Questionable Ethics

Off topic

Questionable Ethics

Postby bels » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:26 am

ramseames wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/29/us-italy-sweatshop-insight-idUSBRE9BS04D20131229

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/1 ... LhyXivF_9s

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlema ... nese-italy

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/20 ... einitaly20

its pretty well documented.

Umberto and Matteo aren't sitting around drinking espresso in some small family owned factory labouring over your CPs.


Post about fashion and ethics. It's a term that gets thrown around a lot (H&M had an ethical collection a while ago) but how much of it goes far enough and how far is far enough? Do you want a cruelty free wardrobe? How will you go about this in purely practical terms? Where are you drawing the line? If you insist on highly ethical clothing and that clothing comes at a price that other people can't afford, is your morality a luxury? So what?

Image
  • 7

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18654

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby stappard_ » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:33 am

Picking up the point from the other thread, I'm always suspicious of items using "made in Italy" as a selling point due to how often its get linked with stories about garments being finished in a certain country in order to use the label on the tag.

It gives rise to things like this (via putthison):

Image
  • 2

User avatar
stappard_
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:16 am
Reputation: 2963

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby nick » Fri Jan 16, 2015 10:57 am

Anyone know what conditions in NYC (Garment District) factories are like? I remember there being accusations against Alexander Wang for having workers operate in sweatshop conditions. I'd like to hope that with the $$$ I pay, my clothing isn't produced in similar conditions to how Uniqlo is, but that may just be naive of me.

Hate when lucrative brands with exorbitant pricing move their production to cheaper and presumably lesser conditions - Visvim to China, Rick Owens to Moldova, etc - and continue to jack up the prices even higher.
  • 1

User avatar
nick
Eminent Eminem
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:13 am
Location: Philly
Reputation: 2676

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:09 am

Not to devolve into complete nihilism here, but I'm always skeptical of people who get high and mighty about their consumption ethics. This may get a little too far in to personal politics, but let's face it: almost all labor today, unless it's in a country with a high standard of living and strong labor laws, is highly exploitative. Whether or not you choose to spend your money on things "made in China" (which has become an absurd cliché in it's own right) does not, in fact, make a difference. And the efforts and lengths that people go to make sure they everything they own and buy is fair trade or benefiting third world farmers would be much better spent addressing the real structural forces that maintain this exploitation (and will continue to).

This is only compounded by the fact that "ethical consumption" has become an industry unto itself, ushering in a new wave of consumers who have no problem with their choices as long as they can be sold the experience of feeling good about it. I'm certainly glad that people in some parts of the world are being treated more fairly, and that people in the West are starting to think about the consequences of their lifestyles, but let's not kid ourselves.

I yield the floor to Zizek:

Spoiler:
  • 6

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby thephfactor » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:23 am

frogosaurus wrote:Not to devolve into complete nihilism here, but I'm always skeptical of people who get high and mighty about their consumption ethics. This may get a little too far in to personal politics, but let's face it: almost all labor today, unless it's in a country with a high standard of living and strong labor laws, is highly exploitative. Whether or not you choose to spend your money on things "made in China" (which has become an absurd cliché in it's own right) does not, in fact, make a difference. And the efforts and lengths that people go to make sure they everything they own and buy is fair trade or benefiting third world farmers would be much better spent addressing the real structural forces that maintain this exploitation (and will continue to).

ey yeah capitalism = exploitation: labor and consumer. i think it's probably better to avoid companies who do so the most horrifically but they will ALWAYS exist under capitalism so if you turn around and buy into another capitalist business it's not like you're really changing anything. best to avoid retail completely I suppose.
  • 0

User avatar
thephfactor
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:57 am
Reputation: 967

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:30 am

The only really solution is to go no-cop and funnel all your money to insurrectionist labor forces around the world.
  • 9

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby bels » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:43 am

frogosaurus wrote:This may get a little too far in to personal politics, but let's face it: almost all labor today, unless it's in a country with a high standard of living and strong labor laws, is highly exploitative. Whether or not you choose to spend your money on things "made in China" (which has become an absurd cliché in it's own right) does not, in fact, make a difference.


I feel like this is a contradiction. If the labor in a country with a high standard of living and strong labor laws isn't exploitative, then doesn't it matter whether you chose to patronise the exploitative or the non exploitative business?

We can probably avoid getting high and mighty in here, we're certainly not going to solve any of the problems of modern consumer capitalism by buying more clothes and I don't think anyone is proposing that. But if the question is:

"I want to buy clothes, but I want them to be as ethical (whatever ethical means to me) as possible. What do?"

Then that's something we can discuss.
  • 4

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 5036
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18654

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:50 am

Bela, that's fair. I think I got a little away from the question that actually matters in this context, which is the one you posed.

Edit: I also think it's overly defeatist to say "why bother?" and just embrace the realities of the situation, which it may have sounded like I was doing.
  • 2

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby schiaparelli » Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:58 am

brief thoughts:

  • a lot of conversations about ethical consumption can get uncomfortably racist when people talk about "chinese labor" or something
  • people use "made in a first world country" as a proxy for "is ethically made" a lot of the time…it's really not a guarantee
  • i don't think people recognize enough that production in 3rd world countries can be economically beneficial to that country and provide better opportunities for the workers, despite ethics concerns
  • as has been noted, something that is MIUSA/MIE/whatever isn't a guarantee the item was actually made in that country (maybe the tag was only attached there, or a final decorative piece), and exploitative labor could still be used in the process
  • this reminds me of the hypocrisy in cosmetics companies advertising that they are cruelty-free—often, they can afford to be cruelty-free because the ingredients they used have already been established, through animal testing, that they are effective. so they're still using the results of animal testing, just not doing it themselves
  • i love it when affluent liberal people (i live around a lot of them/am one of them) get freaked out about sweatshop labor and own iphones. tbh it's really hard as a consumer to buy 100% ethically produced things, unless you make it a major focus point in how you buy, and don't have to/need to make decisions predicated just on price/style
i'll come back to this thread with longer thoughts
  • 5

User avatar
schiaparelli
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 7:00 pm
Reputation: 2964

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby Bobbin.Threadbare » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:44 pm

Ethical.

There’s so much to consider – but if you’re really into clothing this is something important that you need to think about.

You might find this biased, but the absolute best way to deal with this is to find brands that chime with your own values and trust them to deliver the goods. You aren’t allowed in factories, and you have no way to ask questions on the whole – so find companies that make it clear cut that they are ethical for the right reasons.

I agree with anyone that says that ‘made in china’ isn’t bad. Clothing made in slums isn’t necessarily bad either. We’re all grown ups and can balance the view that people living in those places are benefitting from work – but companies that employ them need to make sure they aren’t being hurt or exploited while they do it.

Our denim, for example, is hand loomed. That’s amazing for those that do it for us because it’s a craft they are adept at and they are paid very well for it. In some cases hand loomers have jumped up within a couple of generations from being farmers who handloom to appointment-only handloomers who own several farms. We should know – we tried to meet with one and were turned away.

On the flip side I’ve heard mutterings of people handlooming that are being completely exploited – hidden away in shacks.
  • 4

User avatar
Bobbin.Threadbare
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 5:07 pm
Location: London
Reputation: 6074

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby vgtbls » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:57 pm

Bobbin.Threadbare wrote:In some cases hand loomers have jumped up within a couple of generations from being farmers who handloom to appointment-only handloomers who own several farms. We should know – we tried to meet with one and were turned away.

I've heard about much higher levels of social mobility in typical "labor" countries. Workers make something on an assembly line for a few years, and then use that experience to pursue other, better jobs. It's apparently a big stepping stone from rural to urban life. Within one or two generations, a family can turn from rural farming to living in a city and getting a higher education. I don't expect this to be the norm, though.

Is it fair to evaluate the quality of working conditions by the quality of the work itself? Does a terrible workplace create bad stitching, poor quality control? As an end user, this is the first-and most direct-thing that I can evaluate. What do you all think?
  • 1

User avatar
vgtbls
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:10 pm
Reputation: 4899

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby hmwut » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:59 pm

moral consumption isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. that anyone can argue otherwise is an effect of a sad system designed to distort truth and exploit individual from start to finish. using and consuming things that are free of human or animal suffering is incredibly easy for the western individual, especially today. we just don't care enough or don't have the time to find sources. both are consequences of the society we live in, where agricultural and crafting tradition is decimated and locally sustained farms and businesses have been hounded out by global supercorporations.

this applies to clothes. in fact it's hard to find an industry where this model has not been followed. craftsman is destroyed by corporation, tradition of craft decays and is forgotten, corporation uses vacuum of knowledge to exploit laborer and consumer. it's the way of modernity.

our bodies are awesome, self-sustaining machines. we need to consume very little. food and water primarily, not much of it. the rest is frivolous. corporations have turned us through the promises of advertising into overworked gluttons and lined their pockets with our fat. you don't need all these fucking clothes, you don't need this big fucking house, you don't need all these god damn things. they ultimately only serve to confuse, isolate, and desensitize you.

we all know about the industrial slavery that exists in asia as a result of our culture of consumption. despite this we still let it happen every day. we still buy from h&m, we still eat at mcdonalds, we still talk about and advocate businesses built on countless graves. why? i think here lies the problem of globalization and globalized economy. we are connected by our wallets primarily, not much else. we do not come into contact in our lifetime with those whose suffering we actively contribute to, let alone our day to day existence. this isolation is not coincidental. it is an active component in the exploitation of both of us.

here is the crux of modern oppression. divide and conquer. not a new strategy, but the methods used are. technology has allowed for powerful means of isolating people. it is very discomforting that i have never seen the face of the maker of practically everything i have bought in my life. if there even was a face instead of metal. this is the reality we live in. we can live every day alone in a room, never seeing another. and when you do not see, you cannot care.

people with only their boss's best interests in mind are all over the internet looking for your money. digital modes of consumption are disgusting in their waste. imagine how much cardboard, plastic, gas, chemicals, manpower is used to support digital consumerism, to support arbitrary convenience. we've seen already the amount of damage modern consumption has done to our environment, and with this emerging culture of digital consumption it will only escalate faster and faster. more people will suffer, more will waste, more power will be given to those who do not have our best interests in mind.

how we live is unsustainable. terrifyingly so. widespread environmental destruction, poverty and slavery, war, famine, nuclear armageddon are all intimate threats of our lifetime if not realities. conspicuous consumption is only one facet of a schema gone awry. keep track of the news, nearly every major event today is the systemic product of this toxic culture we actively participate in. when it all falls apart, those we gave all our money and power to will abandon us in gated fortresses and we will be left alone to deal with an exhausted and poisoned planet. rightly so for us, because it's been our fault all along. but the poor and "undeveloped" of the world will suffer far more, as they've always done.

our society is artificially sustained by high consumption. we're buying into the lie that we can keep doing this when we're increasingly aware we can't. we keep doing it though, i think, because we're terrified of the unknown after. marx and engels talked about socialism not as an alternative to capitalism, but the logical end result of it. whether or not they're right is yet to be seen. the fact is though, we live right now at a crossroads of society. change is coming, if we do not make it the environment will. and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

the problem of conspicuous consumption and the exploitative labor that naturally follows it begins and ends with you. the wealthy westerner. reuse, consume less or not all. learn how to make and make, if you need to buy, buy local and in person. there are many ways to address the problem but only you can determine how to act specifically in your environment. think for yourself. use your own senses and thoughts to find value and trustworthiness. no one else can do that for you.

specifically to clothing, if you live in america or europe you have access to a huge range of locally made, fair-priced, quality pieces. you know the names. there is no reason you shouldn't be buying from these vendors, if you need to buy at all. which you more often than not don't.

build your own house. grow and cook your own food. make your own clothes. make your own identity. make not buy. who you are is not the sum of your wealth. refuse exploitative systems and seek better ones. educate yourself on your personal cultural heritage, how your ancestors lived their lives free of contemporary corporate influence. the internet is a good resource for this, the library is a better one.

look to eastern schools of thought such as buddhism and daoism for flintstone on consumption and living in general. there is a reason why these ways have survived for 5000+ years. they work.

most importantly, come together. take part in your community, do things with and for the people who live around you. you need them as much as they need you.

everything written here is something i've personally struggled with and am especially criminal of. i do not wish to be high and mighty, i simply wish to convey some recent conclusions i've made in the hope i speak some truth. in fact i'd like to thank care-tags and it's community for prompting me to question certain ways about how i lived. the way we live today and the means we use to do so are very unsettling.

tangential stuff:
Spoiler:




http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... kaj-mishra

there is a ton of literature out there contemplating this subject in far greater detail and eloquency than i have. it's extremely easy to reach, hell barnes & nobles stocks some of the best contemporary thinkers out there. read, you need to.

  • 7

Last edited by hmwut on Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
hmwut
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: New Jersey
Reputation: 1898

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby stappard_ » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:00 pm

schiaparelli wrote:
  • people use "made in a first world country" as a proxy for "is ethically made" a lot of the time…it's really not a guarantee
  • i don't think people recognize enough that production in 3rd world countries can be economically beneficial to that country and provide better opportunities for the workers, despite ethics concerns
i'll come back to this thread with longer thoughts



Without wanting to complicate the discussion past the point of it being worth having (it is), I think these points are quite crucial. People will often say they buy only USA/EU etc produced garments and as noted its a huge assumption to presume those labels are true even before accounting for fabric origin etc.

Taking something like the ITUC global rights index as a starting point immediate demonstrates that picking and choosing certain countries as inherently ethical is difficult given that, for example, the USA is ranked alongside Sierra Leone and Myanmar for workers' rights.

Basically if you want to be above reproach you have to buy clothing sourced from central and northern Europe or as @Bobbin.Threadbare suggests, find brands whom you can trust to share your values with whatever degree of certainty you feel comfortable with.
  • 3

User avatar
stappard_
 
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:16 am
Reputation: 2963

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby pirxthepilot » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:15 pm

'I've heard about much higher levels of social mobility in typical "labor" countries. Workers make something on an assembly line for a few years, and then use that experience to pursue other, better jobs. It's apparently a big stepping stone from rural to urban life. Within one or two generations, a family can turn from rural farming to living in a city and getting a higher education. I don't expect this to be the norm, though.'



im going off at a tangent here but i've seen this phenomenon in practice in india, and this is what i find so pernicious about companies like amazon and uber (the latter being the gold standard now for any silicon valley pitch, a friend was telling me). the person who used to drive your cab or deliver your groceries had the possibility of using their knowledge of the business to establish their own franchise, but the new wave of tech companies sees them eternally disenfranchised. not sure if some similar structure exists in the clothes manufacturing industry, but i bet someone somewhere is working on it
  • 1

Last edited by pirxthepilot on Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
pirxthepilot
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:26 am
Reputation: 2022

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramseames » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:15 pm

hmwut wrote:moral consumption isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. that anyone can argue otherwise is an effect of a sad system designed to distort truth and exploit individual from start to finish. using and consuming things that are free of human or animal suffering is incredibly easy for the western individual, especially today.


Maybe it's not a "luxury" but it's 100% a privilege, and the way income inequality is increasing its becoming more and more out of of reach of the average person, which is what's usually meant by that.
  • 7

User avatar
ramseames
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:14 pm
Location: vancouver
Reputation: 6687

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 1:52 pm

@hmwut -- great post, wanted to respond properly which wouldn't fit into a rep comment.

I think ramseames is right here in his assessment of the issue. While conscientious consumption is certainly growing much more accessible, it's still out of reach for vast swaths of the population, especially in the US. Case in point: Walmart, which is usually the poster child for exploitation, mistreatment, and comprehensively unethical business practices. But what people forget is that for much of the working and lower class, stores like Walmart are their only means of buying goods (especially food) at prices they can afford. I've seen this play out on a local level, where middle-class liberals campaigned heavily against building a Walmart in the center of my college town of about 120,000. Their primary reasoning for this was to keep local business competitive - an admirable goal, no doubt. In the end they were successful, and the Walmart was built in a neighboring county. But what a lot of them didn't realize is that there are hundreds of households here that, unfortunately, have to depend on stores like Walmart for basic necessities. And in a college town with a skeletal public transit system, it makes things even harder for them as about half of the city is now something of a food desert. Not to mention that the city lost an immense amount of much-needed tax revenue.

Like every issue of the 21st century, it's infinitely complex and multi-faceted, and has to be attacked from all angles.
  • 3

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby IsaiahSchafer » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:09 pm

While ethical consumption may not be available to all, getting weird vibes in this thread like blaming people who choose to ethically consume in ways they can. Sort of a Good/Better/Best scenario and it seems weird to blame people in the "better" category for not being in the "best" category.


Anyway, personal experience- I spend all day talking to people about American Apparel clothes and always get asked about the prices- why they're so high and all of that. Blah blah Dov, yadda yadda sexual ads, controversy, all that aside, I like that AA has video tours of all their factory.

http://www.americanapparel.net/aboutus/ ... t/factory/
  • 1

User avatar
IsaiahSchafer
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:14 pm
Reputation: 1300

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby hmwut » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:13 pm

there is nothing out of reach in terms of healthy and non-exploitative sustenance and shelter for the "average person" of the western world today. in fact, the alternative to the food clothing and housing industries are better cheaper and sustainable. only if you accept the corporate system and it's philosophy of consumption and no care as the solution to your needs do you shackle yourself to it. and it doesn't take an especially perceptive person to realize this, to realize that corporate hegemony is not the solution but in fact the problem that needs to be addressed. it is apparent in every action of walmart/mcdonalds/h&m. when they started to take over the town center we said it would be our doom, but still let it happen. and now we need to deal with the reality of sterile big boxes filled to the brim with shit that falls apart after a week and food that has no nutrition, made by people that kill themselves en masse because their lives are a fucking nightmare.

i can't speak for any other environment, but i know that in the tri-state area of america i can get a box full of organic locally-grown vegetables that feed a family of 4 for a week every week for $500 a year. and if i can get that shit in new jersey of all places i know that it or something similar can be got elsewhere. i know that i can get locally-made fabric and with my own labor or the labor of a friend make a piece of clothing for far less than what is offered in store, walmart or barneys. financially and morally.

all that is required is the knowledge of these resources, and this knowledge comes free with the internet and the library. things the "average person" has access to. knowledge is no longer a privilege, and with that physical privilege perpetuated by corporate systems falls apart.

this is completely ignoring discipline of consumption and the fact that we simply don't need as much shit as we buy. so much of what we take for granted in our weekly purchases is bullshit that can be gotten rid of. and that money can be spent on things that matter, like good food and social activities. having a healthy diet should not be treated as a luxury or privilege and left as that. it is a fucking necessity and you will decay and die without it. it is an atrocity that we tolerate a system that offers mcdonalds and walmart to the poor, unknowing and unprivileged.

i am privileged. very privileged. i accept that as an integral part of my history and identity. and i made the choice to use this privilege to try and help others become aware that corporate america is fucking them and getting rich off it, and the very possible alternatives to this. i am not alone in this, in fact pretty much everyone who through sheer willpower gained awareness of a system actively seeking to destroy them of it is working in the same direction. this discourse is all over the place, just listen. only the apathetic rich and brainwashed middle class kid themselves that it cannot be changed and shrug their shoulders in the face of starvation, disease and war. all unnecessary, all clearly pointing to the white west as criminal.

