Originally Posted by
Jeremiah
I’m always skeptical of the implications from documentaries like these; the unintended consequences of any action. It’s not that there is no victim, only who is the victim? This is a property rights question. I remember reading economic literature sometime back on the unintended consequences of the UN cracking down on third-world child labor. What seemed like a noble cause that succeeded in getting children out of textile factories inadvertently increased the supply of child prostitution thought out the world’s underground economy of slave trafficking. This is not to say that textile factories shouldn’t have better practices for child safety but there are consequences for our actions.
Notice how these films are not edited and filmed using 80/90’s technology? I would venture to say that this new tech was purchased for this film endeavor, and what of the old tech? Was it recycled properly? How do they know? And what is proper recycling? Reuse? Refurbish? Melting? I have family in Central America that will take any of my left over printers, cell phones, TV’s, etc. Because there is still a market for use in these poor countries. Should I deny them reuse to instead see that it is melted properly domestically? There are too many issues this film does not address.
This is similar to the problems I have with my church's mission work. We go to third world countries and want to change their lifestyle standards, give them our lifestyle, and conveniences, and so on. Instead of going out spreading the Gospel we try to lift up people that aren't truly poor, they are poor by our standards, but by their standards they're not too terribly off. I am currently at odds with our missionary director because when we go back next year I want to start working with them to start doing sustainable farming instead of our mission monies going to buy them seed every year, teach them to keep back 10% of their farmed product for replanting. </rant>
Bookmarks