morality and the globalized consumer landscape

continued from Drugs, Murder and Mexico

anyway this is something i think abt from time to time and obvs morality is a big word but in this case its referring to peoples attitudes and behavior towards consumer choices and how they attempt to influence others - imho people can often get kinda out of line and lacking in self awareness w/this shit as its questionable whether their abstaining from meat corporate coffee cocaine or w/e has much real effect on the world while being humorless and accusatory certainly has an effect on those around them - btw totally not saying all vegetarians or whomever are nazis, tho most vegans prob are

it is very hard to be 'zoomed out' enough all the time as to appreciate the various effects of your choices. sometimes you have to drive to a supermarket and buy a mango was picked by an underpaid fruitpicker & imported on a plane, put it in a carrier bag at the checkout & drive past the little village shop you should have been patronising on the way home. but you should try your best, & when you think of stuff you should do, should try to do it. also i think it's probably different when you have kids, per a heightened discrepancy between the huge priority of your immediate surroundings & the harder to gauge issues of consumerism at large.

lock thread

Zizek has a funny talk on this on one of those "RSA Animate" videos...

I pity anyone who doesn't adore cheese

link xp

anyway, i think making good "consumer choices" can be falsely reassuring, and if it's that important to you political activism is more productive.

here's the Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

good thread idea

is this more of a 'thing' today than it was in the 90s? I mean certainly its easier to find fair trade coffee or whatever, but I don't feel like the overarching narrative is as strong. i guess cause there are a lot of other narratives that have to share the room. the economy plays a part - it's easier to guilt trip middle class people about shopping at walmart than poor people.

so-called toms. shoes.

dunno

i buy tom's of maine toothpaste, that puts me in the clear, right?

also i refry my own beans

im interested in the psychological underpinning of this sort of behavior and all try not to sound too superior here as im sure im subject to the same sort of thinking but it seems like on some level conscious purchasing or w/e you want to call it is a reaction to feeling like a cog in this horrific global machine that just wants you to be an unthinking consumer of its products while it degrades the world, but then what do we do to rebel against it, purchase different stuff, feels like still being trapped in the same mindstate where we define ourselves via what we buy

toms shoes, toms of maine, i ask you WHATS NEXT TOM

i am certainly guilty of what Zizek is going on about...i wont buy factory farmed meat, for instance. but i also know im a hypocrite for not being politically engaged with ending those practices i disagree with it. i think ultimately we just wanna buy our shit and be comfortable.

yeah on a certain level 'consuming the right stuff' basically 'serves the man' cause the bigger problem is just overall consumption.

but it's difficult to balance that view w/ the realities of how our economy works and how difficult it would be to switch to a viable alternative.

but then what do we do to rebel against it, purchase different stuff

I think people who really care about their consumer footprint understand that to really fuck the system you have to consume LESS STUFF. Companies HAVE TO try to create the perception that consuming "green" is the best thing to do, but media-savvy opt-out-ers have their number on that already.

its a very american attitude isnt it? this sort of narcissistic "well as long as my hands are clean"

all 5 of them xp

nah europeans do this too, otoh they do consume less

Tbh getting average people to prefer "green" products enough to be willing to spend a small amt more on them is prob more about changing the general climate of thinking about our footprint than it is about fucking the system -- it IS the system, yes -- but hey, detergents don't have phosphates in them anymore, do they. And etc.

i agree w/that this sort of thing is more powerful in moving the needle of public consciousness than actually making a difference as far as what youre buying

i think resisting that logic of consumption is very urgent and key--and yeah maybe the real move is to just get less stuff, or stop consuming as entertainment, etc.

personally i think buying local/fairtrade/etc is just a basic minimum that anyone should try to do, within their budgets, on a par with not farting on strangers, but it doesn't really alter the basic fact of modern globalized life which is that everyone is already compromised, that everyone is already guilty, and no architecture of spending habits can put you as an individual outside of that

buying local isn't necessarily gonna have a better carbon footprint

imho people will never ever en mass consume less via consumer choice

considering theres like 3 billion people who just want a refrigerator

right which is why it's ultimately going to have to be because they can't afford it

underpaid fruitpicker

I have an issue with this kind of mind-set tbh. 'Underpaid'? Exploited, certainly. To the extent that a properly functioning market determines wages (note I said properly), comparing developing nations' wages to our wages tends to deprive them of exactly what leverage they have in a globalized economy. I have great sympathy with aspirations for justice, for dignity and for better standards of living but how exact is liberal guilt in determining the real or optimal value of foreign produce in a way that fosters long-term growth and development? In other words, I'm less interested in my conscience than in what I think will help this fruit-picker and I'm far more likely to simply forego some fruits than to seek 'fair-trade' though I do occasionally and I also have sympathy with pricing that actually includes all the real costs of a product.

