In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free(fastcoexist.com) |
In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free(fastcoexist.com) |
In reality many of us only care because it is fashionable to do so.
Anyone who acts like they're pro environment, anti-rights-abuse, and so on while using lots of technology is full of shit given its supply chain and corporate support. Better admit they're willing to let some kids and people suffer to advance their agenda. I will. I don't like it but the situation is complex and warrants it.
Suddenly, the good and bad people in such a situation ain't so black and white. Rarely is but I think many activists think it is for them. They just ignore the underlying realities except for their causes.
Of course you'd have companies claiming that $1/day is middle class in certain countries, etc, so maybe you'd have to set some sort of standardized chart based on CPI, but y'all get what I'm saying here. I think it would be more informative than "conflict-free", especially since it gets to the root of ensuring a lack of slave-labor-like conditions for workers. Most of the fashion industry, for example, would never manage to hold itself to such a standard. "Made in Italy" is a lot more expensive when you can't pay table scraps to your Chinese "guest workers"...
I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...
It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.
"Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
But hey, better than nothing.
[1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...
Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?
But I still agree with your sentiments regarding the Gulf countries, the US, and Russia. I just believe that the shameful actions they are perpetrating are of a different nature. To that list I'd add Iran.
Disclaimer: I am an Arab Muslim.
Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor". Maybe that's the "price signal" you send, but that doesn't imply that it is your conscious ethical decision. You may be more than willing to support laws that forbid conflict chips from being sold in your country, even if those laws cause a surge in computing equipment prices.
Maybe go one step less than that and sell conflict chips like we sell cigarettes: with a huge picture of some kid with their leg blown up in the box. If people still buy them then (despite conflict-free alternatives existing), then you can make the argument that they are implicitly (but consciously) deciding cheap chips matter more than dying people.
That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now.
"Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor"."
I disagree as many people in U.S. know about what capitalism, cheap labor, and other things result in. Just talk to a bunch of them sometime if you doubt that. What you'll see is they know to some degree but put it out of their mind. It's a problem but not their problem. It's called an externality in economics but I call it not giving a shit.
In any case, I said I'd go with your version of things. So, now readers know all kinds of horrible shit might have gone into their electronics to get them here. Which person fighting for good is now (a) intentionally harming people for the greater good or (b) disconnecting and selling their devices to prevent harm? They know now. So, the choice is informed and intentional.
My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.
[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).
Very reasonable position.
"My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]."
My experience in activism for civil rights, privacy, less corruption, and so on suggests people just don't care. It has to literally take almost no mental effort in America or most won't lift a finger. Unless it's one of those hot button issues. They'll at least talk a lot about it on Facebook while some take action. Apathy reigns supreme here, though, as we've seen time after time.
"(even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard)"
Haha. Low standards reign, too.
"involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries;"
TPP shows it going in the opposite direction with more concentration of power into elites' hands and reinforcement of prior stuff. Individual companies might do better, though, hopefully.