3 ms·
> Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options. People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make en
by esailija 7y ago
> Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.
> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable
Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.
1. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-poverty https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-...
- jacknews 7y agoBy "consumers" I lean more toward "consuming countries". They should reject or penalize destructive products on behalf of individual consumers, just as they currently do for various product-safety standards. Perhaps in the same way as CITES for banning trading in endangered species, or the various timber certifications, which are certainly imperfect and "full of holes" but at least a start. I think tech could vastly improve systems of provenance. As I said, the system itself is at fault (as per your excellent link - thanks) - there will always be consumers wanting the cheapest price regardless, and suppliers willing to offer it, or even encouraging it (and certainly trying to hide the 'regardless' part of the equation). They must be stopped.