The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
On Diamonds
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on January 18, 2010, 05:41:39 pm ---Well, you said no one was buying them. Market figures -- yup, "stats and more stats" -- show that, in fact, more people are buying them. More than two, actually.
--- End quote ---
Depends on your area. Don't see a lot of hybrids over here in the low income part of town. Don't see any, actually. Do see lots of pick up trucks though.
--- Quote ---So there you go. If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished.
--- End quote ---
Mexico is local to you? From my location it's over 500 miles away. I don't consider that local.
--- Quote ---Sure. I have lived in the Sun Belt (without central air, in fact) and am aware of this. But I don't see how it supports your point about how people should stop using oil. On the contrary, it sounds like, um, what I said about it being almost impossible to avoid using any oil.
--- End quote ---
No, I'm merely pointing out that stopping the usage of oil as a protest against human rights violaters would be more meaningful than not buying a trinket because oil is much more of a necessity.
--- Quote ---Nope. It's like realizing that if you dismiss any molehill-sized effort as pointless because it doesn't take down the whole mountain, then the mountain and all of the molehills are likely to stand undisturbed.
--- End quote ---
You can start filling in the Grand Canyon with a child's shovel and generations will pass before any good comes of it. Not very practical. I'd suggest remedies that are more timely and effective.
--- Quote ---Um, Del, you'd better go back and reread my earlier posts before you turn me into some kind of apologist for the oil industry, energy hogs and wars in the Middle East. What I actually said was that it's nearly impossible to use no oil, but that people most certainly are making many many laudable efforts to use less. I also pointed out that it's perfectly possible to use less oil AND buy fewer diamonds, simultaneously -- the two efforts are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would guess that the people doing one are among those potentially most likely to also do the other.
--- End quote ---
Well, here is where we disagree. Grand Canyon and child's beach shovel.
--- Quote ---And while you're at it, you might want to check out the title of this thread.
--- End quote ---
I didn't name this thread.
--- Quote ---OK, so what does that have to do with anything? On the one hand, you're saying reducing diamond purchases won't have enough effect on human-rights abuses overall. On the other hand, you're dragging in hip-hop artists -- whom you suggest couldn't possibly be aware of this controversy or participating in it, as if you'd surveyed the entire hip-hop community and found that there are none "not buying diamonds." And you imply that this supports some point. Which is, what, that nobody should bother reducing their diamond purchases because there will always be a ready supply of hip-hop artists to take their places? I'm just guessing; once again I am having trouble connecting your arguments to any overall point.
How do you know this? People don't buy diamonds very often.
--- End quote ---
Bingo. You just made my point. People don't buy diamonds very often. And then only those who can afford it do. So again, it's not much of a sacrifice toward the human rights issue to sacrifice by not buying them.
IMO, it's like some Catholic person giving up buying diamonds for Lent.
Do they buy diamonds that often?
No, not at all.
Then it's not much of a sacrifice, is it?
--- Quote ---So they probably don't see the movie and then immediately purchase -- or not purchase -- a diamond. But three years later, they could be getting engaged, on a roll in their hip-hop career, or whatever, and thinking about buying a diamond. But then, remembering what they learned in that movie, reconsider their plans.
--- End quote ---
Do you really think many people will remember the movie Blood Diamond, a mediocre, fomulaic movie years from now?
--- Quote ---Again, if fewer consumer buy diamonds, then the "people who matter -- the buyers" sure as hell DO care. How do you suppose industries operate? I work part time at Macy's. The store buys clothes and other products and then sells them to consumers. If consumers stop buying anything that Macy's sells, how do you suppose Macy's will be affected? If Macy's managers and buyers reassure themselves that it doesn't matter what retail customers do because they -- the buyers -- are the people "who matter," how long will Macy's stay in business?
--- End quote ---
Who makes more of an impact in the non-purchase of blood diamonds? Joe Citizen and his fiance Jane buying a solitaire or the COO of De Beers?
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on January 18, 2010, 08:05:26 pm ---Depends on your area. Don't see a lot of hybrids over here in the low income part of town. Don't see any, actually. Do see lots of pick up trucks though.
--- End quote ---
Well, see, that's where "stats and more stats" come in. That way you don't have to rely entirely on what you happen to see around your neighborhood. It's a big country, Del. Lots of different kinds of neighborhoods.
--- Quote ---Mexico is local to you? From my location it's over 500 miles away. I don't consider that local.
--- End quote ---
Hmm. Let's review. You said
--- Quote from: delalluvia on January 18, 2010, 04:42:24 pm --- since we're so close to Mexico...fresh produce you can't buy local in winter here is available from there. [shrug]
--- End quote ---
So I said
--- Quote from: serious crayons on January 18, 2010, 05:41:39 pm --- If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished
--- End quote ---
Eating in a way designed to save energy is partly about eating what's geographically closest -- it's not about what country it's from. If certain produce is out of season in Texas, but available in Mexico, it's more local to eat that stuff than what's shipped from Chile. (It actually gets more complicated than that, but I'm not going to go into the complications for fear they will steer us even further off topic than this Mexico/local thing already has.)
--- Quote ---No, I'm merely pointing out that stopping the usage of oil as a protest against human rights violaters would be more meaningful than not buying a trinket because oil is much more of a necessity.
--- End quote ---
Fine. No argument here. But again, the two are not mutually exclusive. What you're saying is like, volunteering to teach in a low-income school would be more meaningful than writing a check at a school fundraiser. So therefore, don't write a check at the fundraiser.
--- Quote ---You can start filling in the Grand Canyon with a child's shovel and generations will pass before any good comes of it. Not very practical. I'd suggest remedies that are more timely and effective.
--- End quote ---
Fine. If, to you, having everyone in the United States suddenly stop all use of oil seems not only "timely and effective" but practical and possible, go for it. I'm not trying to prevent you, god knows.
--- Quote ---I didn't name this thread.
--- End quote ---
You're participating in it. And to scornfully say that I "went on about diamonds" on a thread titled "On Diamonds" seems a little out of line.
--- Quote ---Bingo. You just made my point. People don't buy diamonds very often. And then only those who can afford it do. So again, it's not much of a sacrifice toward the human rights issue to sacrifice by not buying them.
--- End quote ---
Whoever claimed it was "much of a sacrifice"? We're talking about it as something people may consider doing if they support the issue. Not about whether to elevate those who do it to sainthood.
--- Quote ---IMO, it's like some Catholic person giving up buying diamonds for Lent.
--- End quote ---
OK. So?
--- Quote ---Then it's not much of a sacrifice, is it?
--- End quote ---
Please show me where I or anyone claimed it is some giant sacrifice.
--- Quote ---Do you really think many people will remember the movie Blood Diamond, a mediocre, fomulaic movie years from now?
--- End quote ---
Yes, people may forget plot points but I do think most viewers will retain its main point: that some -- not all -- diamonds are obtained in a way that adds to human misery.
--- Quote ---Who makes more of an impact in the non-purchase of blood diamonds? Joe Citizen and his fiance Jane buying a solitaire or the COO of De Beers?
--- End quote ---
We've now gone over and over how production and sales businesses work, and if you're still not getting it I guess I'm running out of things to say. Consumers like Joe and Jane have an impact because De Beers depends on their business. One couple's actions have, realistically, no impact. But if all the Joes and Janes in the world -- or a significant enough portion of them, plus or minus hip-hop artists -- stop buying diamonds, De Beers will displease stockholders and go out of business. If all these Joe and Janes make clear that their decisions are based on concern about blood diamonds, then De Beers may be careful that its stock doesn't include blood diamonds (which it already says is the case, BTW), or at least to make the public -- plus any government investigators, journalists, etc. -- believe that it doesn't.
Del, I think what you may be trying to say is NOT that the consumer habits of Joe and Jane Citizen aren't at all important compared to the companies they buy from, but that not enough of them are getting involved in this issue to make a difference to De Beers. That may or may not be true, but I can assure you that De Beers is very aware of this controversy and has a PR position on it, because it doesn't want to lose even a few customers, let alone a lot.
Hey, why didn't I think to check Wikipedia before? This is in the "De Beers" entry, and it gives much more detail about De Beers' position on this issue. "Conflict diamonds," of course, are another term for "blood diamonds."
--- Quote ---Conflict Diamonds and the Kimberley Process
Main articles: Blood diamond and Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
De Beers policy in the 1990s, which applied to all of Africa, was only to buy those diamonds that were legitimately traded and that it believed were not used to fund rebel groups, although as a leader in the industry they came under scrutiny and were widely believed to be a prominent dealer of conflict diamonds. In 1999, in line with a zero-tolerance policy, De Beers stopped all outside buying of diamonds in order to guarantee categorically the conflict-free status of De Beers diamonds.[39][40]
In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark UN resolution[41] supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. By November 2002, negotiations between governments, the international diamond industry and civil society organisations resulted in the creation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade and became effective in 2003.
De Beers states that 100% of the diamonds it now sells are conflict-free and that all De Beers diamonds are purchased in compliance with national law, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme[42] and its own Diamond Best Practice Principles.[29] The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply.[18]
--- End quote ---
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on January 18, 2010, 09:19:25 pm ---Well, see, that's where "stats and more stats" come in. That way you don't have to rely entirely on what you happen to see around your neighborhood. It's a big country, Del. Lots of different kinds of neighborhoods.
--- End quote ---
Yes there are and I'm fairly sure that there are a great many more low income people than upper income people, so I'm thinking that unless carmakers make hybrids that even low income people can afford, basically the advantages in driving hybrids won't really make an impact.
--- Quote ---Hmm. Let's review. You said
So I said
--- End quote ---
Sorry I meant it in the way that Mexico is a neighboring country from whom we get plenty of imports, not that it's convenient to the every day person where I live.
--- Quote ---Fine. No argument here. But again, the two are not mutually exclusive. What you're saying is like, volunteering to teach in a low-income school would be more meaningful than writing a check at a school fundraiser. So therefore, don't write a check at the fundraiser.
--- End quote ---
Not the same thing. A company is not a school.
--- Quote ---Fine. If, to you, having everyone in the United States suddenly stop all use of oil seems not only "timely and effective" but practical and possible, go for it. I'm not trying to prevent you, god knows.
--- End quote ---
And what would happen to OPEC if the U.S. suddenly switched to an alternate power source?
--- Quote ---You're participating in it. And to scornfully say that I "went on about diamonds" on a thread tiled "On Diamonds" seems a little out of line.
--- End quote ---
I was saying that people refusing to buy conflict diamonds is to stop money being channeled to groups who support human rights abuses and when I point out that it's a minimal effect and why not focus on a cause that really hits these groups in the pocketbook because of the huge investment in sales of oil, I found that my suggestion was shrugged off with 'oh but we need it' and then the focus put back on diamonds. To me, diamonds aren't the point of the thread, stopping funds to human rights abusers are.
--- Quote ---Whoever claimed it was "much of a sacrifice"? We're talking about it as something people may consider doing if they support the issue. Not about whether to elevate those who do it to sainthood.
--- End quote ---
No, to me, it's a throwaway effort. IMO, it's something people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause, when in fact, it's so minor an effort it's hardly worth it.
--- Quote ---Please show me where I or anyone claimed it is some giant sacrifice.
--- End quote ---
Then what's the point?
--- Quote ---Yes, people may forget plot points but I do think most viewers will retain its main point: that some -- not all -- diamonds are obtained in a way that adds to human misery.
--- End quote ---
Know anyone getting married recently? Have they not bought diamonds? Did they check to make sure they were not conflict diamonds? Most people I know didn't even go see Blood Diamond so they likely have no idea there is even a problem.
--- Quote ---We've now gone over and over how production and sales businesses work, and if you're still not getting it I guess I'm running out of things to say. Consumers like Joe and Jane have an impact because De Beers depends on their business. One couple's actions have, realistically, no impact. But if all the Joes and Janes in the world -- or a significant enough portion of them, plus or minus hip-hop artists -- stop buying diamonds, De Beers will displease stockholders and go out of business. If all these Joe and Janes make clear that their decisions are based on concern about blood diamonds, then De Beers may be careful that its stock doesn't include blood diamonds (which it already says is the case, BTW), or at least to make the public -- plus any government investigators, journalists, etc. -- believe that it doesn't.
Del, I think what you may be trying to say is NOT that the consumer habits of Joe and Jane Citizen aren't at all important compared to the companies they buy from, but that not enough of them are getting involved in this issue to make a difference to De Beers. That may or may not be true, but I can assure you that De Beers is very aware of this controversy and has a PR position on it, because it doesn't want to lose even a few customers, let alone a lot.
Hey, why didn't I think to check Wikipedia before? This is in the "De Beers" entry, and it gives much more detail about De Beers' position on this issue. "Conflict diamonds," of course, are another term for "blood diamonds."
--- End quote ---
The Wikipedia article made my point for me. De Beers wasn't waiting for scores of John and Janes to stop buying diamonds to make their decision. The head office made the decision and it was a huge impact and almost literally overnight. That's what I'm looking for. Wouldn't it be easier to convince one person - or a dozen people - (the COO or the operating officers of a company like De Beers) than to wait for a grassroots effort that may take years to have an effect? That's all I'm saying.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on January 19, 2010, 06:49:38 pm ---Yes there are and I'm fairly sure that there are a great many more low income people than upper income people,
--- End quote ---
Again, not something you have to rely on being "fairly sure" about -- stats are easily available online.
