In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free(fastcoexist.com)
fastcoexist.com
In 2016, Intel's Entire Supply Chain Will Be Conflict-Free
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3055066/change-generation/in-2016-intels-entire-supply-chain-will-be-conflict-free
5 comments
I'd take a cheaper processor over a "conflict free" one every day.
I wonder how many of the people who "downvoted" this comment used a device with an Intel chip.
In reality many of us only care because it is fashionable to do so.
In reality many of us only care because it is fashionable to do so.
Exactly. konne88 is calling out most of this forum. I agree with the comment in that, while I will buy less evil stuff if I can, I don't abstain from online activities because of indirect consequences. That means I willingly choose them. I accept that.
Anyone who acts like they're pro environment, anti-rights-abuse, and so on while using lots of technology is full of shit given its supply chain and corporate support. Better admit they're willing to let some kids and people suffer to advance their agenda. I will. I don't like it but the situation is complex and warrants it.
Suddenly, the good and bad people in such a situation ain't so black and white. Rarely is but I think many activists think it is for them. They just ignore the underlying realities except for their causes.
Anyone who acts like they're pro environment, anti-rights-abuse, and so on while using lots of technology is full of shit given its supply chain and corporate support. Better admit they're willing to let some kids and people suffer to advance their agenda. I will. I don't like it but the situation is complex and warrants it.
Suddenly, the good and bad people in such a situation ain't so black and white. Rarely is but I think many activists think it is for them. They just ignore the underlying realities except for their causes.
The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? How many would be able to name any other compatible chip brand that is conflict-free?
Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor". Maybe that's the "price signal" you send, but that doesn't imply that it is your conscious ethical decision. You may be more than willing to support laws that forbid conflict chips from being sold in your country, even if those laws cause a surge in computing equipment prices.
Maybe go one step less than that and sell conflict chips like we sell cigarettes: with a huge picture of some kid with their leg blown up in the box. If people still buy them then (despite conflict-free alternatives existing), then you can make the argument that they are implicitly (but consciously) deciding cheap chips matter more than dying people.
Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor". Maybe that's the "price signal" you send, but that doesn't imply that it is your conscious ethical decision. You may be more than willing to support laws that forbid conflict chips from being sold in your country, even if those laws cause a surge in computing equipment prices.
Maybe go one step less than that and sell conflict chips like we sell cigarettes: with a huge picture of some kid with their leg blown up in the box. If people still buy them then (despite conflict-free alternatives existing), then you can make the argument that they are implicitly (but consciously) deciding cheap chips matter more than dying people.
"The problem is, most people don't have perfect information about where the products they use are from. So individual calls to action are a bit meaningless. How many people in this thread even knew this was a concern for chip manufacturing? "
That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now.
"Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor"."
I disagree as many people in U.S. know about what capitalism, cheap labor, and other things result in. Just talk to a bunch of them sometime if you doubt that. What you'll see is they know to some degree but put it out of their mind. It's a problem but not their problem. It's called an externality in economics but I call it not giving a shit.
In any case, I said I'd go with your version of things. So, now readers know all kinds of horrible shit might have gone into their electronics to get them here. Which person fighting for good is now (a) intentionally harming people for the greater good or (b) disconnecting and selling their devices to prevent harm? They know now. So, the choice is informed and intentional.
That's a good point. I think how many cared is another. I'm going with yours for now.
"Not researching the implications of each purchase you make in a thoroughly globalized world is not the same as saying "I'd rather have people die than pay a bit more for my processor"."
I disagree as many people in U.S. know about what capitalism, cheap labor, and other things result in. Just talk to a bunch of them sometime if you doubt that. What you'll see is they know to some degree but put it out of their mind. It's a problem but not their problem. It's called an externality in economics but I call it not giving a shit.
In any case, I said I'd go with your version of things. So, now readers know all kinds of horrible shit might have gone into their electronics to get them here. Which person fighting for good is now (a) intentionally harming people for the greater good or (b) disconnecting and selling their devices to prevent harm? They know now. So, the choice is informed and intentional.
Well, after this article, I actually know there are electronic manufacturers that do check their supply chains for at least some types of abuses (namely Intel, and there is hope they are not the only ones). Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible.
My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.
[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).
My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]. It is one thing to know "vague horrible things happen elsewhere to give me my current standard of living" and a different one to provide actionable and timely choices to diminish that harm. So it's good that companies are improving their practices and making that a marketing point (even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard). In the end, the right solutions may go beyond this, involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries; but as far as what Intel can do and what individual consumers can do, it is still something.
[1] Failing that, one can advocate for taxing the wrong the choice (Banning the wrong choice might work too, if a reasonable substitute exists. May backfire otherwise, see: drugs).
"Next time I make a purchase of a chip, or a product using it, I may check on this to the extent of my ability. I might not go without a laptop if I can't acquire it without causing harm, but I will certainly prefer to minimize such harm if possible."
Very reasonable position.
"My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]."
My experience in activism for civil rights, privacy, less corruption, and so on suggests people just don't care. It has to literally take almost no mental effort in America or most won't lift a finger. Unless it's one of those hot button issues. They'll at least talk a lot about it on Facebook while some take action. Apathy reigns supreme here, though, as we've seen time after time.
"(even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard)"
Haha. Low standards reign, too.
"involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries;"
TPP shows it going in the opposite direction with more concentration of power into elites' hands and reinforcement of prior stuff. Individual companies might do better, though, hopefully.
Very reasonable position.
"My hypothesis is that if you give people easy ways to do the right thing, they tend to value doing so[1]."
My experience in activism for civil rights, privacy, less corruption, and so on suggests people just don't care. It has to literally take almost no mental effort in America or most won't lift a finger. Unless it's one of those hot button issues. They'll at least talk a lot about it on Facebook while some take action. Apathy reigns supreme here, though, as we've seen time after time.
"(even if "we are better that the competition... because we decided to recently stop funding warlords" is perhaps a fairly low standard)"
Haha. Low standards reign, too.
"involving regulations and government incentives and treaties, and stronger governance developing in affected countries;"
TPP shows it going in the opposite direction with more concentration of power into elites' hands and reinforcement of prior stuff. Individual companies might do better, though, hopefully.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you're parodying the majority, then great post. If it's just selfish benefit, then appreciate your honesty asshole. Good post either way given it represents most people. :)
Trouble is most of the products are fungible. You buy the stuff from a reputable mine and the other buyers will just buy the same stuff from the conflict zone. Its a way to feel better but the practical way to stop the thugs with guns stealing resources in the conflict zones is to do it more directly.
Although it's clear that Intel is addressing the very valid concerns people have always had about coltan, there are a lot of good comments in this thread about the vagueness of "conflict free." Perhaps a more interesting and useful metric would be a "living wage supply chain," where everyone involved has been paid enough money to lead at least a lower-middle-class lifestyle. I don't have any clue how this would work, but hey -- this is an online comment, not an economics paper!
Of course you'd have companies claiming that $1/day is middle class in certain countries, etc, so maybe you'd have to set some sort of standardized chart based on CPI, but y'all get what I'm saying here. I think it would be more informative than "conflict-free", especially since it gets to the root of ensuring a lack of slave-labor-like conditions for workers. Most of the fashion industry, for example, would never manage to hold itself to such a standard. "Made in Italy" is a lot more expensive when you can't pay table scraps to your Chinese "guest workers"...
Of course you'd have companies claiming that $1/day is middle class in certain countries, etc, so maybe you'd have to set some sort of standardized chart based on CPI, but y'all get what I'm saying here. I think it would be more informative than "conflict-free", especially since it gets to the root of ensuring a lack of slave-labor-like conditions for workers. Most of the fashion industry, for example, would never manage to hold itself to such a standard. "Made in Italy" is a lot more expensive when you can't pay table scraps to your Chinese "guest workers"...
Impossible unfortunately, as long as it's operating in Israel.
How about operating in the US, which on average kills 3-4 civilians per 1 enemy combatant (Israel kills 1) and starts wars for no apparent reason (what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 - that's more than 100,000 people killed, do you have an idea how much more that is compared to people killed by the IDF in the last decades? Why support "rebels" in Libya or Syria?)
In drone strikes, the US classifies fighting age males as combatants regardless of if they were armed, etc., "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Do they do that for all their statistics? Does Isreal do the same?
The two of you have proven why this is basically meaningless.
Better response than mine haha.
I agree with you. Original point is still true. It's a double-standard U.S. allows for political reasons.
I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
I'll also add Israel is more selective and defensive in its conflict while doing what it can to prop up its country and people. African dictators and such are on a much lower and twisted level.
I agree with that as well. However I think Israel is a different case.
"Agree as well" with what? I basically said the US killed far more people for far worse reasons - do you agree that Israel is different in that sense? What about Russia where Intel operates and which invaded Georgia and Ukraine? Do you think Intel should stop operating in the US, Russia and Israel (and relocate to the moon, presumably?) or do you think Israel should be singled out (why?)
Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?
Also - why single out Intel? Why is it OK for oil companies to operate in the Middle East where most oil-rich countries either wage war directly or subsidize it?
Well for me it goes all the way back to the forceful creation of the state of Israel, so you're talking to the wrong guy. However in modern times, I think the Gaza blockade and regular "wars" against it, the general mistreatment of Palestinians residing in Israel, the attempts at taking full control of Al Aqsa Mosque, and the general racism towards Arabs exhibited by Israeli leaders over the years are good enough reasons for me to put Israel in the spotlight compared to the USA or Russia.
But I still agree with your sentiments regarding the Gulf countries, the US, and Russia. I just believe that the shameful actions they are perpetrating are of a different nature. To that list I'd add Iran.
Disclaimer: I am an Arab Muslim.
But I still agree with your sentiments regarding the Gulf countries, the US, and Russia. I just believe that the shameful actions they are perpetrating are of a different nature. To that list I'd add Iran.
Disclaimer: I am an Arab Muslim.
I figured you were an Arab Muslim. FYI, Israel has affirmative action where Arabs have a lower standard of admission into medical schools, for example; "racism", perhaps, but of a different sort (which is not to say that no Israelis exist who are racist, just that most aren't and that the state isn't, at least not in comparison to most others.) Where you heard about taking control of Al Aqsa I can only guess; of course 99.99% of Israelis don't want it nor did the state ever attempt it and we let the Waqf destroy Jewish and Muslim archeological artefacts alike as they please there. In general Israel is the hundredth probem on the list of any Arab state, and putting it closer to #1 by singling it out as the one state to be excluded from supply chains etc. is IMO unlikely to help with the first 99. But then again I'm more than a little biased...
Does this also entail that no Saudi Arabian [0] or American fossil fuels will be used in the entire supply chain?
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...
[0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/...
I'm vaguely more familiar with diamonds rather than metals. Conflict Diamonds and metals (commonly) mean a mine run by slave labor with all proceeds going to finance a war.
It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.
It's an easy thing to confuse. Your model, no components from any country at war is admirable, but not likely feasible.
Everything upsets someone.
"Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
"Conflict-free" is like "inoffensive". It's impossible to apply for everyone.
Exactly. Says nothing about the toxicity to get the materials out, the wages paid, whether there were bribes or not, etc etc.
But hey, better than nothing.
But hey, better than nothing.
Exactly.
Also, I've seen a pictures of minerals being weighted in Kigali, Rwanda. Everyone knows Rwanda hasn't so much minerals ressources, but all those came from Easter DRC [1]. So it says something about the process.
[1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...
[1]: http://www.pactworld.org/sites/default/files/unconflicted.pd...