|
Post by Ubereil on Jun 21, 2009 12:00:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 21, 2009 12:06:45 GMT
^ Lol!
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 21, 2009 12:10:04 GMT
I like that one, Ube! that's pretty awesome! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 22, 2009 15:13:54 GMT
^too much blood on them? Well on the fur, sure but on gold and diamons? Did you ever check out how cotton is collected? Or what it means to work in an Adidas factory in Sri Lanka? If one´s really so into saving the world, one can´t wear (or eart, drink, visit) anything. I'm very aware of that, I know that little children are working very hard in factories with very low or no life conditions at all. For a little wage too. That's why I never buy brands like Adidas for example And as for gold and diamonds, you should see "Blood Diamond", you will see what I mean with that
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 22, 2009 20:34:29 GMT
She is right in a way - while the exploitation of cheap, and worse child, labor in developping countries is despicable - from their point of view it is a way of earning some living, as miserable as it may be.
By the way shoes from 'no brands' are in no way any better in their production - often enough made in the same factories.
What is generally called 'blood diamonds' finances weapons and war fare and very personal riches to a few in power - the latter generally meaning very basic brute force power.
Furs and diamonds are easy to renounce though - there's really no real 'need' to wear any.
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Jun 23, 2009 20:29:51 GMT
She is right in a way - while the exploitation of cheap, and worse child, labor in developping countries is despicable - from their point of view it is a way of earning some living, as miserable as it may be. By the way shoes from 'no brands' are in no way any better in their production - often enough made in the same factories. What is generally called 'blood diamonds' finances weapons and war fare and very personal riches to a few in power - the latter generally meaning very basic brute force power. Furs and diamonds are easy to renounce though - there's really no real 'need' to wear any. that's what I meant with my quote. Eventhough children are exploited for labor, so we can have fancy clothes, if they don't have that job, they will all go into prostitution. I do know that even cheap shoes are made over there. But for the same reasons as I stated above, if we all stop buying, they will loose a very important job.
And no one needs diamonds, gold or fur to look pretty, in fact, dressing yourself in a dead animals skin only makes you look horrible.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 25, 2009 11:57:04 GMT
Well I´m not a fur lover. But nothing wrong with diamonds.
I stay with my opinion that you can´t wear ANYTHING if you care about any mafia, child labor etc behind its making.
It´s like with porn. Because adults comsum porn, the child porn industry flourishes. Now we could all stop watching any because it isn´t an essential need but how likely is that. (of course I´m aware that everybody on this board will deny ever watching porn ;D)
If something is essential or not is not the point in a world´s economy, if there is interest, that´s important.
|
|
rhiian
Chaosite
One person making something up is a liar, but a bunch of people doing it is Government.
Posts: 661
|
Post by rhiian on Jun 25, 2009 15:29:57 GMT
this is why they invented Fair Trade. ;D
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jun 26, 2009 0:43:25 GMT
Diamonds are just ugly, on top of everything.
Tacky and covered in the blood of innocents.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 26, 2009 8:35:28 GMT
Well, whether they're 'ugly' or not is a matter of individual taste - also, the diamond is basically a symbol, as there is principally no difference to emeralds, saphires, rubies and whatever jewels one could think of. Beautiful and artful things can be made of them.
Fair Trade is a good thing - but human greed prevails. Partly because of dire need, partly because people get richer by actually not spending excess money. To pay a higher price for a consumer product because of moral or ethical principles is luxury not many support. As long as the additional value is perceived only on the conscience and not in something practical the majority of the consumers will act egoistically on the principle 'value for money'.
That this attitude has lead to the total destruction of whole industries in western countries (e.g. textiles, the photo industry) is a consequence that many have not seen coming and deplore in hindsight. But the wheel of time and 'progress' does not wind back.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 26, 2009 19:04:14 GMT
Well firstly, Glance is right, if something is ugly or not is a matter of taste. I love rubies and emeralds - doesn´t mean I want to support something "covered in the blood of innocents"- no offense but melodrama is tacky as well. To the rest of Glance´post - the total destruction of industries in western countries is but also a reaction to the gap between poor and rich that is getting bigger. I can certainly relate atm. I´ve €2,25 a week for food and about €30 a year for clothes. I could never afford something made in Europe or the US, so I certainly don´t care if a child in Bangaldesh is labouring 12 hours a day to make that € 3,99 T-Shirt because also that child lives in 'absolute poverty', how the WHO calls it, being from a western country myself, I live in 'relative poverty' (also named like that by the WHO), so ethical concerns are for the middle class. But that very middle class is disappearing currently all over the western civilazation and is replaces by the rich vs the poor. And how do you wanna balance (this is to all, not just Glance ) the damage out? Rhian talked about Fair Trade - Starbucks as an example is big in promoting how the coffee beans they are using are from fair trade, therefore offering a minimum price to the farmers. Now though that´s all nice and well, the amount of trees Starbucks is killing in offering the papercups to-go will upset any green soldier and the CO2 wastage that occures by Starbucks flying their coffee through half the world should be a sudden pain in every enviromental-aware brain. I don´t want to say "if you can´t do everything right, do nothing right" but one should beware to say "one´s deffo better!" just because he is able to afford the luxury to support ONE of the many international problems. Did I mention that I love Starbucks? *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 26, 2009 19:19:30 GMT
Not to mention the moronic water-wasting 'taps always on' policy that Starbucks perpetrated not so long ago (Was them, wasn't it?). Dreadful waste of a major resource for no real reason...
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 26, 2009 19:55:25 GMT
^ Yep. There are many such examples, not just at Starbucks.
I got an overseas travel insurance when I visit Germany atm, the brochure advised me to "let the lights on in my home for the entire time of the trip, to make the house appear to have people in". I know they do that to make sure no burglars and the like come in but what a waste would that be!
Or the water in New York. The water public toilets use in NYC is finest, refined, cleared drinking water. Still, New Yorkers tend to spend ridiculous amounts of money on bottled, shipped-in water from france and the like.
Et cetera.
The point is, before complainign about the mafia behind gem stones, we should rather think about the more obvious problem of western societies over-healthy, wannabe-ethical lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jun 26, 2009 20:24:41 GMT
It makes me sad inside when no one gets my humorous references.. Ah well.
If you have the means, I definitely think you should try to support the companies who use free trade policies. However, there are many other ways that those who do not posses as much money to do the same as much as possible. You can't be perfect all the time, no one expects that, but it isn't like only the middle or upper classes can have consciouses. I'm of the mindset that anything you can do helps tremendously, no matter how small.
The reason diamonds and gold are tacky to me is because most people use them to show off their wealth. As with most things of that nature, the items come at a fairly high cost to the world around them. A lot of the people who wear these things do posses the means to buy with ethics in mind, but choose not to. This bothers me tremendously. People are going to do what they do and most people want diamonds, but to me spending that much money on something that looks pretty is ridiculous. Obviously I have things I don't really need, but I try to keep that to a minimum.
Most things really don't need to bought new. Thrift stores and the like don't require that you support sweatshops at a rather cheap price. I've found that a lot of local items are significantly cheaper than those which have been shipped over, especially food items. With craigslist, ebay, and similar websites, you can find almost anything that you need second hand.
One thing that really irritates me in "enlightened" circles is the idea that because you support one thing, you cannot support anything else. I get that a lot when I say I'm vegan and for animal rights, people act like I can't possibly care about human rights. Everything is important. It does not need to be more obvious or more obscure to matter.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 26, 2009 20:38:55 GMT
Of course you are quite right Ash, with saying things don´t need to be new etc. But frankly, that is "people that have money" thinking. I could not visit a thrift store atm. It would mean I would need to travel to the city. That would involve money. Certained clothing item I´d never buy in a thift shop (underwear, socks, swimwear, nightwear).
Cheap items from mysterious backgrounds are sold in much larger amounts, at more places. It´s as simple as that really.
If you live on a minimum of money, ou can not support enviromental or ethical causes. I just don´t see how. But poor does actually help in a certain way to support both unwillingly! By not being able to shop for clothes more then once a year or when something needs replacement, I "accidently" support to keep CO2 wastage lower. Because I cannot buy much food, I support the same there. Etc etc, you get the idea.
But why on earth would I like that? Honestly, if I had the money, I´d go buy genetically engineered, imported watermelon, that delicious barbarie duck I adore (dead animal, imported) I´d always wanted, a bookshleve made of dark wood (killed trees, imported) and so forth.
Because sadly, having a certain lifestyle means sacrificing all noble thoughts on ethics and the enviroment.
|
|
|
Post by fughawzi on Jun 26, 2009 21:52:07 GMT
But why on earth would I like that? Honestly, if I had the money, I´d go buy genetically engineered, imported watermelon, that delicious barbarie duck I adore (dead animal, imported) I´d always wanted, a bookshleve made of dark wood (killed trees, imported) and so forth. Because sadly, having a certain lifestyle means sacrificing all noble thoughts on ethics and the enviroment. I've grown up in what is considered to be one of the top percentages financially. I've spent most of my life surrounded by people who get what they want when they want it and never think of the consequences, so I know you tend to be right about that sort of lifestyle. I still find it wrong. You're allowed to spend your money however you see fit and totally allowed to indulge, but you should still think of things. If you want your dark wood bookshelf, maybe there is some way you can offset that. Hell, plant a tree! Not perfect, but at least it is something. It just drives me insane when people don't think about consequences. It is highly unlikely that any of us will be remembered in 200 years, but all the damage we've done will still be there. A lot of times it makes me so mad because we make ourselves so important and we don't really matter in the scheme of things. People should care about those around them and try their best to help in whatever way they can. And genetically engineered watermelons taste icky! Haha. Come to California and I'll get you some good watermelon.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 27, 2009 1:33:12 GMT
^If I´d go to Cali, I´d waste a HUGE amount of CO2 flying there... but I don´t wanna be picky now
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jun 27, 2009 10:38:12 GMT
^If I´d go to Cali, I´d waste a HUGE amount of CO2 flying there... but I don´t wanna be picky now See, that's modern life, always in a hurry, always the easy way - there have been people known to sail there...
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 27, 2009 12:37:13 GMT
^Ships damage riffs and reduce the fishpopulation. They use ALOT of petrol as well and therefore aren´t good for the CO2 wastage too. Should I go on?...
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jun 27, 2009 12:37:45 GMT
Oh wait you mean like SAILING? Yea right ;D
|
|