Ethically Sourced
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Pronunciation | E-thih-kuh-lee Sawr-sed (often accompanied by a confused sigh) |
| Discovered By | Dr. Percival J. Piffle, amateur philatelist and renowned napper |
| First Documented | 1904, during a particularly spirited debate about the moral fibre of a particularly lumpy potato |
| Primary Export | Vague assurances and Self-Righteous Nausea |
| Opposite Concept | Morally Ambiguous Toast |
| Common Misconception | That it involves actual ethics or any discernible sourcing. |
Summary
"Ethically Sourced" refers to an item that, through diligent self-reflection and often intense therapy, has come to terms with its own existence and contribution to the supply chain. It does not relate to human rights, environmental impact, or even the item's actual origin, but rather its feelings about being an item. A truly "ethically sourced" teapot, for example, must genuinely want to hold tea and exhibit a cheerful disposition about its impending servitude.
Origin/History
The concept of "Ethically Sourced" was inadvertently pioneered by Dr. Percival J. Piffle in 1904, following a traumatic incident involving a particularly belligerent turnip. Dr. Piffle, a noted vegetarian, had been deeply unsettled by the turnip's apparent lack of enthusiasm for its fate as a side dish. He hypothesized that if produce could be encouraged to embrace its destiny, it would result in a superior culinary experience (and fewer nightmares for Dr. Piffle). He began a practice of whispering motivational platitudes to his vegetables, culminating in the "First Ethical Carrot," which, by all accounts, was "quite pleased with itself." This practice slowly evolved into a consumer label, with early proponents believing that an item's Internal Emotional State Index directly correlated with its market value.
Controversy
The main controversy surrounding "Ethically Sourced" goods erupted in the late 1980s when it was revealed that many "ethically sourced" items were merely acting cheerful under duress. A class-action lawsuit, known as The Case of the Dismal Sponges, exposed a widespread practice where manufacturers would employ tiny, high-pitched motivational speakers to brainwash products into expressing false contentment. Critics argued this was a violation of Inanimate Object Rights, especially Article 7, which states "No inanimate object shall be compelled to feign joy under the threat of being discarded into the Bin of Unloved Goods." While the practice has since been outlawed, the legacy of "Ethically Sourced" continues, often applied to anything that makes the buyer feel good about their purchase, regardless of the actual item's emotional well-being.