The debate about Electronics Recycling is about a correlation with poverty. From Wikipedia:
There is a lack of organic waste from food leftovers in poor nations... Perhaps if we waste more food, we will increase wealth. The fact that the poor eat every scrap of food does not mean that eating increases starvation. It is a stupid, banal example. But it also demonstrates ten years of debate about scrap recycling, and why scraps are exported from rich to poor countries.
Here is a link to a site "Poor Economics", which I've found but haven't exploited yet.
The incentives for the trade / exchange between rich and poor do not necessarily represent the cause the problems associated with poverty any more than medicine causes (correlates to) disease. When I lived in Africa, the most likely cause of death for children was fever (malaria), and the most likely cause of death of women was childbirth, and the most likely cause of death for men was accident, violence, or trauma.
People recoil from photos of children in poverty, and we recoil from the word "exploitation".
Fundamentally, however, the trade in recyclables and repairables, like the purchase of medicine, originates inside the emerging markets. People need, people look for, and people find opportunity. People from over there fly over here and buy stuff with their own money.
If "exploitation" applies at all, the act is initiated by the buyer who, I argue, is "exploiting" a weak repair market in a wealthy nations. Poor neighborhoods in the USA "exploit" used cars which they purchase from neighborhoods who buy new cars before their other car is worn out. The car seller is not "exploiting" the used car buyer, nor is the transaction of trading the car causing the poverty of the poor neighborhood.
Most of the debate about globalization comes down to trade between "rich" and "poor". Yes, there are certainly economic incentives to move lower wage and higher polluting activities to places (note a place is not a nation) where unemployment is high and environmental enforcement is low. Basel Action Network and Greenpeace have this as a foundation in their proposal to ban trade in used recyclables and repairables between OECD countries (roughly 1 billion) and non-OECD (roughly 6 billion) people."Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, it can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint).[1][2]The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that, because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of the other. By contrast, the fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, requires that one event occur after the other, and so may be considered a related fallacy.
There is a lack of organic waste from food leftovers in poor nations... Perhaps if we waste more food, we will increase wealth. The fact that the poor eat every scrap of food does not mean that eating increases starvation. It is a stupid, banal example. But it also demonstrates ten years of debate about scrap recycling, and why scraps are exported from rich to poor countries.
Here is a link to a site "Poor Economics", which I've found but haven't exploited yet.
Think Again, Again
The dialogue is refreshing, the discussion seems to be open minded. I found it while searching for a map of world poverty (by nation, not pixelized by slum-to-ghetto-to-emerging city). The map is also a pretty good predictor of where someone would invest in hard rock metal mining, and where you'd find scrap recycled down to the bone.In fact, we call these the “three I’s” – ideology, ignorance, inertia – the three main reasons policies may not work and aid is not always effective.But there’s no reason to lose hope. Incremental, real change can be made. Sometimes the change seems small, but by identifying real world success stories, facing up to real world failures, and understanding why the poor make the choices they make, we can find the right levers to push to free the poor of the hidden traps that keep them behind.
People recoil from photos of children in poverty, and we recoil from the word "exploitation".
Fundamentally, however, the trade in recyclables and repairables, like the purchase of medicine, originates inside the emerging markets. People need, people look for, and people find opportunity. People from over there fly over here and buy stuff with their own money.
If "exploitation" applies at all, the act is initiated by the buyer who, I argue, is "exploiting" a weak repair market in a wealthy nations. Poor neighborhoods in the USA "exploit" used cars which they purchase from neighborhoods who buy new cars before their other car is worn out. The car seller is not "exploiting" the used car buyer, nor is the transaction of trading the car causing the poverty of the poor neighborhood.
