Lightworkers, Vegetarianism, Ethics and Smartphones

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Agota

I personally came to conclusion that boycotting companies that do something unethical, whether torture animals or exploit kids, is not an efficient way to make a positive difference in this world.

Using the example with smart phones, I could refuse to buy a smart phone because child labor bothers me, or I could look look for the ways to actually make my contribution to getting people out of poverty: maybe go work as a volunteer, maybe publish interview with activist and encourage people to donate on my blog once it's really high-traffic, maybe donate a solid amount of money to the cause myself. What will make more difference?

I'm more and more inspired by people who take a lot of action to solve the problems that bother them. For example, I admire Jamie Oliver for his Food Revolution, because he was bothered that kids eat crap at school, he decided to do something about it and it made a huge impact on many people. I think it's more important to focus on making a positive contribution using your unique skills and abilities than to spend your time dwelling on ethical dillemas of buying an iphone or eating a hamburger in McDonalds

Regarding the highlighted part...Maybe. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do both however.

Originally Posted by WarrenG

What do you mean by pursuing personal goals here?

I mean that some of my goals require me to acquire material. Which means it requires me to at least do a bit of research on the impact of its production and choose accordingly. I hope I answered your question.

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I'm not quite sure how to respond; maybe you're right, but I don't feel powerless, and I'm quite proud of the amount I've done for the world already.

By responsibility I think I mean that whatever the results of my actions (or inaction) are, I can't say that it wasn't my problem or that I didn't have a part in it.

Hey if it works for you I say go for it! I was just relating (projecting?)my personal experience really.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Agota

I personally came to conclusion that boycotting companies that do something unethical, whether torture animals or exploit kids, is not an efficient way to make a positive difference in this world.

Using the example with smart phones, I could refuse to buy a smart phone because child labor bothers me, or I could look look for the ways to actually make my contribution to getting people out of poverty: maybe go work as a volunteer, maybe publish interview with activist and encourage people to donate on my blog once it's really high-traffic, maybe donate a solid amount of money to the cause myself. What will make more difference?

OK good, I like Jamie Oliver too. But why not do both? Why not look into not doing things that cause harm as well as do things to prevent harm?

Also, are you a vegetarian, and if so, is that for ethical reasons?

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I mean that some of my goals require me to acquire material. Which means it requires me to at least do a bit of research on the impact of its production and choose accordingly. I hope I answered your question.

Ah, I understand, cheers. That's pretty much my position too.

[Agota]

I didn't mean in it in an absolute way. I was talking more in the context where your attention, therefore energy, goes. It's again about the law of excluded alternative that I've mentioned in thread about the news: when your attention is going somewhere, it's not going somewhere else, therefore the way you prioritize where to spend your energy is going to determine the results you'll get. Obviously, you can do both, you can boycott unethical companies and you can look for ways to make positive contribution towards the cause, but I believe it's important to track where your attention goes not only in the most obvious way, but also in subtle ways. When boycotting a company requires you to go out of your way a lot, it often eats up a significant portion of energy that could have been direct to a more efficient use. This was the point I was trying to make

[Andrew Gubb]

Well, I've read an article and a half or so of what you've given me, WarrenG. I don't have time to read more, so I'll give you my point of view now. I might add more later as necessary.

I think what's going on is horrible.

The answer about how to change that suffering, though, isn't such a clear-cut one as boycotting something.

These workers obviously took the job because they wanted to. As such, they could have left whenever. Is it, then, the company that brought them to suicide? Or something else?

I think that these situations are a result of the money system and culture itself. By money I don't mean "a system of facilitated barter" and I don't mean we should go back to the old system of barter. No.

By money I mean the idea that no-one gives anything for free; that if you want society's help in staying alive you've got to make it worth it for society.

The implication is that society doesn't care. People can die on the streets and no-one will do anything. Except perhaps try and move the languishing people to somewhere where people don't have to look at them. That's our society.

