How Many Slaves Work For You?

This felt like a bit of a punch in the stomach. From this survey's estimate, I have thirty five "slaves" (children who went to work at age 5, forced, and are only released when they hit 30) working their asses for my little comforts.

As I filled the survey, I found out how many, many things that I took for granted, or that I felt inadequate for not having, relied on incredibly questionable labour.

I think I'm going to be much more sober and measured in my consumption, from now on.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I've got 31 slaves.

Yay...

edited 24th Nov '12 2:44:50 PM by Ekuran

You're doing pretty damn well.

Did you, at any point, feel that strange conflicted feeling of feeling inadequate because you don't own all that allegedly basic stuff, feeling relieved that you didn't engage even more slavery than you already do, and feeling ashamed of the harm you've already enabled?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

...

Edited by fanty on Sep 28th 2019 at 2:37:40 PM

Limiting consumption is never a bad thing, but my instinct is that there's only so much that can do.

In seems like we should be leaning on the local governments to solve the problem. Even if we managed to boycott and shut down these industries, the conditions that made slavery possible in the first place wouldn't change. They might even get worse as the money-making opportunities in the country shrink even further.

I'm of the opinion that not consuming is not the solution as companies will find other ways to exploit people.

The way to go is to pressure companies to do things ethically.

The problem there is that if one company stops dealing with a country where slavery is practiced, others will take their place. Even if none of the companies are western companies, slavery might still occur in the local economy.

The pressure should be applied to the governments, both to enforce laws against these practices, and to avoid the conditions that give rise to them.

@Handle: I feel nothing but disappointment at the state our world currently is in.

We should do both.

I only got 60. Oddly, this is apparently because of my clothing, half of which are military uniforms, which I think should exempt me from a large chunk of it.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Are your uniforms actually made in USA? I thought even the flags were mostly made in China nowadays?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

53 slaves. First world, I am dissapoint. That's not NEARLY enough slaves for Queen Alma.

edited 24th Nov '12 3:27:49 PM by Alma

You need an adult.

23 slaves. I think I need to buy some more if I'm ever going to catch up.

Unfortunately, the way to stop slavery is economic development, which requires political development and long-term thinking at the expense of short-term profits...short of some kind of massive international effort, Africa is pretty much fucked. I've been wrong before, though.

The private sector in general doesn't like long-term thinking. This is why governments kind of do need to have clout. And, not be so darned corrupt that they're virtually owned by private interests.

Yes, Africa... you can start waving, now.

edited 24th Nov '12 3:42:45 PM by Euodiachloris

25, mostly because I own very few clothes, and my medicine cabinet consisted of ibuprofen, toothpaste/brush, a contact lense case, soap, and shampoo.

And for clothes... It starts the slider at 50 as the middle ground?! I didn't count my military uniforms, so I have like 12 shirts, 5 pairs of pants, 4 sets of shoes(counting my boots) such. Who the fuck has 50 pairs of shoes?

Anyway, it didn't really touch me emotionally since there is pretty much no way to have the bare essentials without having some number attached to you.

edited 24th Nov '12 4:01:47 PM by Barkey

I can't think of many examples of governments showing long-term thinking.

I don't disagree that governments need clout, but keep in mind that each new power of government is a new opportunity for corruption.

Every enterprise involving humans is an opportunity for corruption; the difference between a government and a company is that a government is (in a democracy) accountable to its citizens, and is supposed to act in their best interests rather than simply seeking profits.

If you think that governments can't think in the long-term, I guess you don't use state-funded roads or railways? Or you haven't been immunised by a government scheme as a child?

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

51, though most of that seems to come from long-outdated game systems that I still own or have bought used from flea markets/eBay (PlayStation or Saturn, anyone?).

edited 24th Nov '12 4:19:05 PM by TrashJack

Well, another more important difference is that*

If the government is doing their job

association with a company is voluntary, whereas association with a government is backed by force. Governments tend to be accessories to the worst corporate crimes, because even in a democracy money talks.

I don't see how those show that government is better at thinking long term than the private sector. The private sector has done those things historically. Yes, they were motivated by money, but politicians are, at best, motivated by voter approval.

EDIT: Also, let me clarify my earlier comment, about opportunities for corruption. Say the government passes a law saying your business needs to be inspected. Now, you may need to bribe an inspector if you want to keep operating. The might provide all kinds of oversight, channels to complain if the inspector extorts you, etc, but the best thing they can do to prevent bribery/extortion is to not inspect you. Let's say the government is thinking about banning certain products from the market. Your competitors are going to lobby to ban yours, and you may retaliate in kind. You'll both be pumping money into the process, which wouldn't happen if the possibility of banning those products was not brought up.

The best way to limit corruption is to have clearly defined limits to the powers of government. Too much complexity makes the abuses invisible.

edited 24th Nov '12 4:46:50 PM by Topazan

I got an interminable loading screen. For the sake of study, I will assume that this loading screen was staffed by a thousand slaves.

^

Had the same, hit refresh.

The site doesnt work for me (is it configured for mobile only?).

Anyway, this is like being told that for every X miles you drive in an SUV, you kill a child in Africa, or finding out that dog owners add Y amount to global warming.

Of course, there is a certain amount of statistical spin being used in scenarios like these. I don't doubt that child laborers (not slaves usually, but bad enough so we'll let that pass) contribute some percent to the raw materials being used in common consumer products in the West. There are all sort of issues involved here, though. If we didn't buy these things, would these kids end up somewhere better off? Might they even be worse off? I've seen it argued both ways by different professional economists, so the issue isn't clear, leaving the moral responsibility of global consumers somewhat ambiguous. And I cant see how the math adds up- if every consumer who takes the test ends up with 10-100 "slaves" supporting them, then something like 90-99% of the world's population must be child laborers. That cant be right, of course. It would seem to me that the beans which go into a single cup of coffee could be picked by one child in less than an hour, so I'm guessing that, at worst, "20 slaves" really means a fraction of the total annual labor of 20 children (and that would have to be an average). Being meticulously precise about it though might seem less compelling, so the website is surely "simplifying" the results for us.

In any case, I feel pretty strongly that the best way to help these children isn't to buy less things from them. That would just result in shifting the labor (and wages) away to someone else, and I bet they (and their families, and their communities) could use the money. The most effective response is to donate to organizations that work to improve living conditions for children around the world. Charity Watch rates children and family charities in terms of how effective and efficient they are. For example, ChildFund International will allow you to sponsor a specific child and receive reports on their well-being. Here you can learn about (and contribute to) research on international child poverty. And this article summarizes a recent OECD report which found that government spending on child welfare doesn't correlate all that well with welfare outcome. It's conclusion included "...conditional cash transfers (like grants for mothers who get a prenatal screening, or child tax credits) are hailed as a way to nudge poorer families toward better health care for children. The study also urges a shift in spending from teenage years to the prenatal period and early childhood..." The US did particularly poorly in that study, so for some of us, improving global child welfare starts at home.

The best thing most of us can do, I think, is volunteer where we live, contribute what we can, and vote for officials who support fighting child poverty.

I had to use IE to get it to work right. Chrome fails.

I had a score of 42. Diapers apparently have an effect, despite being made out of corn husks (thanks for the ethanol mandate, gov't...) Oddly, they're made in Mexico.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

The uniform undershirts and the uniform items themselves are. I actually don't know about the patches and insignia, but I believe they are. I suspect the household electronics account for a big chunk of it too.

Chrome failed for me, but Firefox failed. I suspect that it's not designed for mobile either, though the site says it works on iPads.

I think it's more like every person who takes the test is using a portion of the labor of those X slaves; probably each "slave" is supporting a few dozen First World people.

We mostly use cloth diapers, which according to the label were made in New Zealand. Maybe they outsource their child slavery?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Thus Humor Mode from me. This is a rather transparent attempt at tugging heartstrings. Not to be snide, but... Critical thinking, people.

It's a little like saying if everyone (or one very rich person) donated a dollar to charity, poverty wouldn't exist, which is just blithe ignorance of the economy. If poverty could really be eliminated by a single rich person's donation, it would have happened already—unless Humans Are Bastards, which I don't believe to be the case. Not to say that there isn't a lack of fucks being given in this department, but from what I understand, it's really not that simple.

edited 24th Nov '12 6:47:35 PM by Alma

You need an adult.

For their defense, at no point do they recommend buying less things as an appropriate answer.

Actually the main reason I would consume less is because of sustainability issues. I feel entitled to a lifestyle that every human can share, and which the planet can sustain. Living above that, I think, is inherently unfair. This is one of the cases where we really do have a zero-sum-game.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.