a rare, difficult thing to achieve and creates tremendous power that it's worth thinking about. Because why not give them $5B or $100B or make them the richest individuals on the planet? It still wouldn't be a fair deal for getting cancer. For #2, I'm simply suggesting that we should consider paying some portion of the penalty to a hospital, charity, competitor, etc. If you'd rather the $2B goes to the victim and another $2B goes to cancer research, ok. Or $2B to the victims and $2B to a competitor that could have sold more product had they not been undercut by cheap, cancer-causing products, that's fine too. I just think society as a whole would benefit if we put some of the money into repairing the situation rather than only compensating the victim.