if people in the ghetto aware of their situation can get healthy food and clothe themselves so can you. it's easy and cheap. what it requires is a serious reconsideration of your needs. you don't need meat, sweets or any expensive bullshit. organic vegetables, fruit and whole grains are cheap to buy and easier to grow. buy local and seasonal, you don't need things tripled in price cause of distribution. and you certainly don't need three pairs of $300 sneakers. you don't need three pairs of sneakers. you might not need three pairs of shoes. this is simple. people have been living like this for the entirety of human existence, and still do outside western corporate hegemony. all it requires is honesty and awareness. educate yourself and decondition yourself to lies. the arrogant ignorance of the westerner wrongfully assumes his way is the right way and it's led him to devastation.

  • -1

User avatar
hmwut
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: New Jersey
Reputation: 1898

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramdomthought » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:24 pm

why would burning down the corporations (which is what you imply) be the solution

when instead of telling people about how bad the corporations are (which you even say we all know!) you could be doing good by helping the people who need it get these cheap and renewable resources since they're so easy to access

it's easy to be a slacktivist but going into a soup kitchen and helping the homeless isn't. It's easy to rant about how terrible the corporations are when you could be helping you

you're ranting and it's so offtopic and self-righteous that it's sad to see. You know where the resources are, go set up a way (or assist in one of the others!) to enable easier access to them

don't burn down the easier options for people, make another one even easier
  • 5

this post was last edited: today

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my old signature only had 85000 views
User avatar
ramdomthought
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:53 pm
Reputation: 5374

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramseames » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:31 pm

i know that i can get locally-made fabric and with my own labor or the labor of a friend make a piece of clothing for far less than what is offered in store, walmart or barneys. financially and morally.


Sure, but to do this you need sewing skills, a machine, and free time. Which most disadvantaged people have none of.

all unnecessary, all clearly pointing to the white west as criminal.


Dude you're basically just writing propaganda with blanket statements like this.


if people in the ghetto aware of their situation can get healthy food and clothe themselves so can you.


They fucking can't though, that's what I'm saying. Obesity rates have a very clear correlation with lower incomes in North America.

it's easy and cheap. what it requires is a serious reconsideration of your needs. you don't need meat, sweets or any expensive bullshit. organic vegetables, fruit and whole grains are cheap to buy and easier to grow.


I'm sure you've heard of the term 'food desert' before

And organics are in no way cheap.
  • 3

User avatar
ramseames
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:14 pm
Location: vancouver
Reputation: 6687

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby hmwut » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:32 pm

your ad hominem ignores the issues at hand. the topic is consumption and the ethics of it. i've been volunteering in the church soup kitchens and homeless shelters of my hometown and nearby cities since i was young.

your reactionary assumptions are misplaced.
  • 0

User avatar
hmwut
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: New Jersey
Reputation: 1898

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramdomthought » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:34 pm

and this is before we touch things like inner city detroit which has a total of 0 groceries

so people go to the gas station for food

or they get on the inconsistent bus system, go to the one in a city outside, ride for an hour, go to the grocery, buy the groceries for an hour, wait for the bus back, ride another hour back, and then prepare and eat the food which takes another chunk of time

this is all supposed to happen when people are working for unlivable wages (and compensating by using their spare time to commute there on the public transit that is dogshit & if they're lucky working a second job to make rent!)
  • 11

this post was last edited: today

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my old signature only had 85000 views
User avatar
ramdomthought
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:53 pm
Reputation: 5374

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby starfox64 » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:37 pm

hmwut wrote:i can't speak for any other environment, but i know that in the tri-state area of america i can get a box full of organic locally-grown vegetables that feed a family of 4 for a week every week for $500 a year.


out of curiosity, where can you get this much food for $10/wk? most farm shares i've seen are at least $50 and feed more like 1-2 people.
  • 2

"Authorities say the phony Pope can be recognized by his high-top sneakers and incredibly foul mouth."
User avatar
starfox64
 
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:41 am
Location: your mom
Reputation: 2121

