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

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 I have no problem with self-sustaining farmers the prob is with people who want to live 21st century lifestyles w/ urban conveniences on a sparsely populated landscape. almost nobody wants to live 'a country life' they just want their same life in the middle of nowhere.

(this has its own thread obv)

artisanal war

artisanal war

My cudgel is made of sustainable-growth wood and was hand-made locally.

You can feel quite proud about getting beaten to death by it.

what if I consume nothing horrible, and consume nothing horrible very well, but then I have a child who consumes everything badly, that's like a net bad right

look at these fucking hipster axes

xp

btw that is not a troll on you parents that is kind of how I feel about myself regarding meat xp

I think we're getting to the heart of the problem. Christians believe we are born in sin. Commies believe in the perfectablility of human nature. I tend to think we're more like the most awesome species of pest the planet has ever seen.

ime theres a often weird unwillingness to engage in talking abt the underlying assumptions re buying this stuff, like if youre all 'maybe this isnt doing any real good' most of the time you get an immediate 'well its better than doing nothing at all like u' which are like not the only two options

again i feel like this speaks to a not undeserved underlying feeling of powerlessness which leads to a sense that examining our personal motivations is frivolous in a world that so desperately needs positive action - the whole thing is so fraught w/psychological issues - and i think generally some of the hallmarks of morality are fixed mind, aggression and projection

i know it sounds like im accusing people of shit here but i assure you is more on a 'what does it mean to be human' level and im at least somewhat aware that im totally subject to these impulses as well

i'm sure you guys have seen this before, but this thread wouldn't be complete without it -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2LBICPEK6w

to act on your convictions, in however insignificant a way, has value, in my opinion.

lock thread

I never ate jack in the box until I started smoking weed, it was like physically impossible for me, I never really looked back

the kids thing has to be put in perspective of the fact that the next generation = the economy when we're old and if everyone stopped having kids then we'd all be pretty fucked when we want to eat and we're 60. I mean we'll be fucked regardless, but just in an additional way. tho I guess you could argue that all americans should stop having kids and just allow immigration to fill the void until world population growth levels off.

and don't forget that children are in some ways the most ethical source of protein available

wtf that was not what I was saying about kids at all!!!!!

id say examining and questioning your convictions has just as much value, surely?

in any case, i think making these kinds of choices, especially consuming less, has a lot of personal value. my own decision to have less "stuff" has been pretty liberating.

I never jacked in the box until I started smoking weed

that said w/ productivity and technology 40 years from now we probably won't need *that many people* to create the basic necessities of life, it's again a matter of where you draw the line of 'necessity'

the trend of declining birth rates in 1st world countries to me has always been nature being like "you guys can stop now"

except we have tricked nature and are still able to consume 5x the resources of a person in a 3rd world country

joke's on you, nature!

eh i dont agree that acting on yr convictions necessarily has value, its not hard to think of some p awful things that were done in the name of convictions, more important to figure out if your convictions are any good

and don't forget that children are in some ways the most ethical source of protein available

Mr Swift, I presume?

If the Breitbarts of the world want civil war, I think we need to explictly posit the good in cannibilism, specifially the environmental good in eating Fox viewers. Unless that shit is transmissable like BSE.

more important to figure out if your convictions are any good

er that's a basic premiss here isn't it? let's not get into moral philosophy 101.

the trend of declining birth rates in 1st world countries to me has always been nature being like "you guys can stop now"

^^^this. American birthrates are already declining/being filled by immigrants.

some p awful things that were done in the name of convictions, more important to figure out if your convictions are any good

Socrates 101

transmissable? I'm going to go get some fair-trade coffee now.

would kant will that everybody should follow the moral law not to eat meat and I think the answer is yes

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

― ice cr?m, Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:57 AM (27 minutes ago)

this is the most on-key point of this thread: symbolic 'good' is actually ineffectual, generally supports the status quo apparatus, and inures consumers to the harm they are actually doing, and acts as a moral release vent, so that little actual good is done.

, , , , ,

world could use a lot more "moral philosophy 101" imo.

he would probably also will that everybody should always be eating sauerkraut why because it is a delicious german food product

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

it's not "fighting", it's affecting the marketplace. and the marketplace kinda runs the world, so in this sense consumer choices DO impact the real world. I can't believe this is even being contested.

middle-class people who drive Priuses and ride their bikes every so often don't in any way hold the moral high ground over poor people who drive 30-year old two-tone cadillacs to a minimum wage
workers at the local Rancho 99, but damned if they don't want you to think they do.

