No, because people in industrialized nations have alternatives --either job-wise or welfare subsidies. People in third world countries don't have good alternatives --they are where we were 80-100 years ago, maybe more.
Third world is also no longer used in Social Sciences and Academic circles as a classification as Third World originally meant the countries that did not either support USA or the Soviet Union during the Cold War, I think the latest term is developing states.
That aside, why not ensure better regulations and ways on the mines, if cobalt is only readily available in large amounts in the Congo and phones being one of the more profitable products, you are only exploiting the local peoples.
I understand it would have a huge impact on supply chains and manufacturing but the alternative is losing lives, I remember this same debate from years ago about people losing lives for phones in Congolese mines and am somewhat amazed that its literally the same issues.
Right, I meant underdeveloped nations. But third world is understood as long hand for the same --but now without the hegemonic context. (calling them one way or the other does not magically improve their lot or make it worse)
Cobalt is available in other countries (US, Mexico, among others) but starting up a mine is not cheap and takes years --I think Idaho has/had one?. We could mine more and then those people would lose the little they have.
As someone else said, their best bet as a society is to follow in China's footsteps to ramp up quickly --though note they have paid a pretty heavy price (pollution). Still, on the whole, I don't think it can be argued sincerely that they have not come out way ahead.
