We can talk about exactly what 'effective' means but it won't change the fact elephants are killed because of the demand for ivory. At best, charities are slowing down the exinction of the elephant but if we really want to save them, we have to change consumer attitudes.

1) There's ~100% probability that elephants will go extinct, so changing consumer demand is also doing nothing more than slowing down the extinction of elephants.
2) How do you anticipate that consumer demands will actually change? Surely, you've got an idea other than wishing for it to happen. But so far, you've presented nothing, whereas I've provided links of charities which are doing precisely what you're talking about.

Anyway it is still a necessary clarification that you made here:

It did seem like this was what you were saying. So it is good to know you don't think charities are altogether superfluous because that would be ludicrous.

EDIT: see post 96 from Aaron

The key point here is that charities should be assessed on a case by case basis. If you think one individual charity is unnecessary then its worth discussing why or why not that may be the case. If you start criticizing charities en masse for being ineffective then you are going to (rightfully) tick off a lot of people.

I think we both realize this is not going to happen in the real world. That is why a multi prong approach is necessary; one that includes charities raising awareness, changing policy AND ethical purchasing.

The starfish anecdote is not about starfish it is about people and how we think. If I was to summarize what I see the message as it would go something like this:

1. Being motivated by compassion to affect minuscule change is better than doing nothing.

2. It is easy for those that are doing nothing to criticize and fault find in those that are doing something - even if that something affects very little substantive change.

I think ethical purchasing is great. But lets be realistic how much real change do you think your and my ethical purchasing really makes? We are like the kid throwing starfish. We are doing some good but with very little effect. That is not to say we should stop ethically purchasing.

It just seems silly to say they are not being effective. I am sure they are doing their best. It is like the starfish story - very easy to criticize others who are doing something minimal when you yourself (I assume) are doing nothing for elephants.

This is where your line of reasoning is especially egregious. You assume charities won't be effective in at least partially creating solutions.

I don't see how you can fairly make judgements about the reasons why people do charity work. If you have pre judged persons involved with charities and assume they act only in self interest to ease their own conscience then there is not much else to discuss.

Anyone can also judge your motivation for anything good you do and undermine your cause. "Ahh well MB simply doesn't buy a new phone to ease his own conscience... he doesn't really care about anyone else." It seems unfair to call into question others motivations until we have some reason to do so.

You might need to copy the quotes it if actually want him to read it.

I tried quoting the whole post but it didn't format properly. I will leave it up to MB to decide if he wants to go back and see it.

he has aaron on ignore

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=94

I cause him stress by asking him questions that cause him to contort as he attempts to maintain his belief that he's internally consistent in his views and challenge his views that are inconsistent with facts in the universe.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=91

And I do things like challenge him on his self-congratulatory attitude.

I've skipped answering some of your points, to stop this reply from becoming TL;DR. If there's anything in particular that you really wanted a reply to, let me know.

I agree

It's a good job I'm not doing that then. Doesn't it seem nonsensical to you too that the US has spent literally $Trillions on an war to protect oil interests and a way of life that isn't even sustainable, while nearly 50 Million people in the US are under the poverty line, children are going uneducated, people are homeless...

The charities dealing with the refugees from that specific war are dealing with the consequences of our consumer habits and lifestyle attitudes, not a natural disaster or some problem that can't be changed with a simple solution. Now, how much power do they have to actually change things? Not as much as you and I do. Not as much as the people buying that oil, and those oil derivative products, and the electricity create by that oil etc etc. Simply by turning off your lights, or by buying solar panels (for example) you're reducing the demand for a product that causes global misery and suffering. The oil companies have vast amounts of moeny because we continue to give it to them, but we can change that.

Sure, it might be necessary now but the attitude changing prong is the one that's going to solve the problems caused by irresponsible consumerism.

Fairphone have reached their target of selling 25,000 phones already, that's 25,000 people who did something about the problem of conflict minerals (to the tune of £7.5 Million), without leaving the house. Now imagine that increased by a couple of orders of magnitude, the difference that would make, and ask yourself, who's going to achieve that difference, the charities? Or commercial organizations that recognize that the best way to change buying habits is, initially, to change what can be bought, and by consumers who make more ethical choices. It's a smart response to the problem.

Did you see the story about the big four tobacco companies and the US Dept of Justice forcing them to release adverts admitting that they lied to the public about the dangers of smoking? Why do we tolerate such unethical behaviour? Why are those companies not universally condemned and reviled, how are they still in business? Right there, you have the cause of many of our problems and the solution isn't spending more money on treating the health effects of smoking, it's in changing the habits of the consumers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1957173.html

25,000/6,000,000,000 = 0.0004% of the active cell phone subscriptions in the world. If you increase by a couple orders of magnitude (which is a non-trivially enormous growth rate and it's far from clear that they would be able to keep up with demand -- but that's a different matter all together), you're up to 0.04% of all the active cell phone subscriptions, and that's not considering the fact that the number of cell phones that have been manufactured exceeds this amount because there are probably a few cell phones associated with each subscription.

What do you think about this charity:

http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/

They are raising consumer awareness (in the same way that you are, but with broader reach and more organized programs). But their aim is broader than just cell phones. I think this charity is probably far more effective at informing consumers and affecting changes than you and Fair Phone are put together.

Nobody said it was a stupid response. But it's a slow response, and not one that is particularly effective. You're claiming victory for a projected hundredths of a percent of the global market.

Do yourself a favor and quit changing the subject. Every new example you bring up creates more problems for your argument. The government is not private industry, and the government is largely responsible for creating the initial awareness of the negative health effects of smoking, not private companies. Your argument is now shifting to the broader problem of consumer demand, not the distinction between private companies and charitable organizations.

Don't you think it is unfair for you to judge the intentions of those involved in charity? Let me know if I misunderstood you but I thought you mentioned this a few times. The concept that persons involved in charity only do so out of self interest to ease their conscience. If we are going to question peoples motivation then we can effectively undermine any good social cause.

America's foreign policy and imperialism is a complex topic probably best discussed outside this thread. Suffice to say I disagree with a lot of the US foreign policy.

I think it is more complicated then how you describe things here. Ethical purchasing is very important just maybe not as important as you think it is. So thats fine, not really a hill I want to die on at this point to try and change your mind.

I don't really know much about the fairphone project. If it is as you say then thats great. As far as charities, I believe charities can affect great change it just depends what they are doing. You seem to equate charity work with being ineffective and only treating symptoms which is not the case.

Here is an example of a charity which I think does seek to solve root problems and not just treat symptoms:

http://www.ijm.ca/

Mission:

IJM basically works with the local justice system to bring freedom to slaves and indentured workers. In addition those exploiting the slaves are ideally charge criminally as well.

Actually, when I mentioned conscience easing, I was talking about people who don't get involved in charity work, or any other kind of effort with regard to those types of problems, because someone else is doing something. However, that's just speculation and a side issue in any case. Earlier ITT I might have mentioned not being impressed by people who do charity work at Christmas and not at any other time of year. I have a ton of respect for those who are involved to a significant extent although I think it's a shame that they have to do it.

It's a good example of how our lifestyles, attitudes and consumer habits cause misery for other people though, probably one of the biggest and most important examples.


You're not the first. If you think that hunting poachers, or actually guarding elephants, is a more effective way to solve the problem of poaching than changing consumer attitudes about buying ivory, then we'll have to agree to disagree because I can't imagine what could change your view.


Not completely, but there's a large element of that.

Issues such as 'slavery, sexual exploitation and other forms of violent oppression' might similarly be driven by consumer attitudes but they're a different animal compared to people who cause suffering over minerals because of iphones. In the same way that I can't reasonably expect people to stop killing each other over religious differences, I don't expect slavery or the sex trade to vanish because we've convinced people that it's not very nice. For now, we still need those charities but it shames me that private organisations have to do that work when it's something we should all be doing.



Again, dealing with the consequences.

What do you propose as the alternative that will cause a fundamental change in all human behaviors? You seem to want it both ways. We have practical examples of organizations dealing with the large scale structures and institutions that cause the systemic changes that you're calling for, but you think that these organizations aren't doing the things that should be done.

Get your head out of your rear end.

Edit: What's hilariously ironic is that religious organizations focus on changing the individual in the way you're describing (see any sort of religious testimony about changed lives), but have your axiomatic disdain for religions, too.

I know what would change minds... Presenting an actual argument and actual evidence. You're hiding behind some magical "changing consumer attitudes" without talking anything about the structures, institutions, or practices that go into changing such attitudes.

So when you say "We'll have to agree to disagree" what you're really doing is waving this around so that you can avoid confronting the reality that you've got no clue what you're talking about.



You've got no data and no argument. Just a deep desire to feel better about yourself because you've bought a Fair Phone and you want to believe that you're contributing to the solution to the world's problems.

oh ok no problem

I don't know what is more/most effective. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding the ivory topic. At the risk of being repetitive I am recommending a multi prong approach. I am of the opinion that every little bit helps. I think raising awareness is really important and so is ethical purchasing. If you and I are all about ethical purchasing it wouldn't be right for us to look down our nose at those dedicated to raising awareness (or whatever other effort... fill in the blank here).

All the social issues are complex that is why I think holding up ethical purchasing on a pedestal is incorrect. It is a battle for hearts and minds but that will be lived out in various ways. ie. ethical purchasing or raising awareness or pressure groups etc.

If you donate some money to a charity then it automatically becomes something you are involved in. In this way we can all be a part of the charities good work. I don't really see the distinction with charities. Operating a charity or non-profit only says something about the internal working of the organization. Where funding comes from doesn't dictate the mission statement or how effective the organization is.

ok. Do you have a solution for slavery that would address the core problem? From what I have heard from IJM many of the slaves they emancipate work in brick making factories. How can we drive change in ethical purchasing when most people are just going to buy the cheapest bricks?

I think shutting down the brick factory, freeing the workers, and indicting the owners qualifies as a solution, which is what IJM does in some cases.

I wonder if those buying ethically-super-duper-phones lose sleep over how much better off the world would have been if they'd retained their old phone for another year and sent the money saved to charity.

They probably only buy the ethical phone to make themselves feel better about what lousy people they are anyway.

If this is making the point that I think it is, then you really haven't understood my point.

I was making two points (one simple one probably a little obscure):

1. No matter what we do to be ethical, we can always do more.

2. We shouldn't trivialise other people's reasons for making the ethical choices they do. It really isn't possible to generalise in that way and its insulting.

Agreed.

However, I interpreted this -

...as having missed my post that I have the same phone as 4.5 years ago despite numerous opportunities to upgrade for free, as also missing the point that the new phone is for my daughter, it's her first smart phone and I'm intending to set a purchasing precedent as well as educate her about the issues involved, and also misses the point that by contributing to reducing the demand for conflict minerals, at source (i.e. at a consumer level) I contributed to what I consider a far more effective solution to the problem. No demand, means no more problem. I also contributed to improving the lives of the workers involved in the supply chain for the Fairphone.

For now, charities are still needed to deal with the 'on the ground' consequences of the demand for conflict minerals but eventually, through consumer education and by changing the purchasing paradigm, we can do away with the need for those charities.

Can you give me an example of where you think I've 'trivialised' other people's reasons for making the ethical choices and which decisions and which people you're referring to?

here?

As aaron pointed out, you are just shouting out "change consumer attitudes" without actually saying how this can be achieved.

So , whats your plan ? How do you intend to achieve this? Otherwise, you are just blowing wind out your ass and having a go at charities at the same time.

( note, changing your own consumer attitude is going to have immeasurably less effect than all the combined charities, so I dont think that counts)

I don't consider that 'trivialising'.

In any case, it's a distraction from the main conversation and I don't want to pursue that.

You're being very negative toward me, is it that you don't support the changing of consumer attitudes, or don't believe that they are responsible for, or contribute to, any of the issues I've raised? If so, can you provide your reasons?

My plan is simple. By being the change I want to see in the world IRL, and by having discussions on public message boards like this one, I hope to raise awareness of the issues.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trivialize

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivialize

I'm not sure what you think that word means, but it's pretty clear that based on the definitions, this is what you've done.

Classic Booshian behavior. You are unwilling to address obvious errors by just saying "this is a distraction" so that you don't have to deal with the fact that you're wrong. This is one of the primary reasons you remain ignorant.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant

Your reach is minimal because your plan is stupid ("My plan for world change is to post on an internet forum"). You effectiveness is minimal because you're making a terrible argument ("I'm going to insult charities as I make my argument in favor of Fair Phones"). You would be better off sending someone else money and letting them do the thing you're trying to do, because you suck at what you're trying to do.

"Being the change" is high-minded idealism that doesn't have much effectiveness in real life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/op...oken.html?_r=0

Wait, what? You asked for examples, I gave you one.




.

So your plan is to tell to a bunch of people ( a large proportion of which probably already have some idea) that current consumer attitudes are bad? and thats it?

You are free to "be the change you want to see", I am not against that, have no problem with that. But I am just pointing out that charities can and do have a much much greater effect than your "being the change". and that buying a fair phone is fairly meaningless to you ( as in, it makes little or no difference to your life), and makes little or no difference to others lives. I would be more impressed if you gave a homeless person a home in your house, for example . That is literally reducing the number of homeless people, at a large cost to yourself.


I think this is reasonable, but you are also missing out that charities are doing more than dealing with "on the ground" consequences.

This is part of the problem. You think me giving a homeless person accommodation is somehow a useful thing to do. Aren't you wondering why there are homeless people in a country that spent £30 Billion in the last decade protecting Oil company interests in the middle East?

What would impress me is if the UK became completely independent of oil, which is entirely possible within the range of our current technological abilities. Then we wouldn't need to fight wars over it, get people killed, create the need for charities to help the refugees and perhaps we'd have some extra money to solve some social problems back at home.