I am fundamentally against that, and for a society of free giving. A society where people give freely, and need nothing in return; they need nothing because they know that all their needs are fulfilled by their society for free; and that if they have a need that isn't fulfilled, society will try to help them as best it can. If society doesn't have the resources to give what they need, it's sorry. The individual accepts the situation and doesn't need to steal or struggle to get what they need.

That's the ideal. However, we can't give freely entirely much in our society as it is today, because we know we won't recieve freely, and self preservation becomes a necessity.

In business, it's no-one's responsibility to keep workers being happy. The harsh truth is that they pay as little as they can, to get the most they can; just like you do in the supermarket. They are buying services from what we would call their employees. But think of each employee as a businessman. He has a service to sell. The market price is low. Too bad. Who's to blame?

I would agree the company "should" (it would be nice for them to) give salaries above the market price to their workers. It would be a form of charity giving, a way of easing the lifestyle of their workers. In effect, it would be a slight movement towards a gift economy.

But they are not the only people who can do that. There are very few people who can't do something in their lives to move slightly towards a gift economy. And we can't rage at them for not doing it. Well sure, we could, but raging won't do anything, and it ignores the fact that the company *does* have free will. We all have free will to do as we will, and what we need to do is look to what we can do with our free will, and what example we can set, and how we can lead, but not force or condemn.

To sum up, I suggest that boycotting the company, even if it worked, would have no good effect. If the company went down its workers would be even worse off.

What We Can Do

There are several things we can do. If there is a company that pays above the market price to their workers, we can support them over others. You could call it a partial donation through what you pay for the product, going towards raising living standards for someone.

Or, you can address the reasons why market prices are low.

You could tackle the cultures which purposely hide the reality of entrepreneurism from the masses. You could teach and spread the message that anyone can work for themselves and not depend on an employer for money.

You could work to bring out greater creativity in people, allowing them to be better equipped to find better work, or better entrepreneurism opportunities, than manual labour. As manual labour is so common, the market price is low. Relatively speaking, the market price for more skilled work is higher.

This could involve free resources for self-education (removing the intentional blocks to prosperity that conventional education contains, perhaps). Or it could involve some sort of media which you create, such as a book or a movie, that you hope will inspire people to have an internal change and see that they are powerfully creative. You may hope that the internal change will seep into the general culture and reach the workers in these factories.

Or you could directly donate. I would probably donate towards charity work for people who don't have access to clean water and so on. But if you want you could make an intiative to give a chinese factory worker an extra 100$ a month. They would notice that. It would make a difference. It would probably be more fulfilling than buying a new iPhone. But that's for you to decide.

Actually maybe one of the most effective charity actions nowadays is Kiva. It might not seem like you're "giving", as the people give you your money back, but loans normally have interest, so you're forgoing the profit that a normal loan would make. You're also taking a slight risk on your money which you'll get no compensation for.

All of these are ways of giving to the world for free and moving towards the end of capitalism. I think they are all more effective ways of changing things than boycotting a product.

If you want to know the difference between the factory workers in China and the animals in concentration camp farms, that is for another post.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Agota

I also have to note that the ethical reasons were related with a cruel factory farming and they almost disappear when we are speaking about organic meat which comes from an animal that was kept in very good conditions and died instantly and painlessly (also, the health reasons fade when we are talking about really good organic meat)..

"Organic" only means an animal needs to be fed organic feed and have no hormones or antibiotics. That leaves a lot of room for all the other atrocities done to animals.

I really suggest you Google "organic meat veganism" or something along those lines to find an article addressing the idea that organic meat is better ethically speaking.

It really isn't that much better.

[Agota]

I might have used the wrong word, then..

What I mean is that my ethical concerns about eating meat would almost fade if I'd know that the animal was kept in very good conditions, treated well and killed instantly and painlessly. I'm aware that this is very rarely the case, therefore I think ethical reasons for going vegetarian or vegan are valid, unless you source the meat yourself and visit the farms where you get it from.

I wasn't referring to the meat from supermarket with "Organic" label on it

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Actually maybe one of the most effective charity actions nowadays is Kiva. It might not seem like you're "giving", as the people give you your money back, but loans normally have interest, so you're forgoing the profit that a normal loan would make. You're also taking a slight risk on your money which you'll get no compensation for.

Thank you for all the suggestions. Inspiring words. I've struggled a lot with the monetary system and its inherent limits with regards to altruism. I have difficulty living within the system while dreaming of a post-monetary world. I'm highlighting this particular suggestion because you mention that there's no interest. I believe Oxfam operates the same way as well. What's great about this is that you're not only helping others out you're also curbing the effects of inflation, however small your impact may be.

Hopefully people will catch on to this and demand no interests in general. Hopefully that can eventually lead us to a money-free world. Hopefully.

[elucidate]

I'm enjoying watching the brainstorming going on in this thread. Keep it up.

Really the only dilemma I have with boycotting products made by factory workers is the fact that, as I mentioned before, it would mean a loss of income for them, and possibly a ticket to the local brothel which I somehow think would be much worse for them, though both options are obviously not ideal, or even appealing.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I'm enjoying watching the brainstorming going on in this thread. Keep it up.

Really the only dilemma I have with boycotting products made by factory workers is the fact that, as I mentioned before, it would mean a loss of income for them, and possibly a ticket to the local brothel which I somehow think would be much worse for them, though both options are obviously not ideal, or even appealing.

There's more to it than that. If you're boycotting business A but you need product X, you'll go to business B instead. Point is that you're not sending less money, you're just choosing to send it elsewhere. Hopefully that other company will thrive and treat its workers better. Maybe those same workers will go from one factory to another? One can always dream. But you're contributing positively globally speaking anyway. Theoretically.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Thank you for all the suggestions. Inspiring words. I've struggled a lot with the monetary system and its inherent limits with regards to altruism. I have difficulty living within the system while dreaming of a post-monetary world. I'm highlighting this particular suggestion because you mention that there's no interest. I believe Oxfam operates the same way as well. What's great about this is that you're not only helping others out you're also curbing the effects of inflation, however small your impact may be.

Hopefully people will catch on to this and demand no interests in general. Hopefully that can eventually lead us to a money-free world. Hopefully.

The problem is that the loans are NOT given out interest free. You give your donation free of charge, and Kiva gives it to the loan companies free of charge, but the loan companies charge the borrowers very high interest rates. The average rate is 23% - in the US, that would be "Payday Loan" territory.

If you want no interest, become a Muslim. Tho, even they figured out after awhile that interest is necessary. Just as you get paid for your time, you should get paid for money you lend out, which also cost time. They can demand no interest all they want, but there is no incentive for any company to do so. It makes no sense to.

[MariconesUnited]

If I concerned myself chiefly with financials I would have become a muslim long ago. Hehe

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

If I concerned myself chiefly with financials I would have become a muslim long ago. Hehe

ok, i was wrong about the 23%. The average seems to be right around 40%, and all the way up to 80%

Kiva (organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why my money is never donated ANYWHERE

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

ok, i was wrong about the 23%. The average seems to be right around 40%, and all the way up to 80%

Kiva (organization) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why my money is never donated ANYWHERE

Wow those rates are horrid! :O

I don't think it's a reason to never donate though. I think you should do what you did...Research...If you feel inclined to donate. Ultimately it's an issue of trust I think. It's not easy trusting other people when it comes to money though I'll give you that. Genuine giving feels good though. Once I understood that I started giving just for the sake of it. It's selfish on some level I'll admit lol.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Wow those rates are horrid! :O

I don't think it's a reason to never donate though. I think you should do what you did...Research...If you feel inclined to donate. Ultimately it's an issue of trust I think. It's not easy trusting other people when it comes to money though I'll give you that. Genuine giving feels good though. Once I understood that I started giving just for the sake of it. It's selfish on some level I'll admit lol.

I'd rather give myself then my money. Money gets people no where. You know, the whole ' give a man a fish, etc etc" .

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

There's more to it than that. If you're boycotting business A but you need product X, you'll go to business B instead. Point is that you're not sending less money, you're just choosing to send it elsewhere. Hopefully that other company will thrive and treat its workers better. Maybe those same workers will go from one factory to another? One can always dream. But you're contributing positively globally speaking anyway. Theoretically.

Well yeah, I understand the concept and put it to practise with lots of products. I also buy products that are more ethical, like Etiko, where they treat the factory workers much better (apparently) and allow for holidays like Ramadan, and pay reasonable amounts, have unions and rights for workers...but it's the ones who are still left in those other places that are of concern, and you can wish for them to move to another place, but once people get stuck in their mentality of "this is where I belong, this is my lot"chances are things won't change or they won't move. Hoping is one thing, but you still have to be realistic.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Agota

I might have used the wrong word, then..

What I mean is that my ethical concerns about eating meat would almost fade if I'd know that the animal was kept in very good conditions, treated well and killed instantly and painlessly. I'm aware that this is very rarely the case, therefore I think ethical reasons for going vegetarian or vegan are valid, unless you source the meat yourself and visit the farms where you get it from.

I wasn't referring to the meat from supermarket with "Organic" label on it

Oh, I see.

Yes, I agree that meat sourced from a small farm rather than a concentration camp farm is about 1000% times better.

[James Fletcher]

A wobbly stepping stone in the story of human evolution.

[Cado]

Buying or not buying meat, buying or not buying cellphones... I wouldn't say it's a wasted effort but I would say that if you're not working to affect change from the top down it's not going to amount to much. I can't deny responsibility for supporting the meat industry but my part is infinitesimally small in the grander scheme and a personal boycott won't do anything except make me feel better. For that to have any effect there'd need to be an organized boycott on the part of at least a few tens of thousands of people coupled with a strong awareness compaign. The same goes for computers and other goods.

Frankly, I have enough to concern myself with in my own life that I don't want to inconvenience myself by fretting over where my electronics or food comes from. I'm not exactly happy with that situation but without more resources at my disposal my only other option is to unplug from modern society altogether and that's not viable. I'll get behind people pursuing systemic change and may even start the fight down the road but I'd rather not jerk off my ego by telling myself I'm doing something when I'm not.

Of course, I'm a darkworker, but that doesn't mean I can't be civic-minded. There are a number of things about our current systems which present major long-term issues and those -have- to be addressed. Part of that involves changing how food and other goods is produced and distributed. It's not just about animal suffering or people, we also have environmental damage to consider, as well as our use of resources like oil. The big problem with these morality debates is that they overlook one simple thing: we have to change, period. This is not an if, it's a when. Peak oil is coming. We have damaged the environment even if we're not responsible for global climate change. Personal boycotts are great but until we force the corporations' hands we're pushing a boulder up a mountain.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by Cado

Frankly, I have enough to concern myself with in my own life that I don't want to inconvenience myself by fretting over where my electronics or food comes from. I'm not exactly happy with that situation but without more resources at my disposal my only other option is to unplug from modern society altogether and that's not viable. I'll get behind people pursuing systemic change and may even start the fight down the road but I'd rather not jerk off my ego by telling myself I'm doing something when I'm not.

This is similar to the idea I was trying to express. I'd rather focus on getting power and money into my hands and then kick ass big time than waste my energy obsessing over things that please my ego but really don't have that much impact on the actual issue. I actually think that more lightworkers should focus on getting money and power (..power comes in many forms, not only politics) , since this is one of the most effective ways to change the world in my opinion

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Agota

This is similar to the idea I was trying to express. I'd rather focus on getting power and money into my hands and then kick ass big time than waste my energy obsessing over things that please my ego but really don't have that much impact on the actual issue. I actually think that more lightworkers should focus on getting money and power (..power comes in many forms, not only politics) , since this is one of the most effective ways to change the world in my opinion

Honey, you are speaking my language.