Higher standards of living mean that infant mortality decreases meaning that you don't need to conceive as many children. It also means that children become less an insurance policy/cheap labor and cost more.

i think the point is that consumer choices only re-orient the market, rather than change the heart of the problem? sort of kicking the can down the road. maybe that's a good thing, or maybe not, it's hard to tell unless you're a Marxist.

the market kinda runs the world into the ground, coming soon

middle class justifying its own ludicrously bad habits with a greenwash or a little Susan G. Koman sticker on the back bumper GTFO

damned if they don't want you to think they do

Wanting to hold the high ground over other ppl = dud. Wanting to hold yourself to your standards = making life livable.

you heard him shakey xp

I can see 'making more moral choices = kicking the can down the road' being a compelling argument and a critique. but it's still better than 'letting the can blow up in our faces'

mw, that's a good point. if you're making small concessions (moral tax? isn't that what it amonunts to?) or paying an extra buck for your own peace of mind, and you're aware that's why you're doing it: great. good. that's a good thing, and a small drop in a large bucket. but when you're asserting those choices as morally superior to those who cannot comfortable (either morally or financially) make them, you're just a grade-a dick

the solution is massive consumption taxes on basically everything

sorta difficult to sell 'taxes on basically everything' politically tho

ILX should collect a posting tax

let's face it, every choice we make is kicking the can down the road. whatever we do, our kids will have to deal with the consequences of it.

ias ive said iirc in this thread i do think these consumer choices prob do work toward something good i just wish their adherents were more like 'hey join us in slowly bending the curve of bad economic practices using little to no effort and maintaing an accepted level of comfort' rather than being all bad vibes abt it

but when you're asserting those choices as morally superior to those who cannot comfortable (either morally or financially) make them, you're just a grade-a dick

this is called being sanctimonious and no one's going to advocate for it.

otoh you are aware that the commentary that originally kicked this off was sneering at coke-users, I assume? cuz I'll totally get all sanctimonious about that shit. don't do coke. it's stupid.

I find humility to be sadly lacking amongst us.

like I think there's a pretty clear, demonstrable, moral good to not doing coke, complemented by a pretty clear, demonstrable immoral effects of doing coke.

having had about a year's worth of up close and personal professional contact with a lot of people in the yuppie green/sustainability movement, i have to say remy otm here. there a lot of "activists" who really will all but plug their ears and go LA LA LA LA if you even suggest that making your own jam and driving a hybrid is a band-aid on YOUR footprint at best. heaven help you if you even remotely suggest a lot of the damage we've done is already irreversible, even if you say that doesnt preclude the need for further action.

you're just a grade-a dick

I hate to quibble, remy, but that's like grade-c or grade-d dick; not even top level dickery.

imho a lot of the worlds problems are more related to a lack of introspection than people not standing up and fighting for what they believe in

Shakey, what about chewing coca leaves? Is what you despise the drug or the drug culture?

like equating coke use with having to find a way to get to your job or buying groceries is total bullshit

xp

Shakey, what about chewing coca leaves?

is this a big thing in the US now lol

to a lack of introspection

Add that to my lack of humility and I think you're 100% OTM

is this a big thing in the US now lol

Not an answer

lol michael.

and no doubt, shakey. but but but the whole conspicuous charity thing is all about sanctimony, and the social coding/signifying that goes along with it. poor people and rich people generally buy they same (type of) goods, but the poor people have the delightful bonus of feeling inferior for reaching for the 99 cent Dove soap bar the does not support penguin rehabilitation or whatever.

heaven help you if you even remotely suggest a lot of the damage we've done is already irreversible, even if you say that doesnt preclude the need for further action.

it's more like this is an overly cynical worldview that most people don't want to operate under on a daily basis. this is simple psychological self-preservation.

penguin rehabilitation

Penguins on coke are the worst

poor people have the delightful bonus of feeling inferior for reaching for the 99 cent Dove soap bar the does not support penguin rehabilitation or whatever

gimme a break, they aren't thinking about this shit or feeling bad about it - they're preoccupied with their bottom line.

i am a poor person shakey! i think this!

Penguins on coke are the worst

― What does one wear to a summery execution? Linen? (Michael White), Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:44 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://i.imgur.com/3FHhf.jpg

"poor people don't have the complexity of thought that rich people do"

anyway re: coca leaves - is quite different from cocaine, is part of a different culture (I assume yr ref'ing Bolivia here?), is almost entirely separate from the drug economy that is fueling violence in Mexico etc. which is what I was getting at with my "in the US" line but whatever.

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-gifs-penguins-are-jerks.gif

are you calling me rich remy cuz this is gonna get fun/ugly

why would i do that? why are you being unnecessarily mean?

