No. Actually, "we" can't. "We" are reliant upon the decisions and behaviors of a large number of independent "thems." You're trying to sell something like the following: "By voting for a Republican in the state of California (a solidly Democratic state), you can influence the outcome of a presidential election." Practically speaking, this is a false claim because that one vote doesn't actually matter.

I haven't repeated it because it's irrelevant to the discussion I'm trying to have, and I said that it was the most common reason 'at that time of year' i.e. Christmas, not generally. I've since happily accepted that it's pure speculation on my part and a throw away comment that I shouldn't have made which is about as close to a retraction as I'm going to get because there's an argument to be had there, but I'd simply prefer to talk about ethical consumerism.

I think it's a pretty trivial issue compared to what I've said about Ethical consumerism, who really cares what I think about people's motivations? Are people really so offended on behalf of all those people who only volunteer for charity work at Christmas that they still can't let it go?

Sure, in that example you have cured the 'death by lightning' problem. However, this is not the same as the homelessness problem because by providing housing you have not prevented the problems that result in there being more homeless people, you're actually going to have to continually find houses for the new homeless people. If so, then you have now created a system that I feel not only fails to address the problems that cause homelessness (the people that will need your free houses) but you've also created new problems such as; Where is the money to pay for this going to come from? How would you stop people abusing this system? How would you stop there being resentment and possibly new social problems that result from it, in the general population, etc etc etc

All you've done is take homeless people off the streets, and that's not a solution.

You don't need to. If no one is getting killed, they're irrelevant. Lightning isn't the result of problems is it, homelessness is the result of deeper problems.

I think that what you're saying is similar to saying that by handing out medicine that relives the symptoms of Flu, you have solved the problem of Flu. Since you haven't actually removed the cause of Flu, all you've actually done is relieve the symptoms, but more people are still going to get Flu. You have created an ongoing system of needing to provide Flu medicine, instead of eradicating the Flu virus, which is a long term and final solution.

I don't think that the problems that cause homelessness can actually be permanently eradicated, but they could certainly be severely lessened.

Again, this is representative of your tendency to ignore things that are problematic to your viewpoint and not address your errors.

In other words, you don't actually think you're wrong and you don't acknowledge that it's a silly thing to say. Rephrasing again, your head is still somewhere in your colorectal area.

Because ethical consumerism is built around people's motivations. And to degrade one form of motivation in the way that you have, while trying to promote a different set of motivations, and pretending that motivations matter in one way but not another is an excellent way to be found guilty of ignoring data that works against you and only focusing on the data that you want to see as supportive of your position.

I doubt it's offense as much as it is representative of your inability to evaluate statements and behaviors in a way that accurately reflects reality. Because you can't even get *THAT* part right, it calls into question your ability to get *SIMILAR* types of observations correct.

You also havent prevented the problems that result in there being more lightning strikes........




It IS a solution. There are no more homeless people = no more problem.



You dont need to [remove the causes of homelessness], if no one is homeless, they're irrelvant



lightning strikes are the result of deeper problems

(aha, I think I see your thinking here. Certain causes are "problems", other causes arent "problems". So causes of lightning strikes arent "problems" for some reason, but causes of homelessness are "problems")



I dont think the problems that cause lightning strikes can actually be permanently eradicated, but they could certainly be severely lessened

HOW IS TAKING ALL HOMELESS PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS AND GIVING THEM A HOME NOT A SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS?


Seriously, how can you not see this?


You avoided answering my questions 1 and 2. surprise surprise.

I am not asking you to subscribe to this solution, or to think its the best solution. But are you really going to resist the fact that there being no more homeless people = no more problem?

No. I don't think you acknowledge the breadth and effectiveness of many not for profit charity organizations.

Sounds good.

I am a broken record at this point. Ethical purchasing is one way to solve social issues. There are other effective ways to achieve the same or better results depending on the issue at hand.

I think you are naive and idealistic (no offense) but don't let that stop you from doing good. I don't think homelessness is exceptionally complex I was just using it as an example. I think most (all?) serious social issues are complex, that was the point I was trying to make.

When you say "our priorities are screwy" are you primarily talking about government spending? I don't know much about the US budget. Generally speaking I think the US government is economically motivated. If you want to criticize the US government that is its own thread.

Yes, I agree there isn't much of a political and public will to affect change on issues like homelessness. That is why most people highly value the work of non profits and charities. Those volunteering their time for the good of others are the rare few.

And yes it does seem impossible in some cases. IME not very many people succeed in getting clean from addiction to hard drugs.

I was just turning your statement back on you to make a point.

Yes I understand your point and the economic principle of why ethical purchasing is important. The difficult part of this equation is to actually change consumer habits.

I don't really feel I have much to add to the conversation at this point. The discussion has more or less run its course IMO.

*shrug*

I dont know. I dont really care. I think there's a place for ethical purchasing (although you seem to focus on the gross good rather than the net). Nonetheless, thinking about what we buy and trying to make the world better through those choices seems obviously like a good thing to do.

I was just making a suggestion since you seemed perplexed that having stated a controversial position without argument, people seem concerned with seeing evidence. You also seemed to imply (and seem to again here) that it's distracting from some important issue you'd prefer to discuss.

So I was suggesting one way around it. It's not really a surprise that people want to see evidence for such a broad claim is it? Especially if some of them are people who tend to donate time around Christmas? Why not just say "I was wrong. I wouldnt have a clue how many are motivated by guilt. Let's talk about the importance of ethical purchasing."?

It seems to me that it is inevitable, when advocating a position outside the norm (like "charities are part of the problem"), that one will be held to a high standard of evidence. Nobody asks to see evidence if you make a claim that everyone expects to be true. Obviously there are occasional off-hand, ill-justified remarks that arent really pertinent to the main thrust of your argument - I think it's best to retract these if one isnt prepared to back them up. That was certainly my experience as a theist - atheist critics would often focus on a semantic turn of phrase or poorly thought out fragment of an idea, rather than whatever was the main theme I was trying to present.

Rather a lot of seeming in that post. I'm obviously too timid about offending people.

If there is one thing the boosh has its a think skin. Well accept for the people he puts on ignore...

I dont have the self control to put someone on ignore. I reckon every time I saw some blocked post (I presume you know they've posted, you just dont know what they've said?), I wouldnt be able to resist unignoring them to see what stupid thing they were saying this time.

Curiosity would get me if did it too.

I care what you think about people's motivations, IMO that is the most interesting part of this thread. Being thoughtful about the goods we consume and where they come from isn't really news (no offence, just saying). It is not that I am offended I just find it interesting to understand how other people think/reason.

The assumptions we make about other people says something about us and our thought process.

I've agreed that's that likely.

Isn't this what I'm saying too?


None taken.

Homelessness is complex, I'd agree, because the problems that cause it are much harder to solve. I think that issues caused by consumer habits, habits that have been inculcated in the first place by marketing efforts, are much more simple to address.

Aren't governments just a reflection of our values? The US government couldn't have spent $6 Triliion on wars over oil if the public hadn't allowed them to do it. I think that generally people are good, but we are also generally an extremely self centered and shortsighted species. If it's out of sight, it's generally out of mind. If it were our children working in those mines, we'd care a lot more about our purchasing habits.


IMO this is a far from satisfactory situation. It's not ok to rely on the efforts of the 'rare few', do you have an explanation, or a theory, for why we don't do more?

I don't understand how saying that I 'seriously overestimate the power of consumers to cause change' is turning my point back on me. It's just contradicting me.

It wasn't that hard to form them, it wouldn't be hard to change them. But, it would be at the expense of a lot of people's profits and they'll do their best to stop it happening. That's why the message we are mostly exposed to is 'buy buy buy' and 'more more more'. We're made to feel good about consumerism, taught that success means having more. But, we learned to behave that way, we can unlearn it if we decide to.

Ok, but let me ask you a question to illustrate just how far we have to go on this issue, how far from transparent most supply chains are and our tendency to not ask questions, for the sake of an easy life. Of all the things you consume, including power, food, your personal possessions, and services that you use, for how many of them do you know the answers to these questions; 1) Where was it made 2) How was it made 3) What is it made of and how were those elements sourced, & 4) Who made it and in what conditions.

Unless you're far in advance of most people, I'm guessing the answer to that is that most of the time you have no idea what you are supporting when you spend your money, right? I wonder how many charities are busy right now, undoing harm that you (and I) are directly or indirectly responsible for.

The list is lot shorter than you'd imagine, only 5 names on it right now. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I simply ignore people on a whim, mostly they're on the list to stop me from engaging with them and/or because engaging with them was unpleasant for both myself and anyone reading it.

My skin isn't as thick as you might think, I find posting here quite stressful a lot of the time. But, I keep coming back...

There's one person on the list who I did 'un-ignore', but I had to put him back on it (and not because they're stupid). That experience has cured my curiosity.

I am more than happy to discuss my views on irresponsible consumerism and how people think and reason. I'd be happy to discuss the 'guilt' thing too, in a different thread, but ITT that's just distracting from what I think is important in this conversation.

This was too ironic/relevant not to post it - AIR pollution from China blows across the Pacific Ocean and ends up over the US west coast - and American consumerism is to blame for a portion of it, a study says.

As a relevant example of the unexpected effects of consumerism, it's perfect. People are suffering in China as a result of American consumer demand. It's ironic because it's blowing back on America, literally. Not quite so out of sight, out of mind, now that people in America are suffering. The problem is that the environment is absorbing part of the cost of these products, which is partly why they're cheaper to fabricate in China, and that saving is passed onto the consumer. In the meantime, people in China are dying (350,000 to 500,00 each year), suffering decreased lifespans, or reduced quality of life and ill health, partly because of this.

The answer is pretty simple. Steps can be taken to reduce or completely alleviate that air pollution, using the type of technology that reduces air pollution from garbage incineration units. But, this would have the effect of increasing production costs though, and that would push up prices for the goods themselves, and we want bargains, we don't want to actually pay for the effects that we're responsible for.

Who would voluntarily pay more for goods, to alleviate symptoms that are occurring (usually) in countries far far from the point of sale? Not many people, perhaps that is what we need to change?

Just... wow...

Just... LOL...

...

Ummmmm... I have a difficult time thinking that you actually believe that changing habits is not harder than forming them. I think you're just coming up with arguments off the top of your head at this point in search of something that will actually end up supporting your position. You have kids. You really ought to have enough real life experiences to know the stupidity of this statement.

Simple to address in theory. In reality it is hard to make people care and actually change consumer habits.

No

Have you ever read Noam Chomsky?

okay

People are selfish.

To meaningfully change the consumer habits of the western world is a lofty goal.

I live in an urban environment where people are pretty trendy and into this kind of thing. Ethically sourced coffee, hygiene products, clothes etc. are fairly common in my sphere. That is not to say there is no space for improvement.

People underestimate life-variance.

'Man moves. Man's wife leaves him and takes most of the dough. Man gets a job in sales. Man sells nothing for 5 weeks. All deals break down for one reason or another. Rent is past due. Bills pile up. Man gets a loan of 800$ to pay the rent. Car breaks down. Transmission. 1200$ to fix. Man fixes car with loan because without car, no job and no hope of paying rent the next month. Man realizes the sales job is not going to work after another big deal goes bad, and quits and desperately searches for a new job. He sells car to pay off one month of the three months rent that is behind. Man doesn't realize how bad the economy is. Man doesn't find new job. Two weeks go by and no one calls or responds. He comes home and finds an eviction notice. He takes his last money and goes to the bar and gets drunk and tells his hard luck story.'

If you've ever been to Florida, and hit the bars, you would hear stories like this every day. There are all kinds of variations, with a heart attack thrown in there somewhere, or child support payments, or a bogus arrest, or a failed business venture.

The people who remain homeless have often given up and thrown in the towel after a bad run of some sort. But most homeless people are mentally ill, I believe. At least that it what we are told. I found most of them capable of getting back on their feet, but just not wanting to give it all a second chance.

