There's a big feature in the Times this morning on environmental damage in China. If I were President, it would be a requirement that these pictures appear on labels of manufactured goods which come from these factories. I'm not saying consumers shouldn't be allowed to buy stuff that comes at this kind of an environmental cost; just that people should *know* that low-priced toasters don't happen in a vacuum.
6 comments:
Do you honestly think that people just knowing these things will lead to massive systemic change? I find that prospect highly dubious. Further, I think focusing on the practices of foreign producers is an instance of third world-ism, where Americans ignore their own sins by pointing at supposedly worse offenders elsewhere, usually in "less developed" nations.
The whole point is that we are foisting our sins off on other nations who don't feel like they can "afford" environmental protections yet - so that we can say "Well, we are doing a good job by saving Alaska" and still enjoy our cheap toasters. The point of putting the picture on the toaster box would be to make the visual connection that "their" sin is actually our sin, or at least a mutual sin. Presumably, if you were *buying* the toaster, giving your money to the factory on the box, you would be making that connection. I don't see what's so "third world-ist" about that proposal.
And if you really believe that knowledge doesn't lead to systemic change, why teach anyone anything, ever?
I think most people in the United States know that things are made in sweatshops. And, I think most people in the United States know that the products they use are made in those sweatshops.
Now, if just knowing that were enough, why are there still sweatshops?
So is complaining about China's human rights record also a matter of "third world-ism?" More importantly, should that stop us from complaining about it?
I would agree with an argument claiming we need to place criticism of our own environmental record alongside our criticisms of China's, but I can't understand an argument that puts China off limits due to its dubious third world status.
Could someone clarify for me? I thought China was a so-called second world nation during the Cold War, but since then has been classified as a developed nation because of its GDP.
Oh, let's just call it western elitism and leave it at that.
But, I think education is much more than the dispensing of facts, and I think assuming that people purchase products solely out of ignorance ignores a lot of the socioeconomic realities that drive people's consumer decisions.
Further, I don't think pointing fingers at the worst offenders really does much to change a system that is by nature deeply problematic; the way things are currently set up, someone's got to get screwed.
Should we complain about pollution in China? Perhaps. But, at present, there seems to be a general cultural milieu of "Oh, God, the Chinese," which I'm not sure is productive. When I was at the gym yesterday, the entire financial report on the news was about "the Chinese" buying up various U.S. harddrive manufacturers and such. It reminded me a lot of coverage of purchases of U.S. companies by Japanese companies, which were written up as "Japanese take [company name]" and the like.
Post a Comment