Why buy ethically?

Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ]

Previous topic | Next topic

post-ante
Snowy Owl

Joined: 2 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 162

28 Jan 2006, 1:34 pm

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/aboutec/ ... ically.htm

Quote:

Buying ethical products sends support directly to progressive companies working to improve the status quo, while at the same time depriving others that abuse for profit. For example, when you buy an eco-washing-up liquid you're giving its manufacturer the funds it needs to invest in clean technology and advertise its products to a wider market. At the same time, you're no longer buying your old liquid, so its manufacturer loses business and will perhaps change its ways.

Quote:

The benefits to society of buying ethically are potentially far-reaching. It encourages innovative products and companies while discouraging others that ignore the social and environmental consequences of their actions. It empowers the consumer, giving you a say in how the products you buy are made, and how the company that makes them conducts its business. It can and has made a difference in the past.

_________________
Aspie 18 - The best over-18s Aspie site on the web - An adults-only forum for those with Asperger's syndrome/Aspies/ASDs/on the Autistic spectrum

http://aspie18.myfreeforum.org

Anton
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Sweden

28 Jan 2006, 1:46 pm

You have just given a few reasons for it, so why do you ask?

Edit: What I mean is, I don't think I understand your question.

Edit 2: Now I understand the point of the thread. Move along, ignore this post.

Last edited by Anton on 28 Jan 2006, 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2006, 3:06 pm

So? If I buy the cheapest, usable good then I am able to use my savings towards things that would be to my benefit. Eventually these savings will add up to something I might like to have. Buying the good that gives me the most and costs me the least is in my rational self-interest and therefore I should do it.

chamoisee
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,065
Location: Idaho

28 Jan 2006, 3:21 pm

Quote:

So? If I buy the cheapest, usable good then I am able to use my savings towards things that would be to my benefit. Eventually these savings will add up to something I might like to have.

What I'd like to have: a world without child labor, chemical farming, GMO food, where we still have rainforests and wildlife left, a world that actually has forests of trees over 30 years old. I'd like for my children to breathe clean air and look at a blue sky during the day and stars at night, and not to be victims of environmentally caused cancer or allergies or athsma.

Therefore, it is in my best interests to purchase products that support those goals, because I alone cannot contribute enough towards that; it requires a group effort.

Tekneek
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 281

28 Jan 2006, 4:02 pm

I want to be that way, but some realities get in the way from time to time and I am not able to purchase in my most preferred ways. I do agree with the principles and I think it extends to all products and services.

I do think that a lot of people would buy differently if they were informed about the activities of these corporations. The market could appropriately punish bad companies if the consumers were educated enough about what is going on. It is hard to be properly educated about it all, though, because time is tight and being informed is a full-time job in itself.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Jan 2006, 4:29 pm

chamoisee wrote:

Quote:

So? If I buy the cheapest, usable good then I am able to use my savings towards things that would be to my benefit. Eventually these savings will add up to something I might like to have.

If you believe that you are being put at risk by a food product like chemicals in food or genetic modifications then there is no ethics involved in not purchasing them. That becomes part of your rational self-interest. I don't want to die either.

Child labor is a reflection of the poor economic conditions of the 3rd world. By refusing to purchase imports we do not help these conditions but rather make them worse. The children are doing this for money, they need the money or their nation needs the money. By purchasing from child labor you are helping their nation's economy and actually helping them, perhaps not helping them as much as donations but still the point to the purchase was rational self-interest.

Chemical farming is used because it is considered to be the best way to grow the food, if it was not the cheapest then people would not buy it and if it was found to be bad for consumers then people would likely avoid it. There may be problems with pollution but those should be dealt with politically because pollution represents a negative externality that should be dealt with taxation of a level to reflect the actual societal cost.

Genetically modified food is simply mankind using technology to improve our food supply. In the long run it will probably improve our lives by making food more nutricious, more delicious and possibly even cheaper to grow. According to many sources it is completely safe and if there are problems with this technology then it should be addressed politically by creating rules about control of the technology or of any negative externality that is created by this product.

Damage to the rainforests and such if it is done in foreign countries is often because of the fact that the economies in such areas are bad. Even though it may hurt the local environment it can help human concerns and it most certainly helps the local economy which in turn could lead to higher standards of living, more efficient industries, and get these people the lives that they want. By refusing to buy these products you once again hurt the people in 3rd world countries, they are poor and need money and through denying money they may starve and the like. If you want to save the rainforests then efforts would have to be made to improve local economies which would allow these people to have what they want with less environmental cost but would probably hurt our own economy tremendously or you could agitate for genocide and through killing off these people save the rainforests from destruction. However, the latter option is probably considered pure evil by the majority of people in your country.

Clean air and skies are created by legislation. Force local governments to create laws limiting air pollution then the air will stay cleaner. Besides, it is not like there are any labels anywhere that say "air-friendly" at least I have never seen any. Also another thing that needs to be done is that things that pollute need to be taxed more to show the cost that they have on society.

The free-market can handle many of the problems of the world. It all goes back to rational self-interest. So long as people are allowed to purchase what helps them the most in a system that is fair to buyers and sellers then the greatest communal good will be found. However, I will admit that you do have some point in the fact that political agitation is often not enough to get desired objectives accomplished. I have my own fear that free-trade with a world that is poorer and that trades with us unfairly will hurt wealthy economies in the short run.

Nomaken
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Jun 2005
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,058
Location: 31726 Windsor, Garden City, Michigan, 48135

28 Jan 2006, 5:44 pm

Buying ethically may help everyone in the longrun, but buying unethically helps me more now. Build your systems based on people thinking about the long term, but i dont recommend holding your breath for results. Build your systems to work off of people f*****g each other and you cant lose.

_________________
And as always, these are simply my worthless opinions.
My body is a channel that translates energy from the universe into happiness.
I either express information, or consume it. I am debating which to do right now.

chamoisee
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,065
Location: Idaho

28 Jan 2006, 11:47 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Part of it is self interest. The other part is that I find factory farming and chemical agriculture to be deplorable, short sighted, and environmentally damaging.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The children are doing this for money, they need the money or their nation needs the money. By purchasing from child labor you are helping their nation's economy and actually helping them

That's B.S. It's quite common in these countires for children to either be kidnapped or purchased from their parents in order to work in these factories, where they live and are barely fed enough to survive. The children do not get to keep the money, it pays for their purchase price and their room and board. It becomes a vicious cycle that they don't get out of. I can purchase fair trade items made in the same country if so desired.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Chemical farming is used because it is considered to be the best way to grow the food

More B.S. Chemical farming depletes the soil, poisons it, and kills off the micro-organisms that build soil structure as well as beneficial insects. The laborers are often illegal immigrants working for amazingly low wages who are not protected from the effects of the chemicals, and they don't have health insurance, either. All to produce a lower quality product that tastes like crap! No thanks. Meanwhile, the farmer is in debt and going out of business at an alarming rate. The chemicals cost buku bucks, but he can't afford to go organic, because the land takes several years before it will reach (and eventually exceed) the level of production with the chemicals.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Genetically modified food is simply mankind using technology to improve our food supply.

No, GMO food is about Monsanto controlling our food supply. I think we can kiss corn goodbye as a crop in the next century or so, thanks to terminator GMO corn cross pollinating with all the non-GMO corn. Contamination of the world's maize supply has already reached as far as remote parts of South America. Corn with the terminator gene does not grow. I don't think it's going to help 3rd world farmers at all to be forced to buy all their seed from Monasanto instead of saving it from year to year as they have for centuries, from local varieties well suited to their climate and growing conditions.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Damage to the rainforests and such if it is done in foreign countries is often because of the fact that the economies in such areas are bad. By refusing to buy these products you once again hurt the people in 3rd world countries, they are poor and need money and through denying money they may starve and the like. If you want to save the rainforests then efforts would have to be made to improve local economies which would allow these people to have what they want with less environmental cost

Yeah, that's a good reason to buy fair trade organic coffee and chocolate. They are paid well to grow these crops responsibly without hacking down rainforests.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Clean air and skies are created by legislation.

Uh, have you noticed who we have in the White House right now? All that moron cares about is lining his own pocket and those of his cronies. It's all about big business and industry.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The free-market can handle many of the problems of the world. It all goes back to rational self-interest. So long as people are allowed to purchase what helps them the most in a system that is fair to buyers and sellers then the greatest communal good will be found.

That might work if people were educated and informed, but most of them are misinformed, know nothing at all about farming or agriculture, and basically believe whatever the T.V. feeds into their atrophied minds.

Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

29 Jan 2006, 3:19 am

This should be in the politics forum.

Buying ethically is the way to go. Buy the way you feel is right.
If you like helping people, what comes around goes around.

Using an addiction as an excuse for your actions is a recipe for disaster.

_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

29 Jan 2006, 4:28 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

29 Jan 2006, 5:02 am

Im going to quote a post of my own from another thead, please bear with me....

Ladysmokeater wrote:

lets say I own a clothing factory here in the US. I make a specific style of jeans that are very durable and well made. I use only us made materials and us work, and my product sells for 20.00 more than the overseas version. My product, "XYZ jeans" gains a reputaion for being the best, and is bought for that reason. My market is mostly malls and select independanly owned shops. My customers go into these stores to get my product and they often spend more on other things as they shop. The store owners like this, and continue to stock "XYZ". Now, either Im approched by the giant chain to sell my product with them (not as likely as the next option) or I decide, being a good business person and wanting to expand my operations, I approch the giant chain store with my product and want to sell there. They agree and we sign a contract for Q# of my jeans. They sell for the same as in the other stores, at first. Then after they dont sell as well at the giant chain, or customers gripe that they are overpriced, or they DO sell well the giant chain's people call me in for a meeting. They tell me they WANT to sell my product, and they want twice last years quantity, but, they want it at just a few dollars over my cost to make them. If I agree, my independant stores are going to be hurt, if I refuse, I stand the chance of loosing thousands in profit and having to lay off US workers in my small town operation. So, like many of these manufactuers, I decide to "sell for less". My profits are down and I end up having to cut a few jobs, and benifits and maybe cut corners. I might begin to make jeans of lesser quality to meet the demands, or I might have to create a lesser quality line just for this store. And inorder to stay profitable, I have to decide to use cheaper goods from overseas. Eventually, as more people buy my "so-so" line of "XYZ jeans" they dont like the quality or they really like the price (which is way lower than my speciality stores) and stop going to my speciality and independant dealers because they think all the work is going to be shoddy or they dont want to spend 20.00 more for what they think is the same product. My independant dealers quit carrying my product (because they close up or they need room for another product that sells, or they just plain get ticked). So then Im left at the end of the year with only giant chain to sell to. So they make their move. They DEMAND I sell for 5 dollars less than last year, which would put me out of business, or they refuse to sell my product anymore. So I move the operation overseas to cut costs. After all, I can get the same product made for less than half the cost as here, and I dont have to worry about benifits, labor laws, or that pesky minimum wage we have that is 10times that of my off-shore factories. So I lay off my workers, and move to mexico, or china, or where ever and continue to profit as I sell inferior products at rock bottom prices. Oh and my layed off factory workers? they go to work FOR giant chain for minimum wage and wind up on welfare and food stamps because 5.75 an hour isnt cutting it. So my taxes go up to cover it. All the while other companies are going through the same thing, and giant chain continues to profit.
But wait you say. I cant afford your 50.00 designer jeans anyhow. Well those original "XYZ" jeans were made very well and they lasted much longer than the 20.00 version that they are selling at giant chain. I have to buy 3 of the "giant chain" versions of my jeans to get the same wear time out of them as I would one of my original pair. So I end up spending more anyway on the product in the end. but i dont notice it because I just toss that pair of jeans in my buggy while Im shopping for groceries. Oh and because that pair was so lousy, I had to make special trip to get another pair and wound up buying more, after all there was this great sale on gallon jar pickles....

This EXACT thing has played out and the Snapper company told wal-mart "no!". They stopped selling their mowers there. One of the bycicle companies, I for get which, didnt, and had to sell AT cost and even use a competitor to make the bikes for Wal-mart's demands. It was that, or loose their place to sell there all together.

Ok thats my thought on it. We are, as consumers, addicted to the low prices in these giant chains. The rising costs of everything else and the not rising pay forces the unethical buying/selling, manufacturing, etc practices to continue by default.

Tekneek
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 281

29 Jan 2006, 6:18 am

Ladysmokeater wrote:

I do believe these problems were originally brought on by a lethal combination of one group that thought they would make a whole lot of money this way and a group of people that were not educated enough to understand the full implications of their actions. I used to think that the free market would determine what is right, but for that to work the way I think it should, the majority of people need to be informed of what these companies are up to. When your only consideration is price, there is going to be a race to the bottom and most people will end up fairly unhappy about the outcome. It is hard enough to get people to treat each other the way they want to be treated in general society, and even harder to get them to make economic decisions by the same Golden Rule concept. If you make economic decisions that put people out of work or in very low paying jobs, you will eventually be caught on the wrong side of that (even the new aristocracy, the executives in corporations that are shipping jobs offshore while getting massive raises and bonuses, will eventually pay a high price for this).

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2006, 10:38 am

Right, well part of the reason I am doing this is to play devil's advocate. I like arguing something more than going all buddy buddy about it.

Also, if there are problems then the market tends to have to fix them. Either that or the government has to fix them. If too much of our land goes bad due to bad techniques eventually they will get banned.

It may be true that the poor kid might not get any of the money but he still gets room and board and his country gets more money and that money will help his country's economy which could end up creating a better society over there in the long run because eventually the unfair system will collapse for one reason or another and the wealth of the wealthy will eventually help society.

The thing about organic farms is that they are more labor intensive and this labor would make them more expensive. To some extent they might cost society more due to their labor. I will agree that measure should be taken to stop water pollution from chemicals but I don't think that the chemicals themselves are evil. Besides, if they end up being the most effective way then eventually some business will try it and try to use this method to dominate the market. The poor illegal immigrant worker that you mentioned in this situation is a willing laborer. He came over illegally, he decided to get a job working for peanuts and he actually isn't supposed to be here. The only problem I see is that the worker is illegal because he did decide to work for the farmer under the dangerous conditions. If you don't like illegals just try to get the government to crack down on them, I don't care much for illegal immigrants either.

GMOs are good things because they have the potential to do great things for agriculture. Certainly Monsanto came out with their terminator crop but if farmers don't like that then they shouldn't buy Monsanto and stick to their non-GM corn. However, GM crops could reduce the amount of harmful chemicals used on crops, increase their yield, and make them healthier/more nutricious. It sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Well, fair-trade, I guess for fair trade you would have to determine whether the savings from buying irresponsibly is really what it costs the Fair trade companies. I mean, you can use your savings to contribute to the environmental companies and I have no clue of whether one is better than the other but fair-trade may actually be sort of a scammish way to get eco-nuts into giving more money and making more profit. Hard to say, you would have to see which one is comparatively better.

Besides, you just said that the majority of people don't care. Business tries to cater to the majority. So therefore these practices by business will continue because of the fact that the majority of people will continue to go for whatever is cheapest. Also, I thought that some of the air-pollution laws were local, because different states have different air-qualities I thought. The thing I would tell individuals to do in order to help air-quality would be to save gas. It saves your money and it helps the environment, the selling point is that people hate losing money.

chamoisee
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,065
Location: Idaho

29 Jan 2006, 1:47 pm

Quote:

GMOs are good things because they have the potential to do great things for agriculture. Certainly Monsanto came out with their terminator crop but if farmers don't like that then they shouldn't buy Monsanto and stick to their non-GM corn.

Not really an option, because Monsanto has patented their terminator seed technology and corn cross pollinates over miles and miles. In other words, say I'm growing a open pollinated vbaiety of corn that I've developed or that's been around for decades, and my neighbor is growing GMO terminator corn. I can now kiss my corn goodbye. Not only will my orgnaic market not buy the crop because it's been contaminated by cross pollination with my neighbors field, but my seed won't be any good either unless I saved enough of it to replant miles and miles away form any other corn. Then, to add insult to injury, Monsanto can come after me, confiscate my entire crop, and sue me for having their terminator gene in my corn, even though I didn't put it there and don't want it there! What Monsanto has done is to monopolize corn, more or less, except for a few isolated pockets of growers who go to extreme pains to protect the genetic integrity of their crop and test to verify it.

Also, this corn has pollen that kills insects, including butterflies. A few grains of pollen blowing by can stick to a butterfly and kill it. Monarch butterflies are on a decline and we'll be danged lucky if our grandkids ever get to see a live one, because the Monarchs are migratory and this corn;pollen is killing them off. All so that one company can control the worlds corn supply! :evil:

Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ]

Jump to:

Why buy ethically? Post Reply New Topic

Why buy ethically?