There were a lot of homeless people on the beach who were on the run from the law, also, or an incident in another state.

I met a lot of them in Florida, and used to give them rides to the soup kitchen and what not. I lived a block away from the beach and was down there every night.

I'll never forget the first night when I realized that there was a really bad homeless problem down there. I had fallen asleep on a beach chair in front of the hotel after a wild night of drinking. It started to rain and I woke up and ran to the veranda. People were coming into the veranda from all over. There must have been 20 people in there. It was 3am or so and I recognized a lot of them. After talking to a few, they were almost all sleeping out.

Unless you can somehow solve life-variance issues, you will never solve homelessness.

Did you see the air pollution story link I posted? How many good people are working hard to help others who have problems as a result of that issue, when the part of the answer is simply for consumers to be prepared to spend more?

It's been done before, that's how those habits were acquired in the first place.

As I've said ITT, I have a feeling the decision will eventually be taken our of our hands anyway. In some ways, this is already happening, just look how important the environmental movement has become in the last 30 years, people are waking up to the fact that there's a price to pay for our energy hungry, inefficient lifestyles.

You didn't answer the question. Can you guesstimate what percentage of products/services in your life you know, in detail, the supply chain for? If I had to guess mine, I'd say about 10-15%.

Part of the reason that this is such a low figure is the incredible difficulty in getting that information. I'm definitely going to start buying local more often.

Agreed. I covered this type of reason when I used the phrase 'bad luck' in my list of reasons for why homelessness occurs. It's not a simple problem to solve, unlike some. The answer though, is not to simply give them all homes. It's certainly part of a solution, but the problems that cause homelessness have to be addressed also.

This is from the Shelter, the UK housing and homeless charity, website.

Tackling homelessness is not just about getting people off the streets. It's also about finding lasting solutions to stop people from becoming homeless in the first place

You really are talking about human behavior from a position of abject ignorance, and you really seem to express no interest in changing that. Forming habits and changing habits are two entirely different processes.

Your cause-effect chain is really out of whack here, and this seems to be completely inconsistent with your earlier comments. Before, we were the ones who were in control. It was *OUR* fault. But now you're saying that we don't actually control it. And what you're not recognizing is that most of the environmental changes were a result of government intervention (prompted by a vocal minority), not mass consumer-driven decision-making.

In other words, your narrative of change has no basis in reality.

92.6%

Here is a story from my neck of the woods just to give you an idea of the local culture around this sort of thing.

Yes.

This is the problem people don't want to spend more. You are naive and idealistic (like I said before this can be a good thing). People love WalMart because its cheap. Sure there is a group that avoids WalMart based on principle but generally WalMarts are jam packed across N.A. Changing consumer behaviours and getting people to spend more is hard to succeed at.

EDIT: just curious if you still actually do read Aaron's posts

I'm assuming this is a joke but I'm being serious. Do you know the supply chain for everything you use in your life, can you be certain that you're not inadvertently supporting suffering elsewhere in the world? Do you own anything that might have contributed to the 350-500k Chinese air pollution deaths? What about electronics that might have circuit boards using minerals dug out of the ground by children in the Congo?

Not being cruel to animals is not exactly what I'm talking about. I think we should sort out human problems before we start worrying about chickens.

I think that people are happy to buy bargains because they're insulated from the effects they can cause. Very few people would still choose the cheap version of something if they understood that a child somewhere was suffering as a result of their actions, if they really felt it as opposed to it being some abstract notion that they're aware of but which doesn't really mean anything real to them.

As is often the case, education is a key part of a solution to these types of problems. This consumer demand was contrived, consumer habits have been deliberately formed. All that can be reversed. It's not naive to believe that, I think it's naive not to believe that. Perhaps I accept what has been done to me by marketing firms more readily than you.

No I don't. My problem is that I find it very hard not to allow the tone of my responses to be influenced by how I'm spoken to and Aaron brings out the worst in me. The tone of OrP's posts are the standard by which I judge mine.

Do you?