--- Quote ---Sorry I meant it in the way that Mexico is a neighboring country from whom we get plenty of imports, not that it's convenient to the every day person where I live.
--- End quote ---
Wait, did you think I was suggesting you should drive to Mexico for food? No. I meant the produce imported from Mexico won't travel as far as it would from, say, Chile.
--- Quote ---And what would happen to OPEC if the U.S. suddenly switched to an alternate power source?
--- End quote ---
I don't know. I guess if "suddenly switch(ing)" were a realistic option, we would find out. It's not.
--- Quote ---I was saying that people refusing to buy conflict diamonds is to stop money being channeled to groups who support human rights abuses and when I point out that it's a minimal effect and why not focus on a cause that really hits these groups in the pocketbook because of the huge investment in sales of oil,
--- End quote ---
Hunh? I really can't make sense of this scenario. Do you envision general "groups who support human rights abuses" and who take in money from a multitude of sources, a sort of Human Rights Abusers Inc.? No, there are groups who mine diamonds; some of them commit human-rights abuses, and if people stop buying diamonds these groups will be affected. There are other, different groups who profit from oil. That's why it's possible to consider BOTH your diamond-buying habits and your oil-consumption habits -- it's not an either/or.
--- Quote --- I found that my suggestion was shrugged off with 'oh but we need it'
--- End quote ---
See above. Again, I didn't say that, or anything even remotely like it. If your only way to make points in this discussion is to misquote me, repeatedly, even after you've been corrected, then this conversation is even more ridiculous than it seems, and I'm done. Come to think of it, I'm probably done anyway.
--- Quote ---and then the focus put back on diamonds. To me, diamonds aren't the point of the thread, stopping funds to human rights abusers are.
--- End quote ---
Then maybe you should start a thread on that subject. This one is about diamonds.
--- Quote ---No, to me, it's a throwaway effort. IMO, it's something people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause, when in fact, it's so minor an effort it's hardly worth it.
--- End quote ---
You're looking at it backwards. Not buying a diamond is not something "people can do to make themselves feel good about helping a cause." It works like this, for example: You are getting married. You consider buying a diamond. You decide against it because you don't want the symbol of your union to be an object whose production might have entailed human-rights offenses. Done. Simple as that.
It's NOT "Dammit, that's it, I'm going to make those human-rights abusers pay! From now on I quit buying diamonds!"
--- Quote ---Then what's the point?
--- End quote ---
Um ... because not all constructive efforts have to be giant sacrifices in order to not be pointless?
--- Quote ---Know anyone getting married recently? Have they not bought diamonds? Did they check to make sure they were not conflict diamonds? Most people I know didn't even go see Blood Diamond so they likely have no idea there is even a problem.
--- End quote ---
OK, well, good for them! This isn't about them. Blood Diamond and other efforts to publicize the situation are out there -- people who aren't aware of them won't be affected, just like with any other political action.
--- Quote ---The Wikipedia article made my point for me. De Beers wasn't waiting for scores of John and Janes to stop buying diamonds to make their decision. The head office made the decision and it was a huge impact and almost literally overnight. That's what I'm looking for. Wouldn't it be easier to convince one person - or a dozen people - (the COO or the operating officers of a company like De Beers) than to wait for a grassroots effort that may take years to have an effect? That's all I'm saying.
--- End quote ---
Hmm. When was the last time you, as one person, attempted to convince the head(s) of a huge corporation to change corporate practices? Not very effective, generally. You usually "convince one person -- or a dozen people" by showing them that their customers care what they do. That's what boycotts are about.
And with that, I think I'm done with this discussion.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on January 19, 2010, 07:53:30 pm ---
Um ... because not all constructive efforts have to be giant sacrifices in order to not be pointless?
--- End quote ---
Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this. Otherwise you're supporting the idea that eating a drinking a diet coke with one's double Big Mac with cheese and large fries actually accomplishes anything.
--- Quote ---OK, well, good for them! This isn't about them. Blood Diamond and other efforts to publicize the situation are out there -- people who aren't aware of them won't be affected, just like with any other political action.
Hmm. When was the last time you, as one person, attempted to convince the head(s) of a huge corporation to change corporate practices? Not very effective, generally. You usually "convince one person -- or a dozen people" by showing them that their customers care what they do. That's what boycotts are about.
And with that, I think I'm done with this discussion.
--- End quote ---
Tried to convince the heads of a major corporation? According to you, all it takes is one movie to convince people. No, I don't buy the 'heads of all big corporations' are heartless drones stereotype. They're people too.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version