Week 8 - "Guilt is an invention of the weak" - Friedrich Nietzche
Thoughts of the Week
How far does our guilt extend?
That’s the question I’ve been thinking about this week since I first heard it proposed during a podcast. The question addresses the concern we might have over the ethics of many of the things in our lives, but I’m sure it applies to a wide range of other subjects. Specifically, I have been contemplating the extent to which I should feel guilty for some of my actions. For instance, I regularly use my iPhone which is made by a company that employs miners from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to mine cobalt. These individuals work in subhuman conditions for an impossibly low wage to mine cobalt for millions of smartphones. Should that make me feel guilty for owning an iPhone?
Although my immediate answer is yes, I don’t believe it’s as black and white as some people might think. On one hand, as consumers, we are responsible for supporting businesses that exploit individuals like the Congolese miners. Therefore, I think it’s fair to say we should feel somewhat guilty for owning/supporting businesses like Apple.
On the other hand, I don’t know if there’s an option to not have this guilt. A device like a smartphone is almost essential to today’s world, which puts us in a position where we have to support inherently bad businesses. I’m not trying to paint us as the victim in this scenario, as I and most smartphone owners will never know a fraction of the hardship the Congolese miners face. Instead, I’m just trying to show how the complexity of the issue makes it challenging to find a solution.
I’d love to say that if there was an American-made, ethically-sourced smartphone company, most Americans would buy from them. But the unfortunate reality is that we probably wouldn’t, as most of us are really just doing our best to get by. We know companies like Amazon implement malpractice in their shipping processes, but still utilize them due to their ease and convenience for us. The keyword being “for us”. At the end of the day, we’re really just trying to do what we can to get by, support our families, and hopefully have some time at the end of each day for ourselves. Most of us are too preoccupied with our first-world struggles to go out of our way to boycott unethical businesses and advocate for change. Obviously, our first-world problems pale in comparison to those in places like the Congo, but I don’t necessarily think that makes them something we should disregard.
Ultimately, I believe our guilt does extend to the root of the problem, but I honestly don’t know where to go from there. It’s hard to purely acknowledge the guilt without taking any sort of action, but it seems to be the position many of us are in, and I wonder if there is a solution.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter and if you agree or disagree with anything I said.
Something to think about
It’s easier to win an argument against a genius, than an idiot
Full credit to Chris Williamson of the Modern Wisdom podcast and Gurwinder Bogal of The Prism on Substack for this idea. The podcast is linked in the Content section below.
To end an argument, one party must admit they are wrong or reach a mutual agreement. However, this requires both parties to be intelligent enough to understand the flaws in their arguments or the value of the agreement. If one party lacks this intelligence, arguing with them will become a battle of egos rather than a battle of wits. Therefore, it is easier to win an argument against an intelligent individual because they are more likely to comprehend the flaws in their ideas, whereas it is difficult to persuade someone who is less educated and lacks understanding.
What I learned This Week
Dunbar’s Number
Dunbar's Number is a concept that suggests there is a cognitive limit on the number of stable relationships we can maintain. This concept was proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar who said that individuals can have a maximum of 150 meaningful contacts, including 5 close individuals, 50 friends, 500 acquaintances, and 1500 people they can recognize. However, these numbers represent a general range as the layers are determined by the frequency of contact with different individuals. In other words, the closer the relationship, the more frequent the interaction.
Interesting content I consumed this week
You can't reach the brain through the ears
TLDR: This Substack article covers the fascinating question of why we have to learn everything the hard way.
Gurwinder Bhogal – 14 Shocking Lessons About Human Nature
TLDR: Super fascinating podcast with digital writer Gurwinder Bhogal, who’s been instrumental in shaping many of the topics covered in this publication.
If you enjoy receiving and reading this series, please consider sharing it with anyone you think may be interested. I love sharing the way I think with others and would love to hear others’ opinions on my ideas. Thanks!
That’s all for this week! If you have any thoughts or suggestions on ways to improve this newsletter or parts you think could be in or excluded, please let me know! Feel free to comment below or message me on In
I find this is an issue for me in working for big tech companies. Amazon and Microsoft are not ethically sound companies imo, yet many in the computer science field work for them because of their great salaries and benefits. I still don't know how to justify it, which is why I prefer smaller companies for employment.
I think a lot of this issue boils down to personal responsibility. I think it’s fair to say that many consumers are aware of and against the exploitation of workers in 3rd world countries. If you feel a level of personal responsibility over the suffering of these workers then you shouldn’t buy products that exploit these workers. Personally, I don’t feel such responsibility because I have no way of changing the bigger picture. These larger companies however should feel this personal responsibility because of their ability to create change in the situation, instead of continuing to exploit. Many of these companies walk away with billions of dollars in revenue each year which gives them ultimate power over how they treat 3rd world workers. A power that pales in comparison to any single consumer.
For some odd reason I always thing about how Elon Musk told WFP he could solve world hunger with 6 billion dollars. This might not be applicable as a comparison in our case but what if a company like Apple used that much money to fix their own problem with 3rd world workers? I have no doubt they would be successful.