https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/drc-mining-industry-child-labor-and-formalization-small-scale-mining
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251800/congo-cobalt-mines-china-child-labor
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/child-labour-behind-smart-phone-and-electric-car-batteries/
One of the key components of the "green" energy future which is allegedly "carbon free" is rechargeable batteries. Without rechargeable batteries, solar and wind power become relatively useless on a large scale. Without rechargeable batteries, electric vehicles become useless for more than one trip. Unfortunately, those batteries need Cobalt, and much of the Cobalt mining in the world is controlled by Chinese companies (the CCP), and these countries use slave labor.
There is ample evidence that within China, slave labor is used regularly. Above we see evidence that China uses slave labor in it's African mining operations, including child labor.
Apparently, as long as this slave labor is kept out of sight in Africa, then it's just the price some people are willing to pay for "green" energy, new iPhones, laptops, Apple Watches, and all sorts of things that make life better.
It looks like we have a grand total of one Cobalt mine in the US (where our laws would prevent slave labor and other nasty things), and it looks like it'll be the only one here for the foreseeable future. Obviously Cobalt from this mine in Idaho will be more expensive than that from the Congo. The production costs will be higher because the US pays it's workers more than slaves make, actually has requirements to protect the environment, and the ore needs to be transported to Brazil to be refined. The question becomes how much more will the "greens" be willing to pay for batteries for their electric future?
Finally, the fact that the future of "clean energy" rests almost entirely on petroleum is ignored.
But as long as y'all can feel superior driving your electric cars and promoting inefficient wind and solar, more power to you.
FYI, the last time I replaced my cell phone I did some extensive research on the existence of phones that are are not the product of slave labor. At that time, 2019 ish, there were virtually no options that were slave labor free. Since I'm not one of the iPhone groupies that runs out and stands in line for the new one every time they come out, it'll likely be a couple of years before I replace mine. When I do, I'll do the research again before I buy.
9 comments:
Just skimming your most recent posts for now. But I have to say that I have no love for cell phones, regarding them among the worst and most detrimental inventions ever brought to market. I hate them, but today's climate forces one to have one. For the advantages they bring to the table, they also bring a lot of crap, child labor being among the worst.
I'd agree with you if you'd specify smart phones, they are definitely problematic on many levels. I also agree that cell phones are now almost indispensable.
I've also seen how much cell phones have benefited third world countries as it's much easier and more affordable to achieve cell coverage in a third world country, than to build land lines.
The fact that so many of the raw materials necessary for technology seem to be under the control of those who place no value on human life is a horrible state of affairs. It's especially bad since Congo (for example) could use their raw materials as leverage to benefit their entire economy. Instead it's used to enslave children and enrich the corrupt.
I don't disagree with anything you say here. I just hate what we've become since the advent of the cell phone. We wouldn't have smart phones without first having basic cell phones. If they stopped at that point, it would likely not be so bad.
As to third world countries, it's likely far cheaper for the average citizen to have land line phones, despite the expense to the municipalities to build the land line tech. I don't recall ever paying nearly so much to have several phones in my house as it does to have just one "smart phone". They're smart, all right. They got the populace to not only put down the bread to get them, nor to do it with the introduction of every newer flashier model, but to devote one's day to keeping their noses stuck against the damned things constantly. I'm not immune from its allure. It's truly addictive. Thus, it's not only the third world kids who are enslaved.
Art,
I agree that basic cell phones were necessary precursors to smart phones. However, the biggest issue with smart phones is all of the things that go beyond making phone calls.
The reason why you don't remember land lines being more expensive was that the infrastructure had been built and amortized over decades. The reality is that for most third world countries, it makes absolutely no sense to spend vast amounts of money to install old technology (land lines) which is obsolete the minute it's installed. Further, as cell phones in the third world are pay as you go, rather than a monthly bill, they're much more affordable.
I agree that the cult of the smart phone is a problem for many. The idiots who stand in line to pay obscene amounts of money for a phone that is, at best, incrementally better than their perfectly functioning phone should be mocked whenever possible. I think that we'll soon be faced with figuring out which was worse for our children, how COVID shut down schools or giving kids unrestricted access to smart phones.
While I do think that there are some potential problems to giving third world children access to smart phones, I don't see that being as big a deal as it is here. First, because of the pay as you go mature of much of third world phone use, it seems unlikely that kids will be able to afford that much phone time. Second, if mom and dad can barely afford food it's unlikely that they'll be dropping big bucks on phones for their kids.
This is one reason why I stopped doing anything on my blog on my phone. It was too easy to get sucked in at any time.
You seem to be talking about infrastructure paid for with tax dollars, and monthly usage costs paid by the customer, while I was simply referring to the cost of a cell phone versus land line phones. I don't recall the monthly costs of land line usage versus cells today. My bill is still paying off our new phones our less than perfectly functioning old phones forced us to buy. (Trust me...we were reluctant to upgrade to say the least!) Once the phones are paid off, the monthly usage charges are quite low with the plan we have, only having risen recently due to increased usage because of the mother-in-law's deteriorating mental state. Lots of calls to facilities, doctors, daily calls to her brother who has power of attorney and more direct contact with Mom and medical pros. In the old days of land lines, these would all be long distance charges, so I think usage costs aren't that dissimilar.
My parents moved us to my childhood home in 1960. My mother moved out of it to the retirement village about 10-12 years ago. That same rotary phone hung on the kitchen wall the whole time . Those phones just didn't cost much to acquire and use compared to these evil inventions today.
I'm not sure that phone infrastructure was ever paid for with tax dollars in the US. The poles, lines, switchers, relays, etc were always private and paid for with the monthly phone bill. The difference is that the old landline system was more suited to a world where people had a place for the land line to terminate. In many third world countries land laws are such that many/most people have no legal/fixed address.
The reality is that for the developing world, it makes infinitely more sense not to pay millions to install 19/20th century technology that isn't really suited for the reality on the ground anyway, as opposed to the much more flexible cellular technology.
It's apples and oranges. The reality is that I can choose a land line if I want, both at my home and my office. I can choose a basic cell phone that'll cost me a hundred bucks and a phone only (no data) plan that'd be cheap. The ability to make those choices is there, as is the choice to upgrade or not. Absent any equipment charges, my cell phone bill for 3 lines is roughly what my land line bill was before I got rid of it.
Using a smart phone is a choice. Where I think the biggest problem with them is lies with the parents who get their kids a smart phone when they're 10 and don't supervise their usage.
In a sense I'm talking abut the reality that someone who lives in a shack made of corrugated metal, on a piece of land that they may or may not have legal standing to be on, and who has little or no regular income, probably isn't in the position to have a landline phone, with a monthly bill. It obviously makes much more sense to have a mobile, pay as you go phone so that the costs can be adjusted as needed.
Likely such a person couldn't afford tin cans with string between them.
Yet, people have a strange way of affording the things that help them find work, for example. The point remains, the land line infrastructure isn't the most effective for third world countries, and people still need the ability to communicate further away than face to face, and more quickly than mail or carrier pigeon.
Post a Comment