5 ms·

I would understand if this was about mining in a forest or near a city, but what is the value of a desert where nothing grows and no one lives? Would people be

by chr1 7y ago

I would understand if this was about mining in a forest or near a city, but what is the value of a desert where nothing grows and no one lives? Would people be also opposed to building canals and converting the desert to agricultural land?

nