Conflict Minerals and the Game Industry: The Problem

[KingGolem]

And thirdly, I'm truly hoping that the comment above ("I don't feel a single twinge of pity for the Africans, and encourage their exploitation, because I fear that stopping it would interrupt the flow of resources.") is pure satire, as it is literally the same mindset that King Leopold II had.

It's not. Stop assuming that, please.

I find the irony of this section of your post delicious. You are decrying liberal economic policies, yet complaining about how entitled you are to cheap electronics that you can live without.

What are you talking about? I don't claim to be entitled to anything. I want cheap electronics, so by extension I want the minerals to say cheap by whatever means necessary.

You seem to be under the misconception that all this chaos in the DRC is somehow benefiting you. Sure, slave labour makes things cheaper but that saving is mitigated at least in part by the lack of regulation that allows it to exist in the first place. Let's compare this to the sweat shops in China. There you have cheap labour making cheap goods that are quickly exported to the glorious USA, critically all this is done in an evironment of stability.

That's an interesting point. I suppose that the present situation is actually less than ideal, due to the instability. A better system would indeed be if it became like China, a petty dictatorship whose laborers worked for pennies on the hour. That's why China is such a great trading partner. However, the ideal solution that this article seems to be suggesting would be if the Congo became a stable, equitable society, with things like minimum wage and regulations and such. That, I think, would be even worse, because then they wouldn't be able to produce the minerals as cheaply (what with having to pay their workers fairly, and provide for their safety, and all), and they might not export as much, instead using some to develop their own country.

Also I believe you are trolling.

I insist you are mistaken. You can disagree with me all you like, but if you think I am being dishonest, I must take exception.

If you, in your self-centred little world, want to keep enjoying the benefits of technology created from international materials, then you will surely understand that you need a sustainable, stable environment in which to provide the resources with which to make that technology. That is currently not the situation in the Congo. The entire process of mining for minerals is beset by primitive mining techniques, exploitative price gouging and armed conflict.

I believe this is similar to the point Alexnader brought up. The ideal situation, I think, would be for one of these factions to take over and set up a permanent petty dictatorship, so they can focus on gathering minerals in an orderly fashion and cheaply. Also, don't forget that the technology is not manufactured in the Congo, it's made in China and Japan. The Congolese need only supply the ore.

Now, this is of course ignoring the elephant in the room that is basic goddamn empathy. The above reasoning should explain in real terms why conflict minerals are bad for humanity. But I shouldn't even have to use that reasoning. A process which uses violence, rape and economic extortion to continue is a process which is inherently bad. It has nothing to do with economic value, and everything to do with takign pity on your fellow man. Even kids can understand that!

That may be an elephant to you, but to me it is of no consequence. I don't believe anything is inherently bad, either, it's just the way we perceive it. The exploitation is bad for the Congolese, certainly, but as it supplies us with cheap minerals, it's good for the rest of us.

Just imagine how it would feel to be forced underground at gun-point to work for up to 48 hours digging away at earth, to earn next to nothing and have you and your family under constant threat of violence from armed militias. It would feel pretty shitty, right? So imagine how it feels for the people actually going through it.

Oh for crying out loud, this argument again? Do you assume I am ignorant of their suffering? I fully understand that their life is a living hell, and if it happened to me, it would be the worst thing ever. But it doesn't happen to me. If I were Congolese, I'd be outspoken against the oppression, as it would be detrimental to my self interests. As an American, however, the oppression supports my interests by making my electronics cheaper.

You know one of the clinical signs of sociopathy? A complete inability to empathise with the pain of others, and a refusal to see the world from anything other than an ego-centric view. You've displayed both in your replies, as well as a somewhat perverse glee towards the idea of violence ("It gets me gadgets! Yaaaay!"). If you aren't trolling, then I strongly suggest you get yourself checked by a shrink. And stay out of any job that gives you any degree of responsibility over other people.

I already have a psychiatrist, thank you, and he says I'm not crazy. Of course, he's not aware of these posts, but why would I show them to him? He might mistakenly think something is wrong with me. You call me a sociopath? I say, "pragmatist." I can focus on what's important, me, without having to worry about inconsequential things like the suffering of others.

 

[Vizanto]

..........inconsequential things like the suffering of others.

No, you're totally a sociopath.

 

[WhiteWolfe]

Although I think that KingGolem has said some things that make him seem horribly unfeeling, I do agree at least a bit with some things he has said. Mainly that yeah it is horrible what is happening there, but I don't think we have to go around being the karma police.

Do I think what is happening is horrible, offensive, and shocking? Yes.

Do I want to pick up a gun or send my money towards some sort of humanitarian effort? Not particularly. They don't seem to respond to positively to outside influence and I have bills to pay.

If the UN wants to go in there, more power to them, but it's not my job to end oppression.

 

[Sonicron]

What a weird coincidence. This was basically the focus of my studies two semesters back.
Good thing it's getting some public attention. Thank you, Mr Rath.

 

[Zerstiren]

Does anyone know what the ratio of recycled minerals to mining is? Or is it impossible to make a more advanced computer using components recycled from older computers?

 

[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.