a lot of this stuff is basically the lifestyle equivalent of "vote Democrat because the alternative is worse," I think - you can't do anything really about the nightmare suffering of animals in factory farms, but you can decline to participate in it by not paying the people who cause their suffering. short of moving to the country, which will really get iatee on your ass, you're going to be a consumer. that's who you are, living in the modern world, to some extent. so you try to consume things that can in some way offset a tiny fraction of the cost of your consumption to the world at large. not a huge fraction. not "this offsets that." just a little. it's not "as long as my hands are clean" - it's "I can't very well devote all my attention in all my choices to right action, it's a busy life & must be lived, but I can make small choices that even if they themselves don't good might foster greater caring about important things." same as with vegetarianism - on the other thread, the hilarious possibility that people might all become vegetarians overnight was raised. never gonna happen! but if the industry shrinks by degrees because more people gradually adopt veg or less-meat diets, that's good for animals & people & the world, and the meat business would become what the vinyl business became in the age of the CD: strictly artisanal. that'd be a net good, I think, but even if it never happened, moral choices have their own weight: to act on your convictions, in however insignificant a way, has value, in my opinion.

right which is why it's ultimately going to have to be because they can't afford it

― iatee, Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:45 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

or we just find more efficient ways to give people what they want

"...even if they themselves don't do good," above.

For the most part, I buy locally and in season and organically if possible less from any moral imperative than because it just tastes better. Same thing with grass-fed beef. Same thing with seafood in season. I wish I liked CA wine better.

it is very hard to be 'zoomed out' enough all the time as to appreciate the various effects of your choices.

The one thing a consumer can do that is foolproof is: consume less.

When consuming less in not an option there are some other strategies that help. Locally grown food has fewer issues than food trucked or flown in from far, far away. Higher quality goods tends to have more of the costs exposed to the consumer and less of the costs fobbed off onto cheap labor and environmental degradation. If you have little to spend, buy used.

moral choices have their own weight: to act on your convictions, in however insignificant a way, has value

i agree. this is easy to overlook

transportation is a relatively small part of food emissions, buying local only makes sense with stuff thus best grown locally to begin with.

that's best*

im all for consuming less and sitting around reading the Tao Te Ching (seriously) but i think there's a logic at work here that's larger than the sum of individual choices, unfortunately. i imagine there will be some tipping points that involve an awful lot of suffering and carnage before things change. that's pessimistic, but id also argue fighting for gradual and sustainable change is the best you can do.

short of moving to the country, which will really get iatee on your ass, you're going to be a consumer.

cant speak for iatee but if you move to the country in order to *not consume* (incl. not consuming gas, oil, electricty, etc.), i would applaud you

yeah its just imo buying diff stuff doesnt really constitue 'fighting' the way many seem to think it does xp

i think i consume way less in my big metropolis than i would if i lived in the sticks (maybe i'm wrong about this though) (yes i realize there's a suburbs thread all about this)

yeah isn't moving to the City actually considered more ethical now?

I make my shoes last at least 5 years, if possible, longer when possible. A long time ago I fell in love with the idea of lifelong, even multi-generational goods and wares; the opposite of planned obsolescence and consumerism based on shoddy impermanence.

yeah its just imo buying diff stuff doesnt really constitue 'fighting' the way many seem to think it does

I think the people who think of small consumer choices as "fighting" are a strawman not completely of your own creation - it's popular to invoke this guy who thinks that by reusing a bag he's singlehandedly saving the planet - but a strawman all the same. people know what they're doing actually: a teeny-tiny bit of good, maybe. better than "this won't solve the problem so fuck it"

yeah isn't moving to the City actually considered more ethical now?

People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

underpaid fruitpicker

I have an issue with this kind of mind-set tbh. 'Underpaid'? Exploited, certainly. [...] how exact is liberal guilt in determining the real or optimal value of foreign produce in a way that fosters long-term growth and development?

yeah this is valid & above the level i was thinking at - really just talking in terms of 'that guy i am imagining probably didn't get a lot of money for his hard day/i am lucky to live in this part of the world', oblivious to the reality & pragmatic factors involved in whatever changing that would entail. i just think that gulf of experience between 'buying a thing' or 'using a thing' & considering where it came from is both profound & pointed, & easy to be oblivious to (there was a nun, at my primary school, she went to africa, she said going to a supermarket upon her return made her sick). even just like the fittings in a supermarket & the factories they were made in, or the oil involved in transport & construction or whatever - just being aware that you are lucky being on the receiving end, like what percentile are you in if you can spend as long as i spend picking out a good onion, onions not even being at avocado-level in terms of necessary proper preservation. etc.

moral choices have their own weight: to act on your convictions, in however insignificant a way, has value, in my opinion.

yes, otm, & by any measure, here, or from one angle or another, you are always going to be failing - either by having successfully proselytised the world into instant vegarianification, thereby orphaning fields full of cows of their keepers, or by not having always met the goal you strive for. that you're trying is something - i guess we're back into topical 'why vote' territory here, if the difference of your actions is negligible (or subsumed by other things - the one flight you take a year eviscerating all those recycled bags, etc), but i think attempting positivity should be nurtured and can be spread.

better than "this won't solve the problem so fuck it"

What if the corallary to 'death by a thousand cuts' is not gang-raping the planet by trying to do a lot of little things that are less bad?