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramdomthought » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:39 pm

hmwut wrote:your ad hominem ignores the issues at hand. the topic is consumption and the ethics of it. i've been volunteering in the church soup kitchens and homeless shelters of my hometown and nearby cities since i was young.

your reactionary assumptions are misplaced.


you're missing my point

we'd all be better off if we stopped trying to burn shit down and do some good in the world rather than taking the 1960s pseudo-communist ideologies about corporations being evil and that we must destroy them for the world to function
  • 0

Last edited by ramdomthought on Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
this post was last edited: today

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my old signature only had 85000 views
User avatar
ramdomthought
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:53 pm
Reputation: 5374

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby odradek » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:39 pm

consumption is fine. overconsumption is bad. minimization of consumption is utilitarian reductionism. there's absolutely a balance that can be struck without weird polemics and suggesting that there are shadow economies that can be taken advantage of easily and thereby remove a person from the existing economy is naive at best, and the idea that people living below the poverty line and struggling with nutrition are just ignorant of the boxes of vegetables they can cheaply get is actually kind of sick. people are absolutely at the mercy of the conditions they live in. sure, the upper lower class and up could have less stuff, but that doesn't mean to the exclusion of luxury nor does it require a dismantling a global economy, nor does it mean that people who aren't living a certain way do it because they didn't go to the library and look it up on the internet.
  • 19

Image
User avatar
odradek
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 4:53 pm
Reputation: 5953

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:42 pm

how would we all feel about getting back to the original topic, friends who want to stay friends, right?
  • 3

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby maj » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:45 pm

with all the talk of why companies are bad what brands do you guys feel have somewhat ethical operations, do we draw the line of ethical at employee's being happy and not having dangerous working conditions, or do we extend it to environmental and social issues?

my first assumption is raeburn (shock) with his focus on the 3r's of environmentalism as well as his support of industry local to him and owning his own in house workshop. he makes the rest of his stuff in Europe (Portugal and turkey i believe) and is active in applying his ethos to other companies and brands. there is a video on vimeo i'm trying to find where someone talks of him being the blueprint for an ethical minded company in how he easily expands and distributes his product in a sustainable way and i'll link when i find it. he's not perfect i'd like him to stop the use of leather in some of his products, mainly the unnecessary embellishments like leather zip pulls but i think all round he's still a great shallow ecologist. other companies may share similar practices but i really admire his dedication to promoting them year in year out.
  • 2

Major General John "Hacks" Dunning (Viscount Windsor) aka peak angry nerd
User avatar
maj
 
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:44 pm
Location: the lower north (woo)
Reputation: 8897

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby frogosaurus » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:56 pm

i'd put treatment of workers at the top of the list, given that that's what companies have the most direct control over. i'd imagine that designers face a lot of the same issues as consumers in trying to find materials that are environmentally-friendly and ethically sourced, if that's something they care about. social issues are the biggest grey area, IMO, and the hardest to dissect.

thought this was interesting, a study named H&M, GAP, and Marks & Spencer as the most ethical apparel companies of 2014, although I'm sure they're only looking at big, global brands.

http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/
  • 0

User avatar
frogosaurus
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:51 am
Location: Atlanta / Athens
Reputation: 694

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby ramseames » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:59 pm

Patagonia is probably as big as you can possibly get and still be ethical, both in paying a living wage and in terms of environmental stewardship. Not sure of the exact number but I think they donate like 1% of their total sales and not profit, so enfeebled if they have a poor year they still contribute substantially.
  • 1

User avatar
ramseames
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:14 pm
Location: vancouver
Reputation: 6687

Re: Questionable Ethics

Postby g2x222 » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:06 pm

frogosaurus wrote:thought this was interesting, a study named H&M, GAP, and Marks & Spencer as the most ethical apparel companies of 2014, although I'm sure they're only looking at big, global brands.


very interesting that Gap was mentioned. the whole chain has been known to employ low-end factories w/ poor working conditions

  • 1

g2x222
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Location: the internet
Reputation: 1035

Next

Return to Care

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests