Care to refute his assertions at all? I'm as irritated by monbiot as the next person, but here I think he is pretty correct. The congo is indeed kept in a state of perpetual war by our desire for so-cheap-they're-disposable electronics. This is well known and well documented.
His assertion that buying my children Christmas presents will be killing rhinos? Please. He ticks off a bunch of unrelated bad things that happen in the world as a result of consumption. He lists a bunch of stupid presents some people buy. And then he makes the illogical leap that if you give gifts you are guilty by association, trying to tarnish Christmas as it goes. This is almost perfect Guardian hard left sanctimoniousness.
Do you not have a cell phone because they are evil? I just upgraded to a nice new iPhone 5. I won't be disposing of it for many years. I wasn't aware that people tended to.
This shouldn't really be a HN story, as it is fundamentally political.
I am sure HNers have no problem discussing politics where it directly effected them - that's news. But where it effects others 'that's just politics'.
This is relevant because it is related to your / our actions. It is relevant because these 'bad' things are actually related. There was a time when we in the western world could claim ignorance.
And the reason he gets under your nose is he is a self described polemicist.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, ... unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Yes, he's a political polemicist, hence shouldn't be on HN. I wouldn't want to see a Fox News columnist on here either. (I don't like extreme politics of any shade. Yes, he is extreme, even if you agree with him.)
A serious discussion of how tantalum's use in electronics is damaging to the people of Congo would be appropriate, this is not.
That is one thing I like about monbiot, he references his work. I check his facts. Not all polemicists are the same. I have never seen a fox 'journalist' reference facts.
When a polemicist references another polemicist does that count as facts? I watched the "Story of Stuff" referenced in his article in a class this semester. At one point the claim was made that Chinese peasants are being “forced” into cities and leaving a lifestyle “that has sustained them for generations”. That’s not even a remotely balanced take on the situation. Urbanization in China has lifted millions of people out of grinding poverty.
Statistics proves that trade between nations reduces the likelihood of their engagement in wars (as documented, e.g., in Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature.) Therefore the western countries by buying cheap cell phones and what not made in poorer countries make them more peaceful (this of course in addition to helping hundreds of millions of people avoid extreme poverty.) If we followed the author's call and stopped buying things, wars would be more likely to start all over the world and many more people would be killed, probably also in Congo.
I'll refute it, Christmas gifts are also made of wood, our excessive consumption has lead to the complete halt of deforestation in Honduras, therefore if you'd like to prevent deforestation in Honduras you should keep consuming.
While the words of my point may be true, the overall meaning is bullshit because the deforestation stopped because there were no more trees left.
Also, I read his article on smartphone, if there were no content on the internet I would have no need for a smartphone, therefore reading mr. Monbiot's articles contribute to the massacre of the congo. He should probably stop writing lest he kill even more people.
He should probably also start talking about the wonders of North Korea where the people are so caring about the earth that they would rather starve than consume.
His assertions are all well documented, but by this line of reasoning combined a basic understanding of Economics, we are all guilty no matter what we consume or to what extent we consume it.
Like most, this article deals with the most proximal causes, but neglects to examine the way that the production of even unrelated goods can be related economically. Toning down the consumption of consumer electronics in the first world will likely do little to solve the situation. Just draft up the S+D curves and you can see why.