Yeah I don't know that anyone would call it fighting! It's not, it's just using a tool -- your dollars -- to express your ethics by not giving your dollars to products you don't like/companies you believe do harm.

I think the people who think of small consumer choices as "fighting" are a strawman not completely of your own creation - it's popular to invoke this guy who thinks that by reusing a bag he's singlehandedly saving the planet - but a strawman all the same. people know what they're doing actually: a teeny-tiny bit of good, maybe. better than "this won't solve the problem so fuck it"

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:01 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was quoting someone upthread re 'fighting' fwiw, but "this won't solve the problem so fuck it" is most certainly a strawman

I mean no historical figure is LESS iconoclastic than the housewife for almost all of the 20th century, but as a group they had enormous purchasing power and carried out, at different times, SEVERAL historic boycotts that changed how things were done in industries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

relevant to the politics of food purchases ref'd on this thread

icea cream is posting awesome things in this thread and i think he's very otm. consuming/purchasing itself is the crux of the issue, not the problem necc, but like the problematic practice, and all that's based on the complicated inner workings of desire imo. justifying your consumer choices based on what good it does someone or what harm it doesn't do to someone strikes me as an ideological game with the goal of "covering over" something through "rationality." what it's covering over is what's interesting, like that's what we should be thinking about. i think it has a lot to do with desire/guilt. we need to interrogate that! like rather than go on this fools' game of trying to measure and justify the morality of our purchases. i mean for christ's sake, a goods/service transaction has no moral dimension, like at all! and desire isn't good or bad either! but we have to invent these stories about spending so we can justify desire when we should really just be honest about desire and start to ask ourselves how it works and how it connects to everything else.

i think more subtlety of thought/inner reflection should actually be the pragmatic goal! i mean, what good is a principle if it isn't flexible and tuned into the sort of individual/social flux that eventually hardens into these inequities and material conditions. i don't think fighting principles with principles really works. i think on some level, principles are the problem. becoming something more adaptive and oriented towards... i don't know, expressing life? seems like a way beyond/out of that endless loop.

i mean for christ's sake, a goods/service transaction has no moral dimension, like at all!

don't agree with this at all or see how it's remotely true, sorry

insofar as morality is intrinsically bound up with how people treat each other

you are shopping at Whole Foods why now?

― unorthodox economic revenge (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:42 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

lol what the hell

Whole Foods is super-expensive!

remy should just buy everything from radioshack

maybe remy goes there to steal cheese or see max

Whole Foods is super-expensive!

It really isn't.

only people with a top-hat are allowed to shop at whole foods

you can only own a top-hat if you are rich (or you are max)

*doffs*

"I don't think you understand just how expensive Whole Foods is!"

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/20172000/ngbbs4ad39438ea981.jpg

lol

there are reasons to shop at whole foods. if you happen to have a whole foods within walking distance but you need to take a bus to get to the cheaper big box grocery store (not entirely impossible if you live in/near a city) you'll probably go to whole foods for basics.

i think it has a lot to do with desire/guilt. we need to interrogate that!

this is basically the point of the Bernard Stiegler essay i linked above.

I buy parsley at whole foods. Yum yum yum!!!

Yeah matt I don't see how principles are obstructing anything here you need to be more specific. Use the cocaine example, because I feel like thats a fairly straightforward one

buying another human, eh just a goods/service transaction, nothing to see here

selling toxic products to people, eh just a goods/service transaction, fuhgeddaboutit

so you're saying slavery and poisoning people is bad

gonna go out on a limb here...

all i was saying was that i think giving money to a local farmers market vendor isn't better or worse than giving money to wal-mart. but i'm someone who thinks that what is moral can't be measured by where we shop or who we give money to, because what they do is outside our control. that's where social policy comes in. i.e. why we can't legally buy slaves or poison people.

cocaine is dumb but i don't think haranguing users is the answer. it isn't mic fleetwood's fault 10 people die every day in juarez. he just wants a rush. maybe we can take these casual coke users skiing or something.

because what they do is outside our control

starting to think you don't understand how markets work, cuz I'm pretty sure exhibit #1 asshole is gonna have a hard time continuing his assholish policies without any money.

also what do you think social policy just happens by accident and is not influenced by market factors, come on now

drug policy totally separate from the consumer market, yep

I'm assuming you can guess why people kill each other over cocaine, it might have a little bit to do with social policy and economics

i may not know how markets work but i'm pretty sure you being an asshole on an internet thread is gonna help.

tbf, I'm sympathetic to the Marxist critique that it's in the interests of capitalism to commodify all dissent - it perpetuates the system of consumption to contextualize everything in terms of a commodity transaction. this is a legitimate point imho. however, it doesn't change the fact that in the mass-market commodity culture that we all live in these days, commodity transactions DO carry political weight and ARE a method of affecting policy and larger social change. While we aren't going to consume our way out of the mess of industrial capitalism by buying certain products, buying certain products does have a demonstrable effect on what behaviors and policies get promoted within the existing capitalist structure. and that shit does matter, because that's what we're all living in.

xp

thx for the namecalling btw

did ice craem start this thread with a consumer choices/political actions contrast in mind? Just wondering.

Would be interested in ppl's thoughts on govt controls on things like eg aforementioned toxic products or unethically or unsustainably sourced/produced goods- what's more effective in changing these supply chains, individual consumer habits changing or, say, focused lobbying for controlling legislation.

I think the former agent is passive and ephemeral and firms won't necessarily get any clear message from decreased consumption, whereas with positive action (organised boycotts or legislative enforcement) there's at least a clear pointer for corporations as to what 'the market' wants.

ie the clearest way to change the market is probably not through market transactions?

loads of xp kinda on the same subject as shakey i guess

tbf, I'm sympathetic to the Marxist critique that it's in the interests of capitalism to commodify all dissent - it perpetuates the system of consumption to contextualize everything in terms of a commodity transaction. this is a legitimate point imho. however, it doesn't change the fact that in the mass-market commodity culture that we all live in these days, commodity transactions DO carry political weight and ARE a method of affecting policy and larger social change. While we aren't going to consume our way out of the mess of industrial capitalism by buying certain products, buying certain products does have a demonstrable effect on what behaviors and policies get promoted within the existing capitalist structure. and that shit does matter, because that's what we're all living in.

xp

― unorthodox economic revenge (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, September 30, 2011 4:20 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

so what are some of these changes

boycotting products with CFCs led to them being legislated against which led to the closing of the hole in the ozone layer

for example

what's more effective in changing these supply chains, individual consumer habits changing or, say, focused lobbying for controlling legislation.

these things are totally related!

d i totally agree with you.

xpost glad we're saved from environmental apocalypse by cfcs being legislated against.

increase in popularity of organic farming products led to the FDA developing an organic certification process etc

there are tons of examples of this come on now

consumer demand for solar PV has necessitated changes in energy policy for regulated utilities (ie, utilities now have to figure out how to deal with people that want to sell their solar PV power back to the grid, legal + regulatory framework necessary to make that happen etc)

the thing is in a lot of these cases consumers aren't necessarily going to understand what specific legislation would be most effective - but they ARE going to be able to understand "if I want X to happen, I should buy project Y instead of Z"

pretty sure demand for hybrid vehicles/better mpg has had a direct impact on increased fuel efficiency standards

like, once you demonstrate something is viable in the market, legislators are more inclined to take up the cause as well as be able to tell what's going to work/what is viable

yeah i meant to say i know that neither strand is extricable from the other but i do think you can broadly group behaviours btwn individual consumer decisions (albeit led or informed by information campaigns) and positive political action (such as organising an such a campaign) and i was wondering was this where op started out from, tbh

nah op was prompted by a bunch of posters saying "don't buy cocaine because it's fucked up"

ok, i'm onside there at least

I think the hardest ethical problem for me is what seems like a paradox of a consumer-driven economy, i.e. that everyone consuming more is a kind of vehicle for distributing prosperity to more people. Like the same tools that create tons of waste also lead to abundant cheap food, and the same economic machinery that creates lots of new health problems for people also seems overall to extend life expectancy and offer more of a chance at survival. Also the fact that buying stuff we don't need 'creates jobs', although then we get caught in a kind of cycle of needing/wanting more and needing more income to buy it.

Also there's just the problem that a "sustainable" standard of living for the whole world might mean a much, much lower standard of living than we've come to expect.

I mean, I have fucking bananas and coffee on my counter right now. I just ate a yogurt from california, and it was flavored with maple syrup that probably came from at least a couple hundred miles north of there. I have stuff probably only a nobleman would have had several hundred years ago.

Whatever we expect today will eventually be trumped by whatever reality delivers us.

Yeah but the level of efficiency involved in getting those things to you today isn't comparable. In much the same way it's difficult to set a 'sustainable' standard of living that wouldn't be outdated with the next large scale technological advance