Talk:The Consumerium Exchange: Difference between revisions
no escape
No edit summary |
(no escape) |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
:The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]] | :The basic idea being of course guessing where the aggregate of all campaigns on some issue will equilibrium. eg. What "light" will prevail for [[Company X]] | ||
::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I *must* do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much). | ::If I own X, it is so dangerous for me NOT to do the above, that I *must* do it, for fear that others who promote my competitor Y will do it instead. Also it is possible that there will be NO GREEN LIGHT FOR ANY PRODUCT in some category, which implies that you are asking someone to undergo a lifestyle change, that they may or may not realize is implied by their moral choices. So it might be a lot better to think about a basic model based not on the green light but on choices like "is X so much better than Y that I should pay 4 cents more for it?" - which again brings us to quantified choices. Given the price information also, this becomes a Green light (if X IS that much better, and costs only 4 or fewer cents more) or yellow light (if X IS that much better, but costs more than 4 cents more than Y, leaving you a nickel that you could maybe better spent by donating 8 cents (3 of which are tax-deductible) to save Great Apes)), or red light (if X is not that much better, and costs more, meaning that you are giving more money to those who don't actually share your values much, which you could save and donate to those who actually have your values more than you do! ;-)). | ||
::This of course is micro-betting, which is, for any given purchase, deciding whether the extra money you pay for a morally superior product (and make no mistake, it will ALWAYS cost more, because a retailer will eventually figure out that they CAN charge more) is better spent giving profits to this moral vendor to expand and succeed and pay off those who bet on a moral process by investing in the company itself, OR better spent saved in your own wallet and giving you leverage to influence a moral vendor of another product OR better donated directly to those who actively work to expand the information and product range available to you. In any case one can always IGNORE THE ADVICE if it's seemingly not advancing your values by very much, which means, you are again making a bet, this time against the degree to which Consumerium's advice affects your own body and those you care about. You can't escape betting wherever you go! | |||