Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren’t for the smartphones you’d be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I’ve seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren’t some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it’s not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn’t necessary because we’ve rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that’s very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say “we could feed the hungry”.
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It’s weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that’s fine but when it’s we who might have to make sacrifices, that’s morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires “giving up their stuff” or making a “sacrifice”. This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “complicity” in this particular discussion, you’ll have to clarify.
Unclear. Are you referring to human rights abuses in cobalt mining? Are you talking specifically or abstractly? About a specific industry or generally? Individually or at the national level?
My point is that the majority of stuff that is harming or will harm the most needy in the world is because of our individual choices.
Cobalt mining, climate change, sweatshops etc are because of our complacency and are only solved if we as a people have more empathy and consider the consequences of our lifestyles.
But that’s a harder banner to rally around than “boooo billionaires.”
However also, for many many people smartphones are their only way to access the internet, and it’s the primary device for computing in poorer nations I believe
If there’s one “essential” electronic device these days, it’s the smartphone.
There are some folks sure but for the majority of people wasting time on Lemmy, I doubt that’s the case. And yes, we can make up a heartbreaking example and just as easily I could point to a billionaire like Bill Gates who has done more to improve the world than most governments achieve. Or, as much as I dislike him, Elon Musk or more accurately, Statlink, without which Kyiev would have fallen months, maybe years ago.
The point though is that it’s super easy to rail about billionaires but in reality serious change comes from the people. We’re the ones who make sweatshops a thing, who eat so much beef that it’s a huge contributor to global warning, who fly and drive everywhere for vacations etc. But that would take self reflection and maybe cause an ounce od shame so instead, “boooo billionaires.”
Weird gotcha. What is this the early 2000s when smartphones were rich people toys?
Late 80s !
Globally, they still are. Almost half the world doesn’t have one. And children still lose their limbs mining the cobalt etc.
I guess the question could be better phrased as “and what are you personally giving up to ensure that as many people as possible are fed?”
Yea I assumed that your main point was some kind of sacrifice, not the smartphones themselves. If it weren’t for the smartphones you’d be phrasing your gotcha around TVs, or washing machines, or fridges, or indoor plumbing. I’ve seen this very conservative argument before.
Progressivism and leftism aren’t some kind of ascetic christianity and nobody needs a morality preacher. Social progress is not about individual morality. And it’s not a zero sum game either.
There is enough food production and wealth in the world to eliminate hunger and extreme poverty already. I could be a selfish asshole not willing to part with my sneaker collection and that would still be the case.
Maybe there is a future where carrying around a smartphone isn’t necessary because we’ve rebuilt human connection in communities. The damn things are addictive misery machines under capitalism anyway. But that’s very different from going around wagging the finger at people that say “we could feed the hungry”.
Indoor plumbing has actually done wonders in the developing world.
It’s weird though, when the argument is billionaires should give up their stuff, that’s fine but when it’s we who might have to make sacrifices, that’s morality preaching? Seems incredibly conveniently selective.
I get that no one likes thinking of themselves as complicit but that seems a pretty poor foundation for ideology.
Nobody is talking about billionaires “giving up their stuff” or making a “sacrifice”. This is about wresting ownership of the means of production away from the capitalists. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “complicity” in this particular discussion, you’ll have to clarify.
Removed by mod
Unclear. Are you referring to human rights abuses in cobalt mining? Are you talking specifically or abstractly? About a specific industry or generally? Individually or at the national level?
My point is that the majority of stuff that is harming or will harm the most needy in the world is because of our individual choices.
Cobalt mining, climate change, sweatshops etc are because of our complacency and are only solved if we as a people have more empathy and consider the consequences of our lifestyles.
But that’s a harder banner to rally around than “boooo billionaires.”
However also, for many many people smartphones are their only way to access the internet, and it’s the primary device for computing in poorer nations I believe
If there’s one “essential” electronic device these days, it’s the smartphone.
Yeah not as much in the rich world.
There are some folks sure but for the majority of people wasting time on Lemmy, I doubt that’s the case. And yes, we can make up a heartbreaking example and just as easily I could point to a billionaire like Bill Gates who has done more to improve the world than most governments achieve. Or, as much as I dislike him, Elon Musk or more accurately, Statlink, without which Kyiev would have fallen months, maybe years ago.
The point though is that it’s super easy to rail about billionaires but in reality serious change comes from the people. We’re the ones who make sweatshops a thing, who eat so much beef that it’s a huge contributor to global warning, who fly and drive everywhere for vacations etc. But that would take self reflection and maybe cause an ounce od shame so instead, “boooo billionaires.”