I just find this weird dichotomy you're setting up ("rich people shop like this/poor people shop like this") to be wrong ime

Most ppl buy the soap relatively mindlessly; maybe the first time before they bonded with the brand they thought, 'moral' or 'sexy' or 'classy' or whatever. Now? Not so much.

i buy dove unscented, and spend the money i saved on penguin cocaine

i am rich, i use penguins for soap

(but i feel guilty about it)

99 cent Dove soap bar the does not support penguin rehabilitation or whatever

to take this ridiculous example further - the more people that buy the penguin rehabilitation soap, the more the price will go down, making it more widely available, at some point making it as cheap (or cheaper!) as the 99 cent dove soap bar. this is simple market mechanics, and it HAS worked. local organic foods can be just as cheap (sometimes cheaper!) than agri-business farmed shit imported from 900 miles away or whatever. sure at some point economies of scale come into play and that's where things get interesting in terms of urban planning/land usage/transportation & energy policy, all these things are related...

glad were getting into the weird class resentment/straw man phase of this argument

I could look at my gif up there for hours - totally reminds me of my peng friends on blow.

i don't think the guilt you feel about buying the cheap soap has anything to do with how much money you make a year

obviously any rich yuppie at Whole Foods literally wagging their finger at some poor(er) person just buying what they can from wherever to survive is basically an asshole, but this does not mean that the consumer choices the former is making are WRONG.

xp

(altho actually fuck Whole Foods, but that's a different story)

Buying local/organic = good

Being a dick about it = bad

Fuck Whole Foods if you can. If you can't, shop there and grumble about it.

whole foods sells delicious foods

straw man, SMC. i didn't set that dichotomy up! i said that poor people are frequently guilted in their shopping choices, and that buying "ethical" products is a privilege of middle/upper class households. the end. also, buying local-organic-sustainable is great and all but fuckit i don't live in CA anymore and unless I want to eat moldy root vegetables all winter i'm gonna use my EBT to buy pesticide-ridden produce from 235234523 miles away.

yuppie c'est les autres iirc

I mean, c'mon, part of the problem w/humans is our desire to make these blanket statement that don't have to take life's complexities into account.

Even calling someone a yuppie is shorthand for some vague class instead of considering them as an individual = laziness and inexactitude

sustainable lichenburgers with organic cranberry sauce and local holstein crap foam served on a hubcap

mmmm mmmm

i said that poor people are frequently guilted in their shopping choices,

as noted, this has to do with people being dicks, the actual shopping choices being made are unrelated.

and that buying "ethical" products is a privilege of middle/upper class households

I don't think this is true at all. as you note, it probably has more to do with location than with money.

there are so many inter-twining questions here about ethics vs politics and personal integrity vs efficacy of action and so on and so on that nobody shd be making bold statements about the power of shopping imo

tangentially, i get a lot of pleasure out of the extreme couponing show

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15089009

woman arrested for re-using coupons ^^^

also i refry my own beans

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, September 29, 2011

safe sex?

eww

as you note, it probably has more to do with location than with money.

As if t'one has nothing to with t'other.

"Ethical" products are expensive here.

theyre expensive everywhere afaik

then again i do most of my grocery shopping at the dollar store where i think the most ethical product is a. 99 bag of organic marshmallow circus peanuts.

locally extruded

But think of the superior moral ingredients. I usually wait for the generic versions to come out. I can't afford the big name designer ethics.

has anyone thought about the morality....of posting

to take this ridiculous example further - the more people that buy the penguin rehabilitation soap, the more the price will go down, making it more widely available, at some point making it as cheap (or cheaper!) as the 99 cent dove soap bar. this is simple market mechanics, and it HAS worked. local organic foods can be just as cheap (sometimes cheaper!) than agri-business farmed shit imported from 900 miles away or whatever. sure at some point economies of scale come into play and that's where things get interesting in terms of urban planning/land usage/transportation & energy policy, all these things are related...

again:
a. 'local organic foods' as the end all solution is a pretty naive when transportation costs are such a small % of the total emissions for the product
b. things being cheaper, or even as cheap, also...misses the point.

there's one single point?

yes, and it's extruded sugar products

I just made a marginally useful moral choice. I was out on break and coming back another man and I walked into the elevator lobby at the same time. Also at the same time, two elevators arrived. I could have taken the elevator on my own surely avoiding having to stop on nay floors before mine or I could forego that luxury in favor of not needlessly wasting energy.

to go back to the original topic, I think the point in the mexico thread is that doing coke is almost never defensible, because 90% of the time (excusing the poor addicts) it's done for recreation. most of the other examples mentioned itt (recycling, buying food, jerking off) are more or less necessary as long as we choose to live in american/western society

MW, question is did you have one lined up in the 'chute? cause if you did I totally would have gotten into the elevator with the other guy and let rip.

has anyone thought about the morality....of posting

I have actually...

most food is p recreational! xp

Remind me to make marginally bad ecological decisions next time I'm waiting for an elevator next to dayo.

and also recreation, does it have value, i do think so

most food is p recreational!

Let them eat gruel!

is blowing ass in an elevator morally reprehensible? what if the other party laughs? or what if the other party has a cold and doesn't know, but then gets off and wafts your cheek-reek across their office?

I think we should define our terms here people

hah maybe I'm way too far over in the 'food=fuel' camp but mostly I just eat cheap carbs + vegetables :>

lol @ food as a recreational activity

i mean i get where yr coming from but come on man

http://www.greenmanufacturer.net/article/power-sources/candy-packaging-manufacturer-uses-geothermal---with-a-twist

geothermal extruded candy!

http://www.greenmanufacturer.net/article/power-sources/candy-packaging-manufacturer-uses-geothermal---with-a-twist

you ever throw your organic marshmallow circus peanuts as high as you can in the air and catch them

Oh wait, that's just extruded candy packaging.

i fully admit i eat more than i need to simply survive but as pointed out those circus peanuts are organic

What I'm taking away from this thread is: eat local circus peanuts; share the lift.

i wish i could use the electricity i burn on the treadmill to pay off my electrical bill or power the TV or something. that way, the extra food i ate would be converted directly into energy and i would feel less bad about being a fatty

well you can take any of the things mentioned above ad absurdum and claim that it's not necessary - you could always go live in the woods and be fully self sufficient. but if you choose to live in society (and for many if not all of us, it's not really a choice) you'll have to come down and say that some things are necessary (even, god, cars.)

I buy organic toilet paper!

what's really hardest to swallow is that these guys

look at these fucking hipster axes

probably hold the moral upper hand on all of us - they live off the grid on an island chopping their own firewood and sustaining themselves. well okay they probably drive the vintage pickup into town every month or so to pick up some blow. but still!

a. 'local organic foods' as the end all solution is a pretty naive when transportation costs are such a small % of the total emissions for the product
b. things being cheaper, or even as cheap, also...misses the point.

come on ddue remy was complaining about being made to feel ashamed for buying cheaper products with a bigger CO2 footprint. price was the main thing I was addressing. note I was not referring to "local" or "organic" foods in my post, I was referring to the silly-ass example of the penguin-free soap. so you're bringing in an unrelated point (ie, how much does local/organic actually reduce anyone's CO2 footprint). agree that things being cheaper is not the overall goal, it's thea added benefits that can be realized by making certain things and certain ways of doing things cheaper.

probably hold the moral upper hand on all of us - they live off the grid on an island chopping their own firewood and sustaining themselves. well okay they probably drive the vintage pickup into town every month or so to pick up some blow. but still!

― dayo, Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:31 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

naw that place is just their 'camp' iirc

well you can take any of the things mentioned above ad absurdum and claim that it's not necessary - you could always go live in the woods and be fully self sufficient. but if you choose to live in society (and for many if not all of us, it's not really a choice) you'll have to come down and say that some things are necessary (even, god, cars.)

― dayo, Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:28 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i feel like a lot of the thinking were discussing is at its root abt believing society to be bad and horrible and wanting to change or get away from it, imo in order to fully engage you have to get past that

note I was not referring to "local" or "organic" foods in my post, I was referring to the silly-ass example of the penguin-free soap.

well I was referring to this part of your post

local organic foods can be just as cheap (sometimes cheaper!) than agri-business farmed shit imported from 900 miles away or whatever

note I was not referring to "local" or "organic" foods in my post, I was referring to the silly-ass example of the penguin-free soap.

well I was referring to this part of your post

local organic foods can be just as cheap (sometimes cheaper!) than agri-business farmed shit imported from 900 miles away or whatever

Are you on Chrome too, because I've been double-posting a ton ever since I switched to it.

yeah I am

i feel like a lot of the thinking were discussing is at its root abt believing society to be bad and horrible and wanting to change or get away from it, imo in order to fully engage you have to get past that

― ice cr?m, Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

not gonna lie this is my default feeling about 95% of the shit I read about in the news and about the poeple I see and I am just a big misanthrope/pessimist hey that's why I'm here

