Conflict Minerals and the Game Industry: The Problem

[Lonan]

What KingGolem is saying sounds quite like what a psychopath might say, but whether or not he is doing this intentionally, he is very much representative of society when our narrow self-interest is threatened.

For example, in Canada, we had a debate about whether or not we should be in Afghanistan. People on the left would say we should pull out because our professional, adult, soldiers (the poor dears) were getting killed, because ITS A WAR. People would say that the Afghans don't want us there, and should not interfere with Afghan affairs, the usual anti-interventionist bullshit from leftist, high-living westerners talking about a place that doesn't even have farms without landmines in them, much less politics to "interfere" with.

When it was made abundantly clear that Canadian soldiers want to be in Afghanistan helping the people there, the mood on the left shifted too, and I could quote this from many different people, "if soldiers wnat to stay in Afghanistan, they can do it on their own dime." Suddenly, our precious soldiers, who before were the innocent victims of big bad Ottawa and the war-mongering Conservatives, had become the enemy. They were in the way of pulling out of Afghanistan. People did not want to prevent girls from having acid thrown over their eyes because they went to school, or children killed because their parents helped NATO. These people are no less sociopathic than KingGolem, but I'm sure they would make some moralistic bullshit for why they can't fork over some pocket change to bring education to girls in Afghanistan, and reduce the terror wrought by the Taliban.

 

[guitarsniper]

Interesting article. As someone who's currently working on my first custom PC build, I've been having trouble trying to find individual parts manufacturers who are particularly sustainable/conflict free.
More OT: I feel like there's several different roads that can be traveled here, not necessarily mutually exclusive
1) Buy carefully and reduce demand.
2) Assist in economic and social development in the Congo. The West isn't necessarily very good at this.
3) Increase recycling of electronics where possible

 

[KingGolem]

So... focus on the mineral wealth, and damn the cost of human life, is it? You are aware that the only reason that humanity was able to actually evolve into a being capable of society, civilisation and those gadgets you seem to love is because we stopped being loners and started looking out for each other.

Who said anything about being a loner? It is certainly possible to work with others completely out of self-interests, so long as all members make themselves useful to each other. It?s called quid pro quo, and I?d say it?s been a much more integral driving force than empathy.

Good and evil may not exist objectively, but you know what? Even if they're human constructs, they're still damn important constructs. It is notions of good and evil that prevent the world from devolving into outright war and chaos. It is notions of good and evil that allow millions of people to get by everyday without murdering each other.

The same is true of good and evil. So don't give me this moral relativism crap.

That?s interesting, because what gets me through the day without murdering people or sewing chaos is fear of legal prosecution. You know, self-interests again. I don?t want to go to prison, so I better not break any laws.

See, most regular people, after thinking about the issue, would not feel good about the idea of electronics being made cheaper by the rape, suffering and deaths of innocent people out in the Congo. Yet you seem to take a perverse glee in it. You are the only person I've ever met who has actually tried to argue for rape, violence and murder. You have said yourself that it is justified in making your goods cheaper.

I think you?re characterizing me wrong. I don?t take perverse glee in the suffering of the Congolese, I support it because it benefits me. Also, when you say ?justified,? I fear we may be referring to two different meanings. Perhaps you would require moral justification for certain things, but for me, I look at life like a balance sheet. If something results in a net gain for myself, that?s all the justification I need.

...sorry, were you trying to argue against being classed a sociopath? You've just made my argument better than I could ever have hoped to.

The point I was getting at was that even if you consider me a sociopath, it clearly does not impair my ability to function. In fact, I?d say it increases my ability to reason, as this conversation further demonstrates.

I want cheap electronics, so by extension I want the minerals to say cheap by whatever means necessary.

You are quite very much entitled.

That is not entitlement at all. Entitlement is when you claim to have a right to something, a defensible claim to it. I don?t have a right to fancy electronics or the oppression of the Congolese, I merely support them. I?m stating my interests, not my entitlements.

 

[Syzygy23]

Worst case scenario is we stop buying their minerals, and the militias cannot find any other way to profit off these people... well they don't need to be alive anymore, do they?

Sounds like you've been watching too many James Bond movies lately.

In real life, people don't generally don't pull the old "You have outlived your usefulness/your reward is DEATH! MWAHAHAHA!" schtick.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I'm all for not contributing to the problem, but lets not play make believe like children and pretend that if we don't buy these resources as they become available then somebody else will.

This problem won't simply go away when we stop contributing to it.

 

[KingGolem]

You believe yourself to be deserving of such benefits that are only available through extraordinary circumstances.

No, I don't. What is so hard to understand about this? I don't claim to deserve them, I just want them.

Also, go ahead and show your psychiatrist the posts where you talk about having fantasies about murdering people and "sewing chaos". Then explain that it is merely your ability to "reason". You sound very convincing.

Now it's my turn to be confused: which posts are these? I don't believe I've mentioned any such fantasies in this whole discussion. In fact, in the very post that you quoted:

That?s interesting, because what gets me through the day without murdering people or sewing chaos is fear of legal prosecution. You know, self-interests again. I don?t want to go to prison, so I better not break any laws.

Where are you getting the idea that I wish to murder people and sew chaos? I think you may be mistaken: I support the murder and chaos presently at work in the Congo because it assists me, but I would never do it myself. That sort of thing carries severe personal consequences.

And the reason I don't bring this up with my psychiatrist is because I suspect he would fail to understand just as terribly as you have.

Perhaps you were being facetious... I think I understand you, though I can't help but think that you are finding some pleasure in obfuscation.

You can't understand me, no matter how much I try to explain myself, so you conclude that I'm deliberately obfuscating my point? Disgusting. The problem is with your failure to comprehend. I feel that trying to explain it any further to you, when I've already made it as clear as I possibly can, would be a hopeless effort.

 

[KingGolem]

Let us be clear then. What sort of "personal consequences" do you fear that prevent you from behaving in a morally reprehensible manner? Prison time? Your conscience? What?

In civilized countries, legal prosecution, including prison time, is the main deterrent to "morally reprehensible" behavior, as you call it. In lawless, savage lands like the Congo, there is still the potential for retribution. Opposing factions constantly war with one another, and serving for one means becoming a target for all the others.

 

[TheEndlessGrey]

Worst case scenario is we stop buying their minerals, and the militias cannot find any other way to profit off these people... well they don't need to be alive anymore, do they?

Sounds like you've been watching too many James Bond movies lately.

In real life, people don't generally don't pull the old "You have outlived your usefulness/your reward is DEATH! MWAHAHAHA!" schtick.

I'm not saying they would immediately go in and kill the whole village, but if the people in charge are willing to rape and murder in order to keep the workers under their thumb, what makes you think they won't kill a bunch of people in order to make the size of their herd more manageable? They maintain their power through fear and violence, and they go through the effort of spreading fear and violence because they need the miners to acquire the wealth buried in their land. If the miners are no longer useful, why keep an excess of potential dissenters around? First sign that they're more trouble to manage than they're worth, I'd expect an example to be made.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

How do we westerns make changes to a remote foreign locale?

Well the traditional method is to give financial and material backing to one specific group in the region, sit back, ignore the carnage, and reap the cut price resources.

There's also the option of invasion and installing a friendly puppet government (because who'd install an unfriendly puppet government?). If this puppet government turns out to be a kleptocratic junta... well, you can't make an omlette without executing a few hostages.

You could also organise a large celebrity event to raise public awareness and generate enough funds to pay for all the celebrities and media types. 10c from every DVD of the event sold could be donated to an organisation dedicated to keeping the public aware.

There's a radical school of thought that puts forward the best way to address the situation is to increase the demand for minerals to a point where they're all mined out of the region in question within 20 years and all the local thugs and warlords and corrupt officials retire wealthy and take up golf.

 

[KingGolem]

You feel that it is in your rights to support such an industry because you want electronic trinkets that do not in any way aid in your survival.

Why do you keep bringing up this "rights" issue? You are making no sense at all. You say that I feel entitled to these things, but I say, no, I just want them. Then you say that I "feel that it is in my rights to support such an industry." Why? How do you make the leap from desire to entitlement?

You feel that you can profit from this type of activity unrestrained, to the point where you do not face legal consequences. These types of industries lead to warlords acquiring weaponry and expanding their operations. The cash flow from these minerals is very high. It can be used by anyone who seizes control or partakes in the aid of the flow. Terrorist groups, for instance.

It seems to me that the factions of the Congo are preoccupied with controlling the mines, rather than destroying Western civilization. They're channeling all their savagery against each other, thus keeping each other in check. Further, it appears that their motivation here is simple greed, rather than religious zealotry. If one faction were to take over the Congo, I think they'd just keep on working the mines, shipping out the minerals, and living like princes. Maybe commit a genocide or two against whatever other barbarian tribes they don't like. It seems rather unlikely that they would turn against America, when it is our demand for electronics that makes their minerals valuable. If they were to become a hotbed for terrorist activity, they might find themselves slapped with sanctions, undermining the source of their power. So in this case, no, I'm not worried about the scenario you mentioned. If it does come up, however, our military is nevertheless abundantly prepared to deal with it.

Surely being a potential target in one way or another, directly or indirectly is against your notion "self-interest"?

Now this is interesting. What is your objective at this point? It seems that you went from lecturing me on the importance of humanitarian ideals in society to thinking of potential drawbacks to the exploitation of the Congolese. Are you trying to convince me to care for my fellow human beings, or that exploiting the Congo is uneconomical?

 

[DjinnFor]

My opinion on the topic has already been stated:

Which shows this is not a western problem, or a trade problem, it's a local problem, and a problem of what's normal in that locale. The problem must therefore be adressed by chances to the locale.

How do we westerns make changes to a remote foreign locale? Uh... we pretty much can't, since we neither run the country nor make it's culture.

Basically ^this.

The Congo, ladies and gentlemen: viable evidence that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" don't correct bupkus.

...Not really.

(Going to ignore the double negative there)

The invisible hand oddly enough, only really works in capitalist markets, not Laissez-faire systems.

Congo is not a Laissez-faire system. Most of the perpetrators of the violence established in the article are members of the Congolese army. Congo is more appropriately described as Fascist given the size of it's army relative to everything else it's government does.

So of course the invisible hand isn't working perfectly there; it was never argued that it would do so.

snip

Sounds like Objectivism that got hijacked by moral nihilism halfway through to the conclusion. I hope you know that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former.

 

[Callate]

The Congo, ladies and gentlemen: viable evidence that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" don't correct bupkus.

...Not really.

(Going to ignore the double negative there)

Implying your superiority by "ignoring" a double negative in a commonly recognized colloquialism, even while dismissing the statement out of hand. How "gracious".

In the narrow sense, Smith stated that in the preference of an individual to support domestic industry over foreign, he inadvertently served the public interest even while solely intending to serve "his own security". "...He intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

In the broader sense- in which Smith in general and the "invisible hand" statement in particular is cited by economists of various stripes- Smith implies that merchants often serve the public good by trying to serve their own, and that outside attempts to regulate those same "assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." And further: "If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful."

In the DRC, a lack of regulation has led to children being used in mines to extract valuable minerals (among other conditions, some explained in the article) which most would consider to be harmful to the society. A worldwide tolerance for and unwillingness to regulate these conditions- whether through embargo, sanctions, or other means- allows the Congo to persist as simply the least expensive provider of those materials. The "merchants" in this case are supporting an economy which is destructive of their security- whether they're the people mining in unsafe conditions, those packing the ore to the markets and risking assault for their valuable cargo, or merely the exporters whose work funnels money to all sides of never-ending violence in their back yard.

Ergo, as I stated in a rather more flippant fashion, it would appear the so-called "invisible hand" could be said to have failed to create self-regulation in what- however ugly- might be construed a "market".

It is, of course, an open question whether people would be better off, especially in the short term, if the trade in conflict minerals were eradicated; if, for example, children would cease being slave miners only to return to being child soldiers. If less money for guns would also mean less money for food. And beyond that, if it is even within the realm of feasibility for those outside the country to act in such a way as to create predictable change within it, especially given its long history of conflict.

But to say something is an "open question" is far from saying it's a rhetorical one. And I will be interested to hear what the second part of the article has to say on that matter.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Personally, I'm really interested about this article. Something as small as the materials needed to produce everday electronics is something so negligible that even the most perceptive person would probably miss it, and yet it's built on this extremely reprehensible and backwards system that clearly shows its age in morality and efficiency.

Also, because it's the big elephant in the room.

Opinion

... I don't feel like commenting on your opinion, because nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. Either you're an extremely efficient troll, or someone that I never want to meet in real life. They're your opinions, and while I may not agree with them, I respect them.

Can we end this argument now? We've reached the two extremes of morality here, and nothing one guy says is gonna convince the other.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

According to a New York Times article from 2008, a rogue unit of the Congolese Army made $300,000 to $600,000 a month in illegal taxes from holding a tin mine, and may have made as much as $80 million a year. The money buys guns, political influence, and ultimately power. With such unimaginable sums of money to be had, most militias have abandoned their political aims to focus on exploiting the land and their laborers.

How is $80 million per year an "unimaginable" sum of money? Companies routinely post numbers much larger than that for annual profits, losses, or revenue. It's not just imaginable, it's easily calculated.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Apple users and wal-mart shoppers have proven child labor, poisioned by working conditions, are acceptable as long as customers can't see them.

Uh, why mention those two companies in particular? The issue applies to almost any electronics manufacturer. It's not as if other companies use magic exploitation-free components made from pixie dust.

 

[Keith_F]

Let us be clear then. What sort of "personal consequences" do you fear that prevent you from behaving in a morally reprehensible manner? Prison time? Your conscience? What?

In civilized countries, legal prosecution, including prison time, is the main deterrent to "morally reprehensible" behavior, as you call it. In lawless, savage lands like the Congo, there is still the potential for retribution. Opposing factions constantly war with one another, and serving for one means becoming a target for all the others.

You failed to address his question. It is true that prison time and legal prosecution is the deterrent to immoral behaviour in western society. The question was what do you fear that prevents you from behaving in a morally reprehensible manner. Do you fear prison? If so, why?

 

[KingGolem]

You failed to address his question. It is true that prison time and legal prosecution is the deterrent to immoral behaviour in western society. The question was what do you fear that prevents you from behaving in a morally reprehensible manner. Do you fear prison? If so, why?

I thought it was self evident: prison sucks. I don't want to go to prison, or pay a fine, or be sentenced to community service, or whatever else, because they are unpleasant. If I am to maximize personal benefit, avoiding legal prosecution is the way to go.

 

[secretkeeper12]

Just a development related to this story: Fairphone [http://www.fairphone.com/] is a recent company founded last year that manufactures its smartphones using audited mines in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Their work reallu shows how fair, safe, and humane working conditions can be made reality for Africa's poorest.

Check out their on-the-grounds investigation!

http://www.fairphone.com/2014/10/02/research-trip-visiting-tin-tantalum-and-tungsten-mines/