Here's my Desert Island Five:
- James Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"
- Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses"
- Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita"
- Whitley Strieber's "Communion"
- Alan Lightman's "Einstein's Dreams"
By refusing to enable corporations by purchasing their products, an ethical person reduces the amount they participate in the destruction of the world. Which is a very good thing.
A boycott is only meaningful if it has conditions: I'm boycotting you because of X, and if you stop doing X I'll stop boycotting you. That kind of boycott puts pressure on corporations to reform. If enough people boycott companies that engage in unfair labor practices or environmental exploitation, the companies will be forced to adopt more ethical practices if they want to keep making money.
Freeganism, though, boycotts all companies that produce food. The goal being to force the companies to -- what? stop producing food? Yeah, there's a great goal. A universal boycott puts no pressure on companies to stop "destroying the world," because even if they stop destroying the world you still won't buy their food! All they can do to win you back as a customer is to start selling something other than food -- and it's not clear how that makes the world a better place.
By not consuming, you are boycotting EVERYTHING! ... That should help you get to sleep at night.
Yeah, that'll put a lot of pressure on corporations to change their policies so that -- oh, wait, you'll still be boycotting them no matter what they do, because you're boycotting EVERYTHING.
How is this a good idea, again?
Here's my Desert Island Five: - James Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" - Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" - Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" - Whitley Strieber's "Communion" - Alan Lightman's "Einstein's Dreams"
posted by cubeless_academian 20 years ago
In "Why Freeganism?"
By refusing to enable corporations by purchasing their products, an ethical person reduces the amount they participate in the destruction of the world. Which is a very good thing. A boycott is only meaningful if it has conditions: I'm boycotting you because of X, and if you stop doing X I'll stop boycotting you. That kind of boycott puts pressure on corporations to reform. If enough people boycott companies that engage in unfair labor practices or environmental exploitation, the companies will be forced to adopt more ethical practices if they want to keep making money. Freeganism, though, boycotts all companies that produce food. The goal being to force the companies to -- what? stop producing food? Yeah, there's a great goal. A universal boycott puts no pressure on companies to stop "destroying the world," because even if they stop destroying the world you still won't buy their food! All they can do to win you back as a customer is to start selling something other than food -- and it's not clear how that makes the world a better place.
posted by cubeless_academian 20 years ago
By not consuming, you are boycotting EVERYTHING! ... That should help you get to sleep at night. Yeah, that'll put a lot of pressure on corporations to change their policies so that -- oh, wait, you'll still be boycotting them no matter what they do, because you're boycotting EVERYTHING. How is this a good idea, again?
posted by cubeless_academian 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)