Interesting.
” cosmetics companies will be able to choose whether or not to test on live animals.”
So we would have to rely on what the companies who sell there, on their word..
So far. On the other hand, that is what happens anyway, with companies and with governments, international organizations, NGOs, charities. Trust in democracy and checks and balances. But accompanied by universal scepticism that is fair and even-handed, and especially not trusting authorities *because* they’re authorities (that’s blind faith), but questioning them at every turn and only accepting anything on the basis of proof, only on a case-by-case and temporary basis, questioning constantly, and being prepared and willing to change one’s position on the basis of new evidence. That could mean, in practice, stopping buying from a certain company. Or starting to buy from them again.
But with a degree of trust in institutions and methods: mainly in the ideas of questioning and of Big’s responsibility *as* being open to question from / answerability to Little. They and everything they do have to be open to testing: and this is the deep connection, in modern / post-17th century thought, between politics and science. And we see that testing regularly, with undercover reports from inside companies, factories, etc. You see how these two ideas–testable politics and science–come together most clearly in investigative journalism. This is why journalism is important, and must remain independent of any authoritative control (state, political parties, factions, corporations, etc.); and why the status of free journalism is such a major factor in determining the state of human rights and democracy in a country.
So actually one of the issues in the present case of testing cosmetics on animals, and this new change, is one from before this animal-testing controversy: the fact that China is not a democratic country, with checks and balances and balance of powers; a basis in the golden triangle of rights-rule(of law)-responsibilities; and human rights. That’s the elephant in the room: companies doing business with undemocratic and potentially untrustworthy, unpredictable, and even corrupt and dangerous regimes.
The principle is the same, whether you’re selling (and buying) cosmetics in China or dealing in arms elsewhere. Except that cosmetics are less likely to kill people and to be used as tools of repression and oppression… well, OK, except in their usual way against women…
In theory… And depending on how forgiving you are of their past actions! In practice: I myself will be waiting a bit and reading some more, and carefully and slowly. On another practical note, also, there’s nothing I need or want from any of these brands right now anyway. But these are all very individual decisions, in individual situations and circumstances.
The Praise of Folly 
WOW! This is huge right!?! đŸ™‚
Interesting.
” cosmetics companies will be able to choose whether or not to test on live animals.”
So we would have to rely on what the companies who sell there, on their word..
So far. On the other hand, that is what happens anyway, with companies and with governments, international organizations, NGOs, charities. Trust in democracy and checks and balances. But accompanied by universal scepticism that is fair and even-handed, and especially not trusting authorities *because* they’re authorities (that’s blind faith), but questioning them at every turn and only accepting anything on the basis of proof, only on a case-by-case and temporary basis, questioning constantly, and being prepared and willing to change one’s position on the basis of new evidence. That could mean, in practice, stopping buying from a certain company. Or starting to buy from them again.
But with a degree of trust in institutions and methods: mainly in the ideas of questioning and of Big’s responsibility *as* being open to question from / answerability to Little. They and everything they do have to be open to testing: and this is the deep connection, in modern / post-17th century thought, between politics and science. And we see that testing regularly, with undercover reports from inside companies, factories, etc. You see how these two ideas–testable politics and science–come together most clearly in investigative journalism. This is why journalism is important, and must remain independent of any authoritative control (state, political parties, factions, corporations, etc.); and why the status of free journalism is such a major factor in determining the state of human rights and democracy in a country.
So actually one of the issues in the present case of testing cosmetics on animals, and this new change, is one from before this animal-testing controversy: the fact that China is not a democratic country, with checks and balances and balance of powers; a basis in the golden triangle of rights-rule(of law)-responsibilities; and human rights. That’s the elephant in the room: companies doing business with undemocratic and potentially untrustworthy, unpredictable, and even corrupt and dangerous regimes.
The principle is the same, whether you’re selling (and buying) cosmetics in China or dealing in arms elsewhere. Except that cosmetics are less likely to kill people and to be used as tools of repression and oppression… well, OK, except in their usual way against women…
Do you think it is safe to buy from caudalie now?
In theory… And depending on how forgiving you are of their past actions! In practice: I myself will be waiting a bit and reading some more, and carefully and slowly. On another practical note, also, there’s nothing I need or want from any of these brands right now anyway. But these are all very individual decisions, in individual situations and circumstances.