Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
RGT is a pretty litigious place so people are always going to jump on what others say, it is just the nature of the beast. If your position is, "ethical purchasing can affect great positive change in the world" then you likely won't get much push-back. It is your criticism of others good work that is drawing you heat.
This is all because of my comment about people who do charity work because they feel guilty?
Good grief Charlie Brown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
I scanned it. Intel made a good decision to try and make their supply chain more ethical. I am always a bit wary of large organizations who use their social efforts as part of marketing but whatever. Who am I to judge their motivations... looks like a good trend to set.
This is what I was talking about when I said 'use the system'. We don't have to seek some impossible Utopia, we can just behave slightly differently, still encourage competition and profit, but do it ethically so it doesn't cause suffering. I think Capitalism is a great system, but it's being abused by the unethical, and they are supported in their behavior by the unthinking and uncaring.
My next PC, or any gadget that needs a processor, will have an Intel processor in it because I'm going to 'vote' for Intel, and support their behaviour with my money, and I consider that vote, and every vote I cast with my money, to be more powerful than any I'll ever cast in an election in the UK. Now, how many people will do the same, and how many will buy elsewhere because of 'brand loyalty' or some cheaper deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
I don't have a problem with this, sounds fair. Where it gets problematic IMO is when we say this way is really effective and other peoples way (charity or what have you) is less effective.
In the specific context of solving (some) problems, rather than just dealing with the consequences of problems, Ethical purchasing IS more effective. That's just a fact, not a value judgement. No demand for ivory means no poaching, how could anyone deny that this is a more effective solution than trying to catch poachers, for example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
In addition charities are part of raising awareness and changing purchasing habits as well. I don't perceive charity work as independent or separate from "the ethical purchasing movement".
Neither do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
Most (all?) serious social issues (ie. homelessness, drug abuse, slavery) are never going to be completely solved. IME most homelessness in N.A. is caused by drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness. The drug/alcohol abuse and mental illness can often be fallout from previous problems (family issues/sexual and physical abuse etc.). Therefore when you say, "while the charities work on the ground, until they're simply not needed any more" it seems very unrealistic. To prevent or decrease homelessness one needs to address all the underlying root issues. This is a complex problem that touches many aspects of life. I don't see homelessness as really being about "standard of living". Homeless people are broken emotionally and physically (addictions). To fix homelessness you need to mend the whole person.
It is fine to be idealistic in pursuit of a social cause. In fact I think it helps to be idealistic to embark on tackling social issues. However, I don't think anyone is every going to just solve homelessness so charity is not needed anymore. There is always going to be homelessness because of broken families, addictions, and mental illness.
I think this is unduly pessimistic. Why can't we 'mend the whole person', what's stopping that from happening? And I'm not being idealistic, I'm being practical. Homelessness may be a much more complex problem to solve than conflict minerals, child slave labour, or ivory poaching but that doesn't mean that it's not solvable. What I don't see, is the effort being mad, that could be made. Instead, as I've said, I see the US spending $6 Trillion on wars to support the oil industry while children starve back at home and nearly 50 million people are living below the poverty line. Don't you think that our priorities are a little screwy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
This would be a complex process.
Sure, but impossible? I don't think so. There simply isn't the political and public will to do it and the people most motivated to, the people that suffer the problems itself and the effects, are the people who are the least able to change anything because they're trapped in the cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
From your comments itt: I think you seriously overestimate the power of consumers to cause change... so here we are. Pretty well summarizes our different views.
And yet you agreed earlier with my comment that nothing brings down industries faster than a lack of demand. This seems contradictory. Do you think Apple would survive no one buying their products? They're a huge company but they would still go rapidly out of business if they stopped selling.
Every single company or organisation that causes suffering for profit can be brought down by the people who buy their products/services. Don't underestimate how much power the consumer has, we put them there with our money, and we can take them down too.