I heard it has a better carbon footprint than firefox

XD

i feel like a lot of the thinking were discussing is at its root abt believing society to be bad and horrible and wanting to change or get away from it, imo in order to fully engage you have to get past that

― ice cr?m, Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:36 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

not gonna lie this is my default feeling about 95% of the shit I read about in the news and about the poeple I see and I am just a big misanthrope/pessimist hey that's why I'm here

― dayo, Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:38 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah its on some level perfectly reasonable, i think the antidote to it is to keep looking deeper and cultivate further subtlety of mind, which kind of reflects on some of my issues re morality in that its often a stance that encourages or is motivated by a desire to fix ones pov

IMHO the only moral thing you can do as a consumer is STOP CONSUMING. If you are thinking of purchasing something but are caught in a moral quandary about it, your response should not be to seek out a less morally hurtful way to get that possession. It should be to cut it out entirely.

Props to everyone who thinks about what they buy, but in some ways it's a little like having your cake and eating it too. If you want to help, give to charity. If you're concerned about the poor Chinese making your iPhone, don't buy the iPhone!

but i need cake and iphones

all the time

agree 100% about the reducing overall consumption thing

or you can buy secondhand and let the first guy take the moral hit "hey I'm just reusing and not letting stuff go to waste, no need to throw away a perfectly good iphone let's not get crazy here"

not like I have a lot of money for things I don't need anyway, all my money pretty much goes to food & bills

ice cr?m, have you tried the new smart cake?

NO WARE CAN I PURCHASE IT

Let them eat app

fwiw, i think this essay by Bernard Stiegler approaches an interesting way of thinking about this stuff: http://arsindustrialis.org/node/2922

it's pretty dense, however, in the mode of a lot of contemporary philosophy.

i said that poor people are frequently guilted in their shopping choices,

by whom, and where?

mythical reciept with lobster and cigarettes, paid with ebt

dayo OTM

i said that poor people are frequently guilted in their shopping choices

uh, every time i pull out my ebt at whole foods? clucks of disapproval from behind me in the line/cashier comment

every time?

okay, so here's how it works: if you want to pay w/ EBT at whole foods you have to announce it before they enter the payment/total screen, so they can hit a special button on their register. if you don't announce it they have to void the payment method and redo it, which they always manage to do vocally. if you say - while the cashier is ringing up the purchase - 'I'll be paying by EBT' it's probably 30/70 odds that the person behind you will crane their nosy neck around and start looking at the nutrtional value of yr purchases. my experience with this is in cambridge, ma so it's kind of a rarified air, but nevertheless

every other market takes EBT through the credit/debit reader, no questions asked.

maybe i am being challops w/o even knowing it, but is it really a controversial position that being v. broke/poor means you have to make some shitty choices w/ your consuming habits that aren't as morally/ethically defensible as if you were a bit wealthier?

you are shopping at Whole Foods why now?

Speaking of judging.

I mean, NOT judging. No, wait, I mean...

i shop in a lot of places. what does it matter?

could be the closest supermarket to his home. could have the cheapest price on kale. who knows!

uh, every time i pull out my ebt at whole foods? clucks of disapproval from behind me in the line/cashier comment

I accidentally ran across some dumb FM talk show just the other day where they were discussing whether or not we should have laws restricting what ETB users can buy. Remy completely, utterly OTM here.

in other words, maybe I shop at whole foods. maybe go fuck yourself.

In Atlanta if you shop at the (awesome) Dekalb Farmer's Market with food stamps, you actually get a massive discount. I think it may be 50%.

Ice craem I disagree with the notion that fixing my erm line of thinking here on this issue in some way undermines my ability to look deeper or at the real nuances of this issue. I think it can compliment a nuanced and flexible perspective. But at some pt you do actually have to grab on to some kind of principle imo

i shop in a lot of places. what does it matter?

I dunno, if prices and prohibitively expensive items are an issue, Whole Foods seems like a weird place to shop is all

I think it may be 50%.

That's awfully decent of them.

If you didn't at least consider whether u should write "awfully white of them", I'm going to be very disappointed.

the (awesome) Dekalb Farmer's Market

Seriously, I do not leave the ATL vicinity without a stop here -- it's such a great store. (But now I also go to the Buford Highway Farmers Market.)

You'll have to be very disappointed, Laurel.

I really mean that in an era where the very expensive Ferry Building farmer's market in SF makes a lot of noise about accepting food stamps, making very expensive local and organic produce available to ppl of limited means is, well, very decent of them.

Ah, too bad. I read it as less earnest.

I hope it actually works out, too.

Don't you know the vital importance of being earnest, Laurel?

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