Ok. Well there's 2 elements here, the factual and emotional.

Factually you could argue either way. I suppose broadly you could say that industrialisation is bad for those at the bottom in the short term. But after the hump things get better. Is that pain reasonable? Is it avoidable? Are we morally obligated to avoid it? Are all somewhat open questions.

The GP used the word 'reconcile' which to me is a more emotional metric. Personally I don't make the link (rightly or wrongly) between me buying X and person Y suffering. So personally I don't have anything to reconcile. That is a correct answer. It isn't the answer, but as an answer to the GP, it is legitimate.

I can also see it being a reasonable answer to say that in buying Congolese cobalt you are helping the country industrialise, which in the long term is a good thing. Again you may disagree with the reasoning or morality but it seems to me a legitimate way of reconciliation.

It's also important to recognize consumerism has driven a lot of innovation which has benefited humanity. I venture to say one of the most impactful advancements in human history is providing access to the internet in almost every spot on the globe. That was influenced at least in part by so many people owning smart phones.

A sufficiently technologically advanced human species might be the only thing capable of stopping the next extinction event. Something that will almost certainly occur naturally without any intervention.

> A lot of raw materials that go into modern electronics are produced using slave labor,

Can you confirm this for Apple products? I couldn't find anything recent.