As a fervent advocate of ethical consumerism, I seriously suggest that you consider flying long-haul, wearing Levi's and drinking coffee at Starbucks. The fact that no one else seems willing to give the same advice is a sad indictment of the ethical consumerism movement. For what should be one of the most important moral campaigns of our day has been hijacked by woolly-minded, anti-scientific eco-narcissists.
Ethical consumerism should be about using our purchasing power to make the world a better place. Instead, it is characterized by three almost religious convictions: that multinationals are inherently bad; that the "natural" and organic are inherently superior; and that science and technology are not to be trusted.
ILLUSTRATION: JUNE
Irrational prejudice against multinationals is connected to incoherent opposition to globalization. Anti-globalization campaigners seem blind to the irony that it was precisely the increased interconnectedness of peoples and trade characteristic of globalization that allowed their worldwide opposition movement to flourish.
The growth of multinationals is just one aspect of globalization, and the homogeneity it brings is regrettable. Even this can be overstated, however: no one would confuse Madrid's Puerta del Sol with Piccadilly Circus just because there were MacDonald's at both.
But the erosion of some national differences is neither entirely bad nor a burning ethical issue. And if you care about morality, the multinationals can be a force for good.
For instance, say you fancy a coffee in Italy. Go to a local cafe and the chances are the beans they grind have been bought at market prices from farmers who receive so little that they can barely make a living.
Go to Starbucks, however, and even if their "fair trade" brew isn't available that day, you can sip your latte in the knowledge that the company does have policies that improve the welfare of growers in the developing world. This isn't my opinion, but that of Sophie Tickell, senior policy adviser at Oxfam. Starbucks is a huge purchaser of coffee worldwide and should be lauded and encouraged to go further by ethical consumers. Instead, it is usually one of the first targets for anti-globalization protesters.
While the sins of multinationals are magnified, their better deeds are dismissed. Levi Strauss, for example, is a longtime member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which requires adherence to a base code setting out a "minimum requirement for any corporate code of labour practice." It is true that the ETI is pretty toothless and members' records are far from perfect. But is it more ethical to buy from a smaller non-multinational that probably has no ethical standards at all?
If multinationals are the ethical consumers' betes noires, organic and GM-free food are their haloed heroes. For example, the magazine Ethical Consumer will automatically put a black mark against any company that supports or is involved in non-medical GM technology. But it is ludicrous to assume that all GM products are unethical.
Even if you are deeply skeptical of companies such as Monsanto, it is obvious that GM foods have the potential to improve yields and therefore the livelihoods of farmers in developing countries. This is not just corporate spin. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London, spoke for many independent experts when he argued that "to deny GM technology to the developing world would be unforgivable."
Opposition to GM has little to do with real ethics and everything to do with eco-narcissism. It is not concern for others that fuels most of the growth in organic, GM-free food. It is a desire to keep ourselves pure, to avoid ingesting what we perceive to be harmful toxins. Never mind that there is nothing wrong with most non-organic foods: the feeling that we defile the inner sanctums of our bodies by eating food treated by pesticides is rooted in an almost religious, superstitious worship of the "natural." Dressing this up as an ethical choice is self-deception.
Connected to this is the deep mistrust of science which goes beyond reasonable suspicion. It's not just that we don't trust scientists or technology; we seem to feel that for any scientific fix there must be a price. Natural justice demands that cheaper, longer-lasting tomatoes come at a cost. Even the poor are not allowed to get richer, if it means using more technology. There is something almost puritanical in this, perhaps connected to the Protestant work ethic. No shortcuts to virtue are allowed.
I say all this not because I am opposed to ethical consumerism, but because I passionately believe in it. I do buy fair trade coffee.
I buy recycled and biodegradable goods. When I visited East Africa, I tried to make sure my trip benefited local people. I make an effort to buy clothes from companies that have at least some standards governing their suppliers' labor rights, even though realistically there are no businesses with excellent records on this, unless you want to look like a member of the Mamas and the Papas.
What I won't do is let these ethical choices be determined by prejudices which demonize big business and glorify nature so that I can feel pure and pious. Truly ethical consumerism requires a harder-headed look at what is in the interests of the world's poor. If that means ripping up the standard ethical consumer's checklist and starting again, so be it.
Julian Baggini is the editor of the UK-based Philosophers' Magazine.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS