Lightworkers, Vegetarianism, Ethics and Smartphones

[WarrenG]

Some people are vegetarians because they don't agree with the way animals are treated. Some people are lightworkers, who are trying to do good in the world. Some people are ethical and want to do the right thing, whether or not they identify with the lightworker label.

If you belong in one of the above groups, maybe you'd also agree that the way people are treated during the production of smartphones, iPads, Kindles and the like, is also wrong, and you don't want to contribute to that.

Apple recently banned an app called Phone Story, a game where you have to keep child labourers in line during mining, catch Chinese workers with nets as they jump from the top of Foxxconn factories, and so on. (That article's worth a read just for the developers' hilarious response at the end).

What I'm curious about is, if you belong to one of the above groups (or even if you don't, but especially if you do):

Will you stop buying smartphones and other electronic gadgets produced in this way?
If not, why not?

I'm not going to judge or condemn, I'm just really interested in what your thought process about this is.

[russianrocket]

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

[elucidate]

I don't own any of these things...and I never will. I have no interest whatsoever and if I won one I'd probably give it away. I don't even like phones or computers that much.

I don't call myself a lightworker, though some people here have called me one...but I do have my own code of ethics and I take action towards being part of the solution, raising awareness, growing vegies, being environmentally aware, not ****ing people around etc.

[WarrenG]

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

Not messing, just inquiring (or is that the same thing?). I'm really curious about how these two things fit together.

I don't own any of these things...and I never will. I have no interest whatsoever and if I won one I'd probably give it away. I don't even like phones or computers that much.

Awesome! On a side note, how's life without a phone? I'm going back and forward on not replacing mine when it breaks...

[elucidate]

Oh I have a phone, just not a smartphone or an iphone.

Guess I'm not smart enough to own a smartphone eh.

My first phone was a walkie talkie style brick of a thing. I bought it to double up as a weapon when I first moved to the city. It was called "The Brick".

[Agota]

First, I'm not aware of how people are being treated during the production of smart phones.

Second, I think that businesses should pay people as much as they can afford, not as little as they can get away with, as well as to provide the best working conditions they can possibly provide.

Third, I think that topic of child labor in developing countries is not that black and white as it often seems to western people. I'm in no way supporting exploiting children to make profits, but.. It might very well be that the kid is happy that he has that job, because he gets some money to buy food and probably some money to help this family, because if not that factory or wherever he works in, he and his family would be starving. When we look at it, we might think it's horrible, when people who are starving look at it, they might think it's an amazing opportunity for them. This is why I believe that people who are into fighting with child labor should make sure that they are looking for real solutions, not shutting down factories and leaving kids to die from hunger or live in extreme poverty.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Agota

Third, I think that topic of child labor in developing countries is not that black and white as it often seems to western people. I'm in no way supporting exploiting children to make profits, but.. It might very well be that the kid is happy that he has that job, because he gets some money to buy food and probably some money to help this family, because if not that factory or wherever he works in, he and his family would be starving. When we look at it, we might think it's horrible, when people who are starving look at it, they might think it's an amazing opportunity for them. This is why I believe that people who are into fighting with child labor should make sure that they are looking for real solutions, not shutting down factories and leaving kids to die from hunger or live in extreme poverty.

This is how I think too, and it's why I wear converse.

If we stopped buying these products, these kids would be out of work and would be forced to become male or female prostitutes or drug moles for people who give even less of a crap about them than factory owners do.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

This is how I think too, and it's why I wear converse.

If we stopped buying these products, these kids would be out of work and would be forced to become male or female prostitutes or drug moles for people who give even less of a crap about them than factory owners do.

Or, the parents would stop popping out little workers , to send out to work for the sake of the family. Your argument can be used to justify just about anything.

[Agota]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Or, the parents would stop popping out little workers , to send out to work for the sake of the family. Your argument can be used to justify just about anything.

I don't think this is a very realistic possible outcome, because people who live in poverty and are uneducated usually don't have necessary knowledge or means to use some form of birth control (it's not likely they'll stop having sex which is probably one of few pleasant things in their life). The issue of child labor comes from the issue of lack of education which comes from the issue of poverty,therefore in order to change things for the better we have to adress poverty. Many people and organizations are already doing that via providing poor people opportunities to run small businesses and this has a positive impact on kids, because then families can afford to send them to school. Kids who go to school are less likely to have kids themselves in a young age or have as many kids as uneducated people. They're also more likely to have higher income. This way, the problem can be solved in few generations.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Or, the parents would stop popping out little workers , to send out to work for the sake of the family. Your argument can be used to justify just about anything.

They could...but they don't, and in the meantime, the kids they do have are put to work. That's the way it is, so your argument is pretty moot unless you intend to go to those countries and convince all the people there to stop breeding factory workers, or better still start a birth control education program. It's nothing new that people have been breeding with the intent of bringing in more income for the family. It's been going on for ages. It's deeply entrenched in their cultural norms.

My argument can not be used to justify almost anything at all...but I think it can be used to justify keeping those kids in the **** job they have so they don't have an even harder time. Then again, they might be better off dead? That's just from our spoilt, western perspective though.

When we look at films of kids living in garbage dumps in India, we feel sorry for them or think how awful it must be...but for them it's all they have ever know, and they are used to it...happy even...eating someone elses throw aways.

Who are we to decide their lives are terrible, just because we wouldn't put up with it here.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

They could...but they don't, and in the meantime, the kids they do have are put to work. That's the way it is, so your argument is pretty moot unless you intend to go to those countries and convince all the people there to stop breeding factory workers, or better still start a birth control education program. It's nothing new that people have been breeding with the intent of bringing in more income for the family. It's been going on for ages.

My argument can not be used to justify almost anything at all...but I think it can be used to justify keeping those kids in the **** job they have so they don't have an even harder time. Then again, they might be better off dead? That's just from our spoilt, western perspective though.

That's my point. They don't, because there is a continous demand for products, so there will always be factory work. Chicken or the egg. Or, not looking far enough in the future. In order to "help" current children, you are creating a perpetual state of creating children, that then need help.

I could Use your argument to justify many things. But, that only works if they really aren't better off dead. I guess im a cold realist, and work with logic.

[ZephyrusX]

I don't have time to read the original article, but using the clothing industry as a proxy, I suspect the issue is more about promoting unions and worker rights in third world countries by using Western consumer power as leverage. It is not about shutting down factories. I'm pretty sure Western states, such as Canada, has passed laws prohibiting to what extent this is possible though. I remember city councils would sometimes ban the purchase of certain products from a country if its governments refused to establish independent review of working conditions in certain industries, but the federal government passed a law prohibiting this as they saw it as foreign affairs, which municipalities have no jurisdiction over. I'm not sure to what extent this is now a powerful way to conduct politics.

To answer the original question, I don't have any of the listed products. I don't feel I need one. I don't want one. Actually, I've never even had a cellphone. I'm a archaic relic of the past.

Originally Posted by Agota

First, I'm not aware of how people are being treated during the production of smart phones.

Second, I think that businesses should pay people as much as they can afford, not as little as they can get away with, as well as to provide the best working conditions they can possibly provide.

Third, I think that topic of child labor in developing countries is not that black and white as it often seems to western people. I'm in no way supporting exploiting children to make profits, but.. It might very well be that the kid is happy that he has that job, because he gets some money to buy food and probably some money to help this family, because if not that factory or wherever he works in, he and his family would be starving. When we look at it, we might think it's horrible, when people who are starving look at it, they might think it's an amazing opportunity for them. This is why I believe that people who are into fighting with child labor should make sure that they are looking for real solutions, not shutting down factories and leaving kids to die from hunger or live in extreme poverty.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

When we look at films of kids living in garbage dumps in India, we feel sorry for them or think how awful it must be...but for them it's all they have ever know, and they are used to it...happy even...eating someone elses throw aways.

Who are we to decide their lives are terrible, just because we wouldn't put up with it here.

: D see what you just did there? You made an argument for AND against.

You are right, who are we to decide their lives are terrible? Who are you to decide, that being a prostitute would be worse then working in factories? Who are we to decide that dying, would be worse then having to live out that type of life? You feel sorry for them and think how awful it must be?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

That's my point. They don't, because there is a continous demand for products, so there will always be factory work. Chicken or the egg. Or, not looking far enough in the future. In order to "help" current children, you are creating a perpetual state of creating children, that then need help.

Yeah, I get that. It's a vicious circle, and even if we did start to curb our compulsive consumer impulses, those people would need to learn better ways to sustain themselves and their families, but that takes education which takes money...and they will never have enough to afford those things. It's better that they stop having kids, and then the rest of us will just have to deal with not having smartphones or the latest whatever...but that's not gonna happen either.

I could Use your argument to justify many things. But, that only works if they really aren't better off dead. I guess im a cold realist, and work with logic.

Where's Nernico when you need him? It's a strong argument for anti-natalism. I personally think death would be a better option, but that's only because I have tasted certain freedoms in my life. You can't miss what you have never known.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

: D see what you just did there? You made an argument for AND against.

You are right, who are we to decide their lives are terrible? Who are you to decide, that being a prostitute would be worse then working in factories? Who are we to decide that dying, would be worse then having to live out that type of life? You feel sorry for them and think how awful it must be?

Ok, I see what you are saying, but somehow I think that slaving away putting iphones together is better than being ****ed by ten filthy, slimy sleazebag pedophiles a day for pittance, which they then have to hand over to their parents to buy food.

Empathy isn't the same as pity. I can put myself in the shoes of a ten year old girl getting the crap ****ed out of her for twenty cents, and it's not hard to think which would be the better option.

But you're right...I can't know for sure what SHE thinks of her life. I can take a fairly educated guess though, and given that she would also have the burden of feeling guilty for entertaining suicidal thoughts, and leaving her parents alone and without income...she would probably endure it.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Agota

Third, I think that topic of child labor in developing countries is not that black and white as it often seems to western people. I'm in no way supporting exploiting children to make profits, but.. It might very well be that the kid is happy that he has that job, because he gets some money to buy food and probably some money to help this family, because if not that factory or wherever he works in, he and his family would be starving.

OK that's fine, it is indeed a big issue with a lot of variables, and we could go back and forth on that. But coming back to the point, how would the fact that a product is made using child labour affect your purchasing choice? Would you purposefully look for such items, thinking that even if we can't really comprehend it from our Western perspective, we're helping the child and his family from a worse situation?

And what about the Chinese factories, where there were 14 suicides last year. Some of them have nets around the buildings to stop people jumping off. Conditions are very bad and so is the pay. Same thing here (these are adult workers)?

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I don't have time to read the original article, but using the clothing industry as a proxy, I suspect the issue is more about promoting unions and worker rights in third world countries by using Western consumer power as leverage.

Aggregate Western consumer power is what is creating this situation in the first place. We want cheap prices, and large stores have large customer bases. So they can drive a low price from overseas producers on the back of the large contract they'll get. However they have to cut corners on wages and working conditions etc to produce that cheaply.

As long our highest priority is cheap products, this will continue.

And why are companies forced to drive prices down overseas? Because fund managers are using the aggregate Western investor power as leverage to big companies. "We have x million invested in you, and it will stay that way as long as you keep making a profit. If not, we'll pull out and invest somewhere else." Like the factories that cannot afford to lose the deal, the company can't afford to lose the favour of the fund managers. So they do whatever they can to make a big profit, just to survive.

So it's us, as consumers and investors that are creating this bind.

But I was interested about the personal level, people's thoughts on this.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Agota

First, I'm not aware of how people are being treated during the production of smart phones.

Second, I think that businesses should pay people as much as they can afford, not as little as they can get away with, as well as to provide the best working conditions they can possibly provide.

Being ignorant of it, doesn't make it non existent. It's pretty easy to look it up.

As far as your second comment. WHY should business' pay people as much as they can afford? What is your definition of afford? How much profit should a business be "allowed" to make, and who has the right to tell a business that? A business can afford to pay people 100% of their profit, and the business will keep going until people get sick of not making money in their company.

This is why governments should stay the hell out of business. Governments pushed business' overseas. If the government wants to do anything, they should be the ones keeping the public informed of how business' work, so that people can make informed decisions. When your choices are, buy a smart phone, or don't buy a smart phone, because all production is now overseas, well then we have a problem.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Some people are vegetarians because they don't agree with the way animals are treated. Some people are lightworkers, who are trying to do good in the world. Some people are ethical and want to do the right thing, whether or not they identify with the lightworker label.

If you belong in one of the above groups, maybe you'd also agree that the way people are treated during the production of smartphones, iPads, Kindles and the like, is also wrong, and you don't want to contribute to that.

Apple recently banned an app called Phone Story, a game where you have to keep child labourers in line during mining, catch Chinese workers with nets as they jump from the top of Foxxconn factories, and so on. (That article's worth a read just for the developers' hilarious response at the end).

What I'm curious about is, if you belong to one of the above groups (or even if you don't, but especially if you do):

Will you stop buying smartphones and other electronic gadgets produced in this way?
If not, why not?

I'm not going to judge or condemn, I'm just really interested in what your thought process about this is.

I make a point to avoid Nestlé products when possible, because of their actions in Africa.

It's mostly to make a point though. Veganism is, for me, a more practical way to make a change. The suffering intended to be avoided is much more clear cut. While some workers may be mistreated in making the products we consume, it's hardly going to come near as many or as much. It's also harder to know which companies to give up.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I make a point to avoid Nestlé products when possible, because of their actions in Africa.

It's mostly to make a point though. Veganism is, for me, a more practical way to make a change. The suffering intended to be avoided is much more clear cut. While some workers may be mistreated in making the products we consume, it's hardly going to come near as many or as much. It's also harder to know which companies to give up.

Just to clarify... I don't know if that's true or not but let's say it isn't near as many or as much. Does that mean that, regardless of how much suffering is caused relative to eating meat, do you think the level of suffering is acceptable to continue to buy smartphones and gadgets?

Also, regarding which companies -- take your pick, but Apple is the Western company getting the press at the moment, and Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer who make Apple products and Kindles, are the overseas one getting the press. But let's say you looked into it and made a list of the companies. Would you boycott them? And if not, why not?

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

Just to clarify... I don't know if that's true or not but let's say it isn't near as many or as much. Does that mean that, regardless of how much suffering is caused relative to eating meat, do you think the level of suffering is acceptable to continue to buy smartphones and gadgets?

I'm not sure, because I haven't gotten up to date on these things.

By the way, have you ever gone into how incredibly much suffering is gone through for each of the 21,000 animals eaten by an average American in their lifetime?

Don't let that be a diversory tactic. I fully admit that I don't know how much suffering has gone into the technology I buy, and that I am responsible for knowing.

I won't let that take away from what I've already done, though; approximately 16,000 animals have been saved from torturous existences from my simple decision to go vegan. That doesn't count the animals that would have suffered to make my milk, eggs, leather and so on. So as a conservative estimate, I've saved 20,000 animals from existences that could be accurately called excrutiating.

Now maybe I can do more. I will research the suffering caused by smartphones and other gadgets.

Also, regarding which companies -- take your pick, but Apple is the Western company getting the press at the moment, and Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer who make Apple products and Kindles, are the overseas one getting the press. But let's say you looked into it and made a list of the companies. Would you boycott them? And if not, why not?

Maybe, maybe not. I think one of the important elements of a boycott is large scale participation, which sends a message to companies. So I might look for causes I think I can make a difference in. I might blog about a boycott and get people moving. Or I could use other means.

If a company is truly unacceptable, sure, I would boycott them. I'd never buy "blood diamonds" (diamonds from conflict zones) for instance. If someone's blood was spilt for my gadgets I'd think twice about buying.

I'm not that big a gadget consumer anyway, though if I found no-one made ethical computers, I'd be in a sticky spot.

[MariconesUnited]

I think the issue is related to our own limits. We're not all-knowing and there will never be a dearth of problems to solve or suffering. So for me personally, the challenge comes in finding the balance between finding out about the products I buy and moving forward and setting personal goals on the other hand. Overanalyzing can lead to inaction, which can lead to self-doubt and all kinds of negative inner emotions. Acting without thought can lead to making bad choices. Ultimately I have to accept that I do my best with the limited knowledge and abilities that I have.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

Don't let that be a diversory tactic. I fully admit that I don't know how much suffering has gone into the technology I buy, and that I am responsible for knowing.

No you're not. You have no obligations to inform yourself of anything. That kind of perspective can truly make you feel like you're never doing enough, which can lead to feelings of powerlessness. Your own natural curiosity and thirst for information honors you. It's a quality not an obligation.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

No you're not. You have no obligations to inform yourself of anything. That kind of perspective can truly make you feel like you're never doing enough, which can lead to feelings of powerlessness. Your own natural curiosity and thirst for information honors you. It's a quality not an obligation.

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.

[Andrew Gubb]

@WarrenG I can't find anything on the treatment of smartphone etc workers - can you forward me to the information source you got this from, if it was on the internet?

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

By the way, have you ever gone into how incredibly much suffering is gone through for each of the 21,000 animals eaten by an average American in their lifetime?

Not really. Some idea, not much. I've seen the videos and so on.

Now maybe I can do more. I will research the suffering caused by smartphones and other gadgets.

Maybe, maybe not. I think one of the important elements of a boycott is large scale participation, which sends a message to companies. So I might look for causes I think I can make a difference in. I might blog about a boycott and get people moving. Or I could use other means.

If a company is truly unacceptable, sure, I would boycott them. I'd never buy "blood diamonds" (diamonds from conflict zones) for instance. If someone's blood was spilt for my gadgets I'd think twice about buying.

I'm not that big a gadget consumer anyway, though if I found no-one made ethical computers, I'd be in a sticky spot.

OK cool, thanks for your response there. So for you, you'd be willing to give up on products you'd otherwise enjoy, if people had to suffer for you to have them.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I think the issue is related to our own limits. We're not all-knowing and there will never be a dearth of problems to solve or suffering. So for me personally, the challenge comes in finding the balance between finding out about the products I buy and moving forward and setting personal goals on the other hand. Overanalyzing can lead to inaction, which can lead to self-doubt and all kinds of negative inner emotions. Acting without thought can lead to making bad choices. Ultimately I have to accept that I do my best with the limited knowledge and abilities that I have.

What do you mean by pursuing personal goals here?

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

@WarrenG I can't find anything on the treatment of smartphone etc workers - can you forward me to the information source you got this from, if it was on the internet?

A few news items:

The fate of a generation of workers: Foxconn undercover fully translated (update: videos added) -- Engadget
1 Million Workers. 90 Million iPhones. 17 Suicides. Who’s to Blame? | Magazine
We shop until Chinese workers drop – Johann Hari

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I'm not sure, because I haven't gotten up to date on these things.

By the way, have you ever gone into how incredibly much suffering is gone through for each of the 21,000 animals eaten by an average American in their lifetime?

Don't let that be a diversory tactic. I fully admit that I don't know how much suffering has gone into the technology I buy, and that I am responsible for knowing.

I won't let that take away from what I've already done, though; approximately 16,000 animals have been saved from torturous existences from my simple decision to go vegan. That doesn't count the animals that would have suffered to make my milk, eggs, leather and so on. So as a conservative estimate, I've saved 20,000 animals from existences that could be accurately called excrutiating.

Now maybe I can do more. I will research the suffering caused by smartphones and other gadgets.

Maybe, maybe not. I think one of the important elements of a boycott is large scale participation, which sends a message to companies. So I might look for causes I think I can make a difference in. I might blog about a boycott and get people moving. Or I could use other means.

If a company is truly unacceptable, sure, I would boycott them. I'd never buy "blood diamonds" (diamonds from conflict zones) for instance. If someone's blood was spilt for my gadgets I'd think twice about buying.

I'm not that big a gadget consumer anyway, though if I found no-one made ethical computers, I'd be in a sticky spot.

First, are you an American, or an average one at that? You are comparing yourself to the burger eating, fat tubs walking around America. Not only that, you are comparing it to the Americans who eat only cheap quality processed factory farmed foods.

So, unless you were going to be an average American, who pays zero attention to your food, then maybe you'd have "saved" 20,000 animals.

But, if you were a smart American, eating a normal amount of animal products, that come from quality small or even family farms, then your comparison wouldn't be as dramatic as you want to make it.

But no, you go ahead and blow your horn on how many animals you've saved by being a vegan. Don't let the animals that died for your veggies bother you. Or the incredible amount of effort it takes for those 30 bananas a day that you used to eat, that are only grown in one area and flown across a vast ocean for you. Don't let those things dismay you. Keep fighting the good fight, and looking at the rest of us like heartless cruel animal abusers.

anyone wanna quote this?

[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

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Agota

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.

Not that I am disagreeing entirely with your post - I think that boycotting is usually one of the least effective things you can do, and I only boycot animal products and Nestlé - but I wanted to point something out:

Jamie Oliver had a large influence already thanks to his fame as a television cook. What could another person of his influence do, if he lead thousands of viewers of his shows, for instance, to boycott a company and either take up an ethical company or force the old company to change its actions in a genuine way?