[Agota]

It's interesting that a lightworker and a darkworker can speak the same language, isn't it?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Agota

It's interesting that a lightworker and a darkworker can speak the same language, isn't it?

Hey, I do it every night with my little lovey.

[Agota]

I actually think that you might be a lightworker who didn't realize that yet, Cado

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Agota

I actually think that you might be a lightworker who didn't realize that yet, Cado

Nah, I'm definitely on the dark side, and funny enough interacting with those on the lighter side-her in particular-has not only made that clearer but amplified my own energy.

This isn't the place to delve into it but it's fascinating juju.

[moonrambler]

* By request, I'm creating the new 'sickly vegan phenomenon' thread and have moved some of the posts here into that. You'll also see that I'll have edited some of the posts in this thread because a few talked about the OP and the other subject in the same post; all that will be in the new thread, which I'll put in Health & Fitness. *

[WarrenG]

With this thread I was mostly thinking about the difference between being a lightworker, or an ethical vegetarianism, and using consumer electronics for your own pleasure at the expense of someone elses. My position is that the two aren't compatible, you don't eat meat then you don't buy iPhones. I'd actually extend this to becoming rich and pursuing abundance generally, but we talked about that elsewhere. But I could be wrong on this and I wondered what people thought about that, if they thought about that.

There are a few posts here about what we can do which even if I wasn't really getting at that it's a fair thing to discuss.

Andrew,

Great points Andrew, thanks for bringing these up.

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

The answer about how to change that suffering, though, isn't such a clear-cut one as boycotting something.

Yes, there's changing things and solving the problem. We can talk about how effective or not that is. but...

There's also having your own values, living in line with them, and not making justifications because one wants the benefits of not doing so. Or at least, being honest about it. In a way, saying "I know about this, but I don't care about it," from the point of view of a site about raising your consciousness, is a step up from making up a story that let's you do whatever you want and hold on to a self-image that you're not like that. (speaking generally here, none of that directed at you or anyone in particular).

So, even if the contribution one makes to this situation is really small, (a) if you have a particular "Do no harm" lightworker mindset... is there a cut off point? Does it matter how small the impact is? And (b) what's the difference between this and ethical vegetarianism?

I worry that I might sound like I'm trying to "out" people for not being what they claim to be, so just to preempt that, I'm not. I think for people committed to a lightworker path this is a valid thing to consider.

These workers obviously took the job because they wanted to. As such, they could have left whenever. Is it, then, the company that brought them to suicide? Or something else?

I disagree on this one. If you need to work 18 hour days etc. just to survive, it's not because you want to. They can't leave whenever... I think it's pretty rational to choose horrible conditions over starvation, but no one desires it.

I think that these situations are a result of the money system and culture itself. By money I don't mean "a system of facilitated barter" and I don't mean we should go back to the old system of barter. No.

By money I mean the idea that no-one gives anything for free; that if you want society's help in staying alive you've got to make it worth it for society.

The old system of barter is arguably a myth, but I agree with your general point that it's a systemic issue that's creating the problem. Mainly, having too many resources, and living in societies that our brains don't understand (and having no systems in place to account for that).

Our culture has evolved quicker than our brains, which are set up for life in tribes a couple of hundred large at most. In that scenario, debt and work isn't a problem, because shame, ostracisation and so on are powerful motivators. If you become known as someone who doesn't pay back your debts, if the whole society ostrcises you, you're in big trouble.

But when societies become abundant, large, global and interconnected, that instinct is taken out of the equation. Like Steve's recent post about getting what you deserve because we're hard-wired towards a sense of fairness (for the reasons I mention here -- this emotion is a "policing" mechanism in smaller communities). But in our lives, if you're being unfair, if you're not paying back your debt to someone fairly, you don't see it. You don't even know about it. So it doesn't bother you. And the further away it is, the easier it is to come up with reasons that it doesn't matter.

I am fundamentally against that, and for a society of free giving. A society where people give freely, and need nothing in return; they need nothing because they know that all their needs are fulfilled by their society for free; and that if they have a need that isn't fulfilled, society will try to help them as best it can. If society doesn't have the resources to give what they need, it's sorry. The individual accepts the situation and doesn't need to steal or struggle to get what they need.

On this, I'm for smaller, local economies where the fate of the people close to you is interconnected. In case anyone jumps in with "Communism didn't work," I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the work you do is directly related to the welfare of the people around you physically, and vice versa.

But that said, I can see the value of large global societies in terms of learning, growth, and our cultural evolution, and if we can figure out a way to make that work, that would be interesting too. But even if we decide to go down that path, I think we could benefit from learning about what made smaller (<200) societies work, and integrate this knowledge into larger societies somehow, because that's what our brains "know". An analogy is that our bodies expect movement, hence exercise is good for is - in a way, someone going from sedentary to active isn't getting better, they're getting 'normal'.

To sum up, I suggest that boycotting the company, even if it worked, would have no good effect. If the company went down its workers would be even worse off.

This is an interesting counter-point and something I'd have to look into more. I don't really know if that's correct or not. It could be. My intuition is similar to what RussianRocket said earlier -- that it would lead to more problems in the short term but better situations in the long term. But like I say that's just a feeling and I don't have any reasoning I can back that up with, I need to research it more.

Originally Posted by Cado

a personal boycott won't do anything except make me feel better.

But not as good as an iPad? Also I wonder if this is an "Out of sight, out of mind" thing, and if you'd feel the same if these factories were in your town and you were in regular contact with the workers, and saw what their lives were like. Would you still feel the same way? Would you take your iPad to the local bar near the factory? And if not, why not?

The big problem with these morality debates is that they overlook one simple thing: we have to change, period.

On this, my opinion is we don't get a choice about changing. I don't think we can do anything to make the large, systemic changes we'd like to see, but also that we don't have to, because our economy is in the middle of a big crash/transition that we also can't avoid.

The bigger the crash, the more "local" our economies will get, and in more extreme cases, that one person who couldn't make a difference on the large global scale, but did what he felt was right anyway, will be more useful to the society. Because he's already been buying from local stores, he's more engaged with his community, which builds relationships, he's learned more about how not to rely on larger systems. Stuff like that. He's got more links in his immediate community, he knows at least some things he can pass on to others. And even in less extreme scenarios, the more social capital in a community in times of hardship, the better.

Not that not buying an iPhone gives you this automatically - of course not! But following that particular value will lead one closer to what I'm getting at here.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

shhhhh, you don't want to mess with their status quo

This is what I've been saying all over the place. That is hilarious that someone made that game. It's about time someone did something to raise awareness about electronic gadgets and where they come from. I just watched a documentary on cancer and these parents of a small child were almost thrown in jail for not giving their kid chemo and radiation. So, you see, no matter where we go, the status quo can never be questioned, sometimes under penalty of law.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

But not as good as an iPad? Also I wonder if this is an "Out of sight, out of mind" thing, and if you'd feel the same if these factories were in your town and you were in regular contact with the workers, and saw what their lives were like. Would you still feel the same way? Would you take your iPad to the local bar near the factory? And if not, why not?

It definitely wouldn't make me feel as good as an iPad. It doesn't give me anything tangible and it doesn't alter the world in any way.

My stance is that I have remarkable power as an individual, but part of power is accepting the true significance of my actions. If I think a personal boycott does anything in itself I may as well wank off against a wall for all the good it'll do. If I turn it into a movement, make people aware, write my politicians, challenge the status quo, then that boycott becomes meaningful-however, I can take all those actions with or without swearing off a piece of technology. Money is powerful, incredibly so, but it's not the only way to affect change and directly aiming for their wallets isn't going to work with a lot of these corporations.

On this, my opinion is we don't get a choice about changing. I don't think we can do anything to make the large, systemic changes we'd like to see, but also that we don't have to, because our economy is in the middle of a big crash/transition that we also can't avoid.

It's hard to say what, exactly, will unfold, but I don't think it's going to be big enough to displace these companies from their positions or make our economies more local as you think. If anything, the bad or worst case scenarios would vastly increase our dependence on the system as there are fewer jobs to go around and things like organic gardening become legally troublesome due to special interests lobbying in favor of companies like Monsanto.

There are changes coming, it's inevitable, but we can't afford to sit on our asses and say we've got no hand in effecting systemic change. That's the worst possible thing we could do right now! The only real obstacle is getting enough people to mobilize. Even just a critical mass of a few hundred thousand demanding governmental reform in regard to corporatism would be enough to radically alter whatever is to come.

The bigger the crash, the more "local" our economies will get, and in more extreme cases, that one person who couldn't make a difference on the large global scale, but did what he felt was right anyway, will be more useful to the society. Because he's already been buying from local stores, he's more engaged with his community, which builds relationships, he's learned more about how not to rely on larger systems. Stuff like that. He's got more links in his immediate community, he knows at least some things he can pass on to others. And even in less extreme scenarios, the more social capital in a community in times of hardship, the better.

"Doing what you feel is right"-ie, not buying an iPad-doesn't mean you'll develop any worthwhile skills. There are a lot of people who stick to their guns and don't do anymore than that. A lot of the people you're talking about will be just as useless as if they had bought the latest gadgets, they just won't be able to call you on the smart phone they didn't buy.

Our sense of community has eroded and it's not coming back, not as it was. With the internet we've expanded to a global community and regarding any positive changes we want to see we've got to think on that level. The only scenario in which we wouldn't is one wherein society goes full-on apocalyptic and then restructures itself according to a less sophisticated model in a post-tech, post-oil world. That's very unlikely to happen. The real threat is the subtle erosion of the middle class and a gradual increase in governmental power as unrest becomes more of a threat. I doubt we'll be living in a 1984-esque society anytime soon but the groundwork has been laid and ten, fifteen years from now? Yeah, I could see that happening.

If we don't do **** to stop it. I don't see that happening, either. Not with Egypt, not with the current protests on Wall Street.

Not that not buying an iPhone gives you this automatically - of course not! But following that particular value will lead one closer to what I'm getting at here.

Hahaha, I should have read a little further before typing the above, I suppose. Though I wonder-what if someone uses their computer built with orphan blood and slave labor to educate themselves in practical things?

It doesn't matter if you buy **** from Apple, nearly every tech company does the same thing. I practically guarantee my computer has blood on its circuits-and I have blood on my hands by proxy-but it does so much good for me and it enables me to do something on a larger stage so I can hardly argue it would have been worth it to abstain on the basis of principle.

Most people who buy all this tech aren't going to do anything substantial with it but some will, and there's a kind of poetic justice in the thought that the very machine that was put together in horrible conditions might aid in changing that.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Cado

It's hard to say what, exactly, will unfold, but I don't think it's going to be big enough to displace these companies from their positions or make our economies more local as you think.

Yeah it's true no one knows. The main action I'm taking at the moment is trying to see where we might be going, to see what the best preparations are. But we don't know what it will be like except that it will be different, probably a degree or two warmer, and with gradually less oil. And they are not guarantees and there's no set time points. So what do you do?

But one thing you can do, is look at different scenarios and see if there are any common solutions that run through them, or which solutions run through the most of the scenarios. Local economies and more connection to them is one of them, in my opinion.

Most people who buy all this tech aren't going to do anything substantial with it but some will, and there's a kind of poetic justice in the thought that the very machine that was put together in horrible conditions might aid in changing that.

Ideally they'd all be used that way.