Norbert Bollow wrote: > Yes, sure, but at the same time, it makes sense with respect to any > given project to limit attention to what can conceivably be affected > (positively or negatively) by that project. > Being a pragmatist, I agree with you to an extent. However in this context, limiting the attention to what can be conceivably be affected would include the users rights as well. If we toss those out, we're really not trying to solve the problem on hand - just the symptoms. > Let's consider for a moment the quotation from the "High Tech No > Rights?" roundatable http://www.archive.org/details/hightechnorights_geneva > which Claude Almansi gave in her recent posting: > > "Despite the positive inputs from more progressive brands beginning > early 2007, long-term problems still persisted in their Chinese > supplier factories. They include substandard wages, excessive work > hours, poor occupational health and safety, no rights to employment > contracts and resignation, and no communication of corporate codes > of conduct to workers." > > I would suggest that this sounds very much like a modern form of > slavery. > Actually, I think it more akin to indentured labor, but the point remains the same. > In my opinion, silently accepting this kind of situation is very > clearly totally unacceptable when one is at the same time making > use of technical equipment from these sources. > And yet the source is itself a developing country with a digital divide of it's own. That very same country employs people to 'work' in virtual worlds by 'farming' products that are otherwise difficult to get. The point is that the technical knowledge necessary to create those things is actually something that is not a bad thing. While I do have issues about China's occupation of Tibet, I do not believe that they have guns to the heads of Tibetan Buddhist Monks to produce cheap laptops.
Indeed, entrepreneurship in China has increased - something noteworthy in a communist country. Things are changing, and those things may not be fast enough - but they are changing. In contrast, unemployed consumers of products in the United States may well envy having income that the employees of a Chinese manufacturer have. By the same logic, too, people probably shouldn't eat bananas or drink coffee. Or use any form of petroleum. > I would say that this is a matter of principle which is totally > independent of whether there are others on the planet who are even > worse off... > I cannot agree. We are all connected, even if we do not recognize it. A person in China makes parts of technology we all use. A person in India/Russia writes a part of software that we may use. A media outlet in the United States can make or break a product (or even get the public behind a war with no evidence). A diamond bought from South Africa may have blood on it. Pitch used on roads throughout the world is connected to Trinidad and Tobago. Aid from any number of people goes to countries based on which country has the most press pushing for aid. In simplifying, are we solving the equation or are we making an equation we are comfortable solving? > In other words, I would suggest to interpret "human rights" as an > obligation to insist that one's (direct and indirect) trade partners > should verifiably adhere to resonable standards of conduct in how > they treat people. > Then it must be done universally - not selectively. Take a look around your house and really think about where stuff comes from. -- Taran Rampersad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com http://www.opendepth.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by Creating" - Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
