> I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense?
Exactly this. Stealing from someone for generations and then going “okay fine here’s your freedom look how virtuous we are for doing this” conveniently right when the costs of extracting those resources rise to the point unviability isn’t remotely fair. Within the bounds of the systems we’re operating in though, the most realistic and least unethical approach is probably to find ways to work with them to mutual enrichment. The world isn’t fair, and IMO the least harmful long term option probably isn’t to just send resources back to former colonies unless your goal is to enrich and entrench the extant power structures there (which ironically aren’t necessarily more likely to operate more ethically than you). In reflection on this response… damnit, it seems I’m a neoliberal.
Addressing the rest of your message, I really don’t think there is a life austere enough within the bounds of continued participation in society (see the loosely-connected phrase ”there is no ethical consumption under capitalism“). And of course, I also really don’t see an alternative which reduces exploitation to zero given empirical observations of human behavioral dynamics.
The best you can do (for some definitions of the words best and you) is to just take a utilitarian harm-minimization approach: don’t buy things from companies you know are unethical, don’t work for companies that you know are unethical, focus your efforts on balancing your needs (not wants, actual needs) with the actions most likely to lead to your desired outcome for the world.
It won’t make a marginal quantifiable difference, but it does feel better than just accepting the world for what it is.
