5 ms·

I'm glad we have organizations like the NY Times to tell us when Morality requires we keep a people impoverished because they have the bad luck to live on a lan

I'm glad we have organizations like the NY Times to tell us when Morality requires we keep a people impoverished because they have the bad luck to live on a landscape their readership finds aesthetically pleasing.

jacobolus 11y ago
“People” = mining companies building open-pit mines in the Alaska wilderness? Pretty sure those people weren’t ever “impoverished”.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  You should really talk to the local population in places around former Washington lumber forests or West Virginia coal mines, and ask them whether in their opinion environmentalism was good for their interests. Maybe this particular mine was even a bad idea; Wikipedia at least indicates most Alaskans were against it. But of course in the NYT the opinion of the actual people affected is not considered, just the moral preening over Untouched Landscapes.
  - SamReidHughes 11y ago
    Is your philosophy that any law that hurts the interests of a subset of the population for the good of the whole is a bad law?
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    Burning coal for electricity is rendering the whole planet uninhabitable, coal mining is one of the most dangerous possible occupations, and the toxic byproducts from coal mining poison the local population and local wildlife. West Virginia’s economy is a slightly tough case, because they’re in the mountains and are relatively isolated away from the coast or big rivers, without much productive farmland, and their economy is dominated by chemical production and coal mining (and more recently also shale gas production). Otherwise there’s not too much going on, and WV is the second poorest state (by median household income) in the US and has the second lowest life expectancy, both after Mississippi, and has the lowest proportion of college graduates of any state. As a matter of national policy, I’m not sure what the best way is to help West Virginia. Better federal support for their healthcare, education, and anti-poverty programs would be a start, but what they really need is a more diversified economy. It’s a hard problem. Coal mining is on its way out one way or another, with continuing low gas prices, dropping solar/wind prices, and increasing national and international concern about CO2 emissions.
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    The answer will be "no, I lost my job". That doesn't make environmentalism a bad idea.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    You should really talk to the local population which currently makes a living from fishing, tourism and timber and then ask them if in their opinion destruction of the livelihood is in their interest. You also should read texts better before starting your anti environmentalism rants, because in the NYT the opinion of the actual people affected is indeed considered. The local population was against this mine.
pkulak 11y ago
Living near land doesn't give you any more right to destroy it.
selimthegrim 11y ago
Why is the rest of the country required to subsidize the Appalachian way of life in extremis? Should we mandate factories be placed there or something?
Maarten88 11y ago
> ... Morality requires we keep a people impoverished because they have the bad luck to live on a landscape their readership finds aesthetically pleasing You should really watch this documentary[1], about morality, richness, mining corporations and the local people. Maybe you'll know better next time you make such a generalizing remark. [1] http://www.whypoverty.net/video/stealing-africa/ http://www.whypoverty.net/video/stealing-africa/
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  I can see from your link that you're the kind of person who cares deeply about the plight of the unprivileged. Here I was concerned about the ability of local populations to control their destiny even if that includes choices contrary to the aesthetics of the NYT, but I see now that that just leads to bad corporations making money.

jacobolus 11y ago

“People” = mining companies building open-pit mines in the Alaska wilderness? Pretty sure those people weren’t ever “impoverished”.

fiatmoney 11y ago
You should really talk to the local population in places around former Washington lumber forests or West Virginia coal mines, and ask them whether in their opinion environmentalism was good for their interests. Maybe this particular mine was even a bad idea; Wikipedia at least indicates most Alaskans were against it. But of course in the NYT the opinion of the actual people affected is not considered, just the moral preening over Untouched Landscapes.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  Is your philosophy that any law that hurts the interests of a subset of the population for the good of the whole is a bad law?
- jacobolus 11y ago
  Burning coal for electricity is rendering the whole planet uninhabitable, coal mining is one of the most dangerous possible occupations, and the toxic byproducts from coal mining poison the local population and local wildlife. West Virginia’s economy is a slightly tough case, because they’re in the mountains and are relatively isolated away from the coast or big rivers, without much productive farmland, and their economy is dominated by chemical production and coal mining (and more recently also shale gas production). Otherwise there’s not too much going on, and WV is the second poorest state (by median household income) in the US and has the second lowest life expectancy, both after Mississippi, and has the lowest proportion of college graduates of any state. As a matter of national policy, I’m not sure what the best way is to help West Virginia. Better federal support for their healthcare, education, and anti-poverty programs would be a start, but what they really need is a more diversified economy. It’s a hard problem. Coal mining is on its way out one way or another, with continuing low gas prices, dropping solar/wind prices, and increasing national and international concern about CO2 emissions.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  The answer will be "no, I lost my job". That doesn't make environmentalism a bad idea.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  You should really talk to the local population which currently makes a living from fishing, tourism and timber and then ask them if in their opinion destruction of the livelihood is in their interest. You also should read texts better before starting your anti environmentalism rants, because in the NYT the opinion of the actual people affected is indeed considered. The local population was against this mine.

pkulak 11y ago

Living near land doesn't give you any more right to destroy it.

selimthegrim 11y ago

Why is the rest of the country required to subsidize the Appalachian way of life in extremis? Should we mandate factories be placed there or something?

Maarten88 11y ago

> ... Morality requires we keep a people impoverished because they have the bad luck to live on a landscape their readership finds aesthetically pleasing You should really watch this documentary[1], about morality, richness, mining corporations and the local people. Maybe you'll know better next time you make such a generalizing remark. [1] http://www.whypoverty.net/video/stealing-africa/ http://www.whypoverty.net/video/stealing-africa/

fiatmoney 11y ago
I can see from your link that you're the kind of person who cares deeply about the plight of the unprivileged. Here I was concerned about the ability of local populations to control their destiny even if that includes choices contrary to the aesthetics of the NYT, but I see now that that just leads to bad corporations making money.