Technology

[gregorach]

An earlier post was referring to the buzzing effect, not necessarily the phone itself.

The buzzer is just an example. Remove the buzzer, and you're still left with all the tantalum resistors and capacitors, which still involve all the same problems, and which also exist in every other microelectronic device on the market. There is nothing unique about either buzzing or phones in this regard. It's just one particular example. And once you widen your focus beyond one particular use of one particular element, you see that these issues exist everywhere. Buy anything with palm oil in it? (Just about everything has palm oil in it these days...) Well, do you have any idea what happened to the people who used to live where the palm oil plantations now are? Most of them are dead, and the rest are practically enslaved.

Also, please note that (as I stated earlier) the vast majority of the rare earth elements used in these applications do not come from the Congo. Yes, there are lots of human rights issues surrounding resource extraction from the developing world, but (a) these issues are common to practically everything in our society, not just electronics, and (b) the vast majority of theses resources come from the developed world (Australia, Canada, etc) anyway. Food production is, in many ways, much worse - but that doesn't support some people's desires to locate all of the evils of the modern world in mobile phones.

Nevertheless, I'm still using a phone I bought second-hand many years ago, at least partly through concerns over these issues.

 

[helixpteron]

I will think now when my mobile rings about those suffering so i can have the technology in my pocket.

That will doubtless bring them immense reassurance!

Irony and hypocrisy!

 

[rik_uk3]

Yeah - they used to be called "the Dutch". These days they're mostly "security contractors" (aka "mercenaries"), many based in the UK, although they do hire local muscle.

?? The locals are not doing the killing then

 

[helixpteron]

?? The locals are not doing the killing then

No, they're too busy downloading ring tones...

 

[gregorach]

?? The locals are not doing the killing then

Did you miss the bit where I said "they do hire local muscle"? But in many cases, no, it's not the locals doing the killing. It's usually the traditional enemies of the locals from the next country over. Unless, of course, you regard all of West Africa (an area the size of western Europe) as "local"...

 

[springer5]

There is nothing unique about either buzzing or phones in this regard. It's just one particular example. And once you widen your focus beyond one particular use of one particular element, you see that these issues exist everywhere. Buy anything with palm oil in it? (Just about everything has palm oil in it these days...) Well, do you have any idea what happened to the people who used to live where the palm oil plantations now are? Most of them are dead, and the rest are practically enslaved.

I can see the point you're making, and I entirely agree with it. The more you look at it, the sadder it all is. The evil face of a globalised economy.

Your example of Palm oil is a particularly good one I think. It is EVERWHERE and the suffering its use has been responsible for is immense. We've almost reached a point where it's pretty difficult to live a "normal" day-to-day life without being a part of that particular problem, whether we like it or not.

I just feel that if we were to list out the most damaging products and score them on a basis of the ones we can or can't do something about, palm oil and vehicle fuel are things we, the little guy, would find it hard to avoid, or boycott, whereas a mobile phone (?). I didn't have one 10 years ago and I'm guessing many others didn't. Do we really NEED one now? and even if we do, which I find hard to believe, but just accepting that we do for a moment, does it NEED to have some of the features which make it worse than it would be without those features, or replace it as often?
If I want to boycott Palm oil I'd practically have to starve, but without a mobile I'd just be inconvenienced, no more so than I was 10 years ago (landlines still exist), and as with you, I find my old one still make the same phone call the newer ones do.

To just to accept that some more easily avoidable items are inevitable, simply because there are other items that we really can't avoid, is a bit too convenient really, if we're all honest. If we allow ourselves to think that way for long enough, there really won't be much hope for the future

Imagine a world where everything we do is ok, as long as we can either invent some reason why it's not our fault, or find someone else who is doing something worse.

It's a depressing thought.

 

[gregorach]

If I want to boycott Palm oil I'd practically have to starve

No, you'd just have to cook from scratch, like everybody used to. Not that I'm currently in any position to lecture on that score...

 

[springer5]

No, you'd just have to cook from scratch, like everybody used to. Not that I'm currently in any position to lecture on that score...

and locally grown too, just to make sure no biofuels were used during transportation.

As it happens, it's another strange irony that, being someone who actully does tend to like cooking "real" food most of the time at home, I find that most of my food-related palm oil consumption takes place when I'm cooking the quick, lightweight, easy convenience food that better suits wild camping. That's the kind of thing that would have to stop, unless I can find a local "sherpa" in this part of Wales to carry all my fresh veg (tried suggesting it to the wife once and still have the bruises to show for it - lol).

 

[jimbob]

Yeah - they used to be called "the Dutch". These days they're mostly "security contractors" (aka "mercenaries"), many based in the UK, although they do hire local muscle.

Top points Gregorach but have to correct a slight historical inaccuracy, it was the Belgians not the Dutch - the Dutch were impressing everyone with the size of their muskets in the Phillipines.

Hadn't really thought out the instances of suffering from everything I buy although you know that a lot of this cheap stuff, especially the raw resources, are probably not coming from the best ethics - just try and buy as little as possible and make sure its as locally or, y'know, democratically sourced as possible. And if I have to buy something that I can't mend make sure its as indestructible as possible. Like the mobile I had to accept from work - Nokia 1100. Been in the washing machine 5 times and a pint of guiness overnight and dropped down a big hill. Doesn't do predicitive text anymore but like a 70's Volvo it refuses to die. Hopefully I'll never have to replace it (and the tantalum it contains).

And yes, I had to accept it, it was necessary for me to be available out of hours or on the road. Guess I could stick it in a drawer now but that would make keeing in touch with my friends a bit tricky as we've all got 'em now. And I didn't bother replacing my landline phone when it broke down three years ago. Hmmm. Don't think I've got too much palm oil unless they use a lot of that in bombay mix and soya milk - that's about it for non-fresh stuff that i eat.

In the end its probably impossible to completely prevent everything I use from having been a part of someone's suffering somewhere. Just try to step lightly and walk softly; only ninjas leave no trace.

 

[gregorach]

Top points Gregorach but have to correct a slight historical inaccuracy, it was the Belgians not the Dutch - the Dutch were impressing everyone with the size of their muskets in the Phillipines.

Ah yes, you're quite right.

 

[Neumo]

There are a couple of intertwined threads here. As far as technology & bushcraft, I think there is a place for it in bushcraft IF you want to use moderrn kit, which includes things like GPS & phones, but also includes Gortex, waterproof boots, Nikewax & a thousand other things, materials, technologies etc.. that we tend top overlook or take for granted. I personally think that having a good quality jacket that will keep me dry in heavy rain is a good thing; I could choose to wear an old canvas or cotten jacket but I dont as I do not like being stuck out in the woods/fields soaking wet while a long walk back from the car. GPS is a good thing but it should not be relied on as the only way to nbavigate; the wise bushcrafter has many ways of navigating which should include the sun, looking at the way treees grow towards, maps, compass, GPS etc.. I happen to carry an iPhone when out amongst the trees as I get called from time to time, which I dont mind. If I fall over & break my leg then a phone is a good thing. I have all the local OS25K maps on it, which I can view with an app called QCTviewer. I dont use it to navigate all the time but it has saved me a few times when I get lost; I have the local OS paper map & a compass but it is nice to see exactly where you are on the map. Just my preference.

The 2nd thread here, about the consequences of getting raw material that ends up in electronic goods etc.. I personally am not going to get involved in, as it sounds like the usual far left hysterical attention seeking when people say things like 'people died so that you you can have a mobile phone' and 'If you buy tuna then you are killing dolphins' etc... There may be some truth in that but raw materials from the places mentioned in africa are needed by our modern lifestyle. The real problem is there is no stable, uncorrupt government in such places so there will always be bad things happeneing to some people in such places; if they were not fighting over ore for the electronic industry then it would be about something else: corn, diamonds etc...

 

[jimbob]

Neumo: fair points on both.

We're technology using creatures, always have been ever since the first time one of our ancestors realised that they could carry a rock to crack open a particular kind of fruit rather than using one stuck in the ground.

 

[springer5]

I personally am not going to get involved in, as it sounds like the usual far left hysterical attention seeking when people say things like 'people died so that you you can have a mobile phone' and 'If you buy tuna then you are killing dolphins' etc...

Just a quick question on that one... I'm not sure I understand how highlighting that something morally wrong is happening, be it dolphins dying, or anyone else dying, is either attention seeking or far left. If I were to stumble on someone carrying out a murder I wouldn't intervene, or raise the awareness of others around me to it's atrocity, and ask them to help that individual, all because of my political views, or because I wanted attention, I'd do it because I wouldn't want to see that individual die knowing that they probably don't want to - plain and simple. Perhaps you could just expand on that bit for me if you don't mind please. I may be missing something there.

raw materials from the places mentioned in africa are needed by our modern lifestyle

This is a tricky one because "need" is always going to be so subjective. Perhaps someone in Africa could, by the same token, say "My country is my home, and the primary purpose of my home is not to provide gadgets for someone in another country. That is their problem, not mine".
So the question then is which is the more justifiable need. Our technological goods, or their homes. If somone from another planet came down and wrecked our homes in order to get something they needed, would we all be so accepting of it? I doubt it.

Just some respectfully offered perspective

 

[*Big Beast*]

?? The locals are not doing the killing then

The program actually tells us that the raping,torturing and killing is being done by the army, the police force and the guerrilla forces of this country, not hired contractors or locally hired muscle, it started out as tribal and has now turned to the money,but does it matter who is doing it?
the programme title was THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE ON EARTH FOR WOMEN, what it set out to do was explain why. I believe it did a good job of explaining the title and in the process showed the suffering of these women because of our need for more and more high tech` toys.

 

[Neumo]

I may have been a bit OTT on that second paragraph, so hope I did not offend. What I meant here was that there are some people on the left that believe that it is everybody's moral responsibility to know how every single chemical, material etc.. in a product they are buying is sourced, to take the time to find out if the resistors in their new TV are ethically sourced etc... Back in the real world 90%+ of people don't have the time or don't care about these issues. This mainly because it is not their responsibility to check these things or to police them. That is the job of Governments at the end of the day. In the case of something simple like tuna, then there is a case for highlighting the overfishing etc.. and those people who campaign on clear specific subjects like that do stand a good chance of altering public opinion & governments. In the case of some ore that most of us have never heard of which is used in a wide variety of electronic parts etc.. well that's too complex for most of us to police for ourselves. So when people say 'you bought a mobile phone so you are personally responsible for kids being killed' then the people saying things like that should expect to get some flack. Arguing a case or highlighting over fishing or whatever their cause is is one thing; Blaming people for buying something legal for something bad that happened to someone in a foreign land 20 steps back down the supply chain is just wrong in my book.

Highlighting issues like this is one thing but when people think it's OK to attack people for buying consumer goods (which are legal), then I think they go to far; some people I know who are into these single issue politics are defiantly attention seeking & it's usually the ones who take the confrontational positions like the one in the OP, while most are not. Same goes for the politicians.

Personally I don't think buying fish or mobile phones is taking a moral position. It's the government's job to regulate the market & ban things that we all feel is wrong or causes people harm.

 

[springer5]

I may have been a bit OTT on that second paragraph, so hope I did not offend. What I meant here was that there are some people on the left that believe that it is everybody's moral responsibility to know how every single chemical, material etc.. in a product they are buying is sourced, to take the time to find out if the resistors in their new TV are ethically sourced etc... Back in the real world 90%+ of people don't have the time or don't care about these issues.

I can see where you're coming from now Neumo and I wasn't in the least bit offended.

I also entirely agree with you that it certainly doesn't help for anyone to go around bullying others by accusing them of all kinds of stuff just for doing normal everyday things. Highlighting issues is one thing, but rude confrontation doesn't help anyone.

Thanks for replying

 

[*Big Beast*]

the OP was intended as a starter to a discussion on a forum which is what appears to be happening. I was also hoping the discussion would enlighten people at the same time, the TV show was meant to be controversial, most BBC3 shows are. the show before it demonstrated the exploitation of miners looking for precious gem stones and involved 6 young people from the UK doing the jobs and living the lives of these miners. another very good show, Blood,Sweat and Luxuries; http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s5gct/Blood_Sweat_and_Luxuries_Gems/

and worth a topic on it`s own for discussion in my opinion.

 

[Tengu]

Perhaps we should live the lives of savages and have no laws and do as we please.

 

[nuggets]

Perhaps we should live the lives of savages and have no laws and do as we please.

i,d rather buy a `fairtrade` telephone than move to scotland okenest:okenest::BlueTeamE

 

[*Big Beast*]

Perhaps we should live the lives of savages and have no laws and do as we please.

humm, it seems that the lives we live force others to live as savages or slaves, not sure which is worse but our civilised laws are condoning this around the world so who is the savage really?