4 ms·

I don't know. If you removed all the worst parts of the supply chain of a cell phone - the slave labor, the conflict minerals - it would cost like what, four ti

I don't know. If you removed all the worst parts of the supply chain of a cell phone - the slave labor, the conflict minerals - it would cost like what, four times more? Boohoo. But nearly everything else about it, like the IAP sold on it, or the music you listen to or the books you read, is already essentially sustainable. And people spend literally hours on their phone, globally, consuming and spending in totally sustainable entertainment, and not just in the West. For the consumer, sustainability in the West really is about food, and specifically, it really is about meat. There's no amount of equivocation that will change that. And affecting it - by simply not buying meat - really is as easy and as effective as it appears.

cheese_goddess 5y ago
Maybe if you only ever bought a single phone and never discarded it, creating more e-waste that would not have a big impact on the environment. But if everyone buys one or two new phones a year then you have a mountain of waste. Of course you don't see it because it's a mountain that forms in some far away land where people are so poor they have to scavenge in the detritus of your electronics and can't afford to eat any meat anyway.
- yissp 5y ago
  I think a big part of this is the lack of repairability and long-term software support, though. There's no good reason we need to be replacing our phones (and a lot of other electronics) as often as most of us currently do.
- triceratops 5y ago
  But if phones cost 4x what they do now, as GP suggests, people would replace their phone far less frequently.
  - an_opabinia 5y ago
    Yes. The root cause of unsustainability is still something horrible - the abuse of labor - but not literally the same as environmental goals. This is a case where intersectionality really shines. You really can align goals because ending labor abuse is good for the environment. Likewise, with meat, the root cause of unsustainability is the animal abuse that enables cheap meat. I'm definitely not blaming the consumer here. Of course you could make sustainable meat, it would just cost 10-400x more (Eating Animals is a great, broad take on this you could read).

cheese_goddess 5y ago

Maybe if you only ever bought a single phone and never discarded it, creating more e-waste that would not have a big impact on the environment. But if everyone buys one or two new phones a year then you have a mountain of waste. Of course you don't see it because it's a mountain that forms in some far away land where people are so poor they have to scavenge in the detritus of your electronics and can't afford to eat any meat anyway.

yissp 5y ago
I think a big part of this is the lack of repairability and long-term software support, though. There's no good reason we need to be replacing our phones (and a lot of other electronics) as often as most of us currently do.
triceratops 5y ago
But if phones cost 4x what they do now, as GP suggests, people would replace their phone far less frequently.
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  Yes. The root cause of unsustainability is still something horrible - the abuse of labor - but not literally the same as environmental goals. This is a case where intersectionality really shines. You really can align goals because ending labor abuse is good for the environment. Likewise, with meat, the root cause of unsustainability is the animal abuse that enables cheap meat. I'm definitely not blaming the consumer here. Of course you could make sustainable meat, it would just cost 10-400x more (Eating Animals is a great, broad take on this you could read).