It's not?

Edit: Is buying a Fair Phone a useful thing to do?

No. What argument can you put forth about the causal connection between the two situations?

Homeless person: "I don't have a home."
Mightyboosh: "We need to solve the problems of global oil supply and demand in order to help you."

you giving a homeless person a home is doing much more than me wondering why there are homeless people.

This says it much better than I did

Hungry person: "I'm hungry."
Mightyboosh: "We need to solve the problems of global oil supply and demand."

hehe that's either brilliant or artfully plagarised in plan sight, in which case it's extra brilliant

You're right, the solution to there being homeless people is to feed them. Silly me.

What's your real solution?

You misinterpreted it. It wasn't about you.

Whatever you do, you can do more. Pointing fingers about how little others are doing is unhelpful.

the homeless person doesnt give a **** that we need to solve the problems of global oil supply and demand. Hes hungry now.

I have worked with several non-profit orgs in the past and this discussion does come up. This is going to sound pretty "Kumbaya" but I still think it is true. The important thing is that people work together to solve social issues be it housing/hunger/slavery etc.

IME people are just wired differently and that is not a bad thing. Some people's minds work in an analytical way and they want to focus on root causes and SOLVE the problem. Meanwhile other people are motivated by compassion to address immediate needs of those suffering.

I think the whole discussion is kinda just "meh". Every little bit helps.... so work together and try and help people.

Since MB has me blocked, I've stated elsewhere that I don't care if someone repeats something I say to MB.

If it's a point that's good enough to be worth repeating, I figure I've probably made a good point.

My suspicion was it was independent because of the timing but wasn't sure because of the reference. In any case it seemed a nice way of getting a decent point across.

If people aren't willing to help the guy next to them, chances are they're not going to do a damn thing about global or national problems regarding homeless people either. They might say they are doing something, did something or plan on doing something. But if there is one basic psychological principle it is that behavior tends to repeat itself. I'll let others do the math.

This isn't an excuse of leadership or political management. Limpwristed politicians who regurgitate that "we must all do our share" are mainly playing the tune of the people who do nothing, not the people who do something.

MB is right in the sense that if a country really thought of homelessness as a problem, it would simply resolve it. It's not rocket science: If people don't have homes, give them homes. This is, however, generally upsetting the people who have to pay for the bill - so we don't. Thus by implication, as a political entity - we don't care.

However, the lack of such political ambition is certainly not an argument AGAINST charity like Mightboosh tries to play it out to be. It is the exact opposite. Against a mass of people who don't give a s**t it is about the only solution you got, and to take its imperfection and portray it as uselessness is bigotry at its finest.

TD,

Yeah sounds about right. Maybe a bit more pointed that I would have said it but I have no objections.

Apathy is common and talk is easy. I think when people really do step up and try and make a difference we should honor their efforts, even if they don't go about it the way we think is best.

I agree with the general thrust of your point, but this is simply wrong. The problem of homelessness isn't resolved by giving people homes. It *IS* a complex problem. It's not a simple problem. It's not something that has a simple solution.

So the phone arrived yesterday, I'm pretty impressed with it. The packaging details where each component was made, opening up the supply chain and making them accountable for the process. It cost nearly £300, much of which went to mine workers in the DR Congo who aren't being exploited/abused/murdered/raped etc etc, and workers in a Chinese factory where no one is committing suicide because of working conditions. We spent a considerable sum of money and none of it went to supporting anything we wouldn't want to see. It improved people's lives, it didn't cause or help perpetuate suffering.

Today my daughter took it to school where she will no doubt show it around and the subject of ethical purchasing will be raised. I might get onto the school and see if they want to use it as a specific example in a lesson.

This is not the only thing I do, but it's a good example of trying to change paradigms to remove the problems, rather than just dealing with the consequences.

No, the answer is not to 'give them homes', you're still not getting this. You're still thinking about dealing with the consequences and not solving the problem. The right question here is 'why do we have homeless people and what can we do to prevent it happening in the first place?'.

I'm not 'against' charity, I'm arguing that in many cases it's not the solution to the problem, it's a response. Do you see the difference?

Yes, we need to work together, but part of that is not helping to cause the problems in the first place. Right?

A big way to effect positive change is to make supply chains transparent and let people see what they're supporting with their spending.

LZ, who wouldn't want to solve the problem? Who would continue to deal with mentally and physically abused children in the Congo, who may have been forced to murder their own parents or other adults (it actually happens) and then made to become drug addicts and handed an AK47, if there was a way to stop it happening at all?

That's what conflict minerals are helping to perpetuate. Check this out - Intel unveils conflict-free processors: will the industry follow suit?. Awesome. Intel is where my processor money is going from now on, I'm going to support that behaviour.

This is how we're going to solve this problem, and then we won't need those charities anymore.

I'm a litte shocked by this LZ. This isn't a 'meh' issue, it's quite significant. The current paradigm needs to change, it's not enough to just say 'be nice to people, every little helps', that's not working is it.

Ok, so we've taken care of that homeless person, until the next meal. But I asked you what your real solution is, do you have one?

Does it concern you that you think you have one?

That's kind of an odd question. If I had one (and you're assuming that I do), or 'thought' I had one, to use your phrasing, why would that cause me concern? Is it this specific issue of homelessness that you're addressing, or the idea that I might think I have solutions for other problems we face?

What do you think of the general idea of, specifically, changing our consumer paradigm in the way that the Fairphone, and the new Intel strategy are attempting?

If you are asking someone what their real solution is then it suggests that one is available to them and if so then maybe you know what it is?

I am addressing whatever specific issue you were addressing to neeel,

Clearly, feeding a homeless person for one meal, or many meals, isn't a solution to the problem of homelessness, so I asked Neeel what his real solution is. Maybe he doesn't have one.

Why didn't you answer my question 'What do you think of the general idea of, specifically, changing our consumer paradigm in the way that the Fairphone, and the new Intel strategy are attempting?', I'm not trying to set you up or anything, I'm genuinely curious what you think about it as a strategy (as part of a multipronged approach initially) to solving some of our problems? Did you read the article about Intel?

If you saw my post (#138) about the Fairphone, do you think that it's achieving anything to have bought that, to have directly supported fair economies and working conditions, and to have influenced quite a few people in the process? (I'm listing the things that I think it achieved)

Give him another meal?

It isn't rocket science. Hungry people eat food.

Ok, they're fed. You could even give him a blanket while you're at it, take him into your own home maybe. Now, how have you contributed to solving the problem of homelessness? Has it stopped happening because of your actions?

Let's talk about your 'him', why is he homeless? Is he a drug addict, or someone with mental health problems, or an immigrant, or just a regular guy down on his luck, or something else entirely? What?

Ah yes, these horrible complexities of the world that makes it impossible to help people not to starve or freeze to death. We need perfect solutions or no solutions!

Start somewhere. Go from there. It really isn't rocket science.

This isn't really necessary but I'll continue to turn the other cheek for now. I'm baffled about the antipathy you're displaying toward me ITT when all I'm discussing is solutions to the problems that have come up. Isn't that a good thing? Am I a bad guy for suggesting that charities are not the solution?

No, we need solutions rather than responses that don't solve the problem.

Ok. The problem is that we still have these problems, so perhaps your strategy, or lack of it, isn't really working. Can I ask what you personally do to help people? You've been extremely negative toward me ITT despite my offering something that you could actually do to help people, without even leaving your house, I'm curious about why?

I am displaying no antipathy towards you, just like I'm not displaying antipathy towards creationists by stating that I think their position is stupid.

If you find yourself without food a few days, just say the word and I'll be sure to buy myself a phone. I'm a problem-solver and starvation is just a symptom.

So you genuinely think that I'm saying that it's 'either/or'? I agree, that would be stupid. I'm saying, that 'on the ground' charity work is not the solution to many of our problems, we need to look at what will remove the causes. This doesn't mean that I think all charity work should cease immediately, of course I don't think that.

Did you read the article about Intel and their conflict mineral free processors that I linked? They're working toward solving the problem, whilst making a profit for themselves and boosting their own local economy, and whilst looking at ways to sustain the local economy in DR Congo in a ethical and fair way. That is a solution, and it will eventually (hopefully) remove the need for charities to go to the Congo and deal with the consequences of irresponsible and out of control consumerism. My next PC will have an Intel Processor because I want to see that behaviour continue.

For now, though, the charities are needed on the ground.

Do you genuinely also think that I'm saying that buying a phone will immediately solve world food shortages or homelessness, or whatever? Again, of course I'm not, but the irony is that buying that phone did feed people, a lot of people.

Much more importantly it helped sustain their jobs and their standard of living, in a fair and ethical manner and helped with the effort to reduce the demand for conflict minerals, and ensure fair treatment of people in that area of the world and boost local economies (to the tune of over 24k times £300 on this first run). And, since I try to buy ethically whenever I can, I'm probably doing more to help alleviate immediate symptoms and help towards a long term solution than many people are. I'll continue for now to give my £2 a month to oxfam and a few other charities, and buy their pens and raffle tickets, but I consider my ethical spending to money much better spent (and not spent in some cases).