Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

If the best option available to people was diamond mining, by taking that away from them we’re by definition pushing them into an even worse option. That’s a big problem I have with a lot of the do-good commentary on developing world labour. Taking away options from people, even bad ones from our point of view, isn’t necessarily doing them any favours. None of these peoples options are going to look good to us. Actually helping these people means improving their existing options, or giving them new better ones.

Having said that, I think given the other pretty grievous activities associated with the diamond trade, this is probably a good move. They’re not called blood diamonds for nothing.

View on HN

> If the best option available to people was diamond mining, by taking that away from them we’re by definition pushing them into an even worse option.

If your business is to force people into slavery, then it is part of your business to remove other avenues for them to get out of slavery.

Who said anything about slavery? The vast majority of third world workers mining diamonds do so in the regulated commercial sector. These are largely technical engineering jobs that bring investment in infrastructure into the country, certainly much more so than many other local opportunities. A single mine like those in Botswana can employ thousands of people, and be the core of the local economy. I'm not saying there are no slaves in diamond mines, but if so it's a marginal source.

Oh my good grief. What on earth did you think I was advocating?

But then the best option would be to fix the business, not take it away and put more pressure on people, forcing them into another slavery.

>If your business is to force people into slavery, then it is part of your business to remove other avenues for them to get out of slavery.

I suspect your sentence got a little mangled. It sounds like you're saying that businesses should try to prevent people from getting out of slavery by removing other avenues by which they could free themselves.

I suspect you mean that they should create those avenues for freedom, instead.

>It sounds like you're saying that businesses should...

They are saying slavery based businesses should... If you profit off slavery you don't want it to end.

I see. Thank you.

So far these diamonds were both the primary cause of conflicts, as well as the main way of financing and prolonging them. Wars are expensive, so if you take money out of the game many militias/ fractions/ criminals will simply loose interest in those territories, and that should reduce the corruption and make things more stable for people there. In theory, that's way more important for progress than outside help, although it will also be needed.

Imagine the next war will be financed with NFTs.

Not really. NFTs are closer to paintings and intellectual property than conflict diamonds/minerals.

That was a joke..

If it isn't diamonds, it will be land, water rights, drug distribution, religious purity, and on and on.

Diamonds are just another means of gaining power and wealth. They're only a problem in societies that don't have the mechanisms for dealing with inevitable power and wealth disparities.

> If the best option available to people was diamond mining

The best option available to a person in the short term is not necessarily the best option for a society in the long term. In this case, it almost certainly isn't. Compare "resource curse" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

I think that we shouldn't keep funding exploitative companies that treat people badly, and industries that are dangerous for workers and environmentally damaging. I think that's a win anyway.

Here's another take - able bodied workers are less likely to be sucked into an industry which digs up shiny rocks to send overseas, and may be able to take up something of more benefit to the local economy.

I’m worried that it takes a certain amount of poverty/desperation in the local workforce to be exploited heinously. For them, an exploitative job is probably the difference between eating a little or not eating at all. Yes, it’s good that they won’t be exploited once the mined diamond industry goes away, but I think they’re still getting the rug pulled out from under them. Their income is replaced with nothing, and in a country with a weak economy, there’s probably very little there to help these people in the interim. It’s a desperate situation, even if it’s for their benefit.

There's a very strong chance I am completely wrong about this but my feeling on the matter is as follows.

As long as mined diamonds are profitable there is a strong incentive for criminal interests to hinder any attempts to improve the lot of the local inhabitants so they have a continued supply of very cheap labour. If you make diamond mining unprofitable then the criminal elements move on to other more profitable enterprises. This leaves the local populace free from interference, and efforts by aid agencies to improve their lot may have a better chance of succeeding.

I agree with you. I think it will all work out for the better. I just think the path between exploitation and greener pastures may be a rough one if there is no support structure to keep people from getting desperate once they are jobless. It’s hard to look to the future when you’re worried about putting food on the table tonight. It’s a good thing that this is happening, but I sympathize with the people affected because it might get worse before it gets better. I hope they can keep their chins up and see that there is a huge light at the end of the tunnel.

> If the best option available to people was diamond mining, by taking that away from them we’re by definition pushing them into an even worse option.

Couldn't you say that about any and all technological advances?

> Actually helping these people means improving their existing options, or giving them new better ones.

Yes. A basic income for which one doesn't need to go into the diamond mines, for example.

Or how about a functioning government with minimal corruption for starters? clean water? a functional banking system? access to education? UBI is putting the cart before the horse

Well of course, that's what I'm saying, just taking away jobs for miners doesn't do that.

How do you implement UBI without any centralized government and in some cases a functioning currency?

Charities like GiveDirectly do it using various mobile baking programs along with physically driving shipments of cash to remote areas that don’t have phone access. It’s a complicated problem that involves a lot of human time but it’s also a mostly solved problem.

https://www.givedirectly.org/ gives a basic income to poor people. It's not universal.

It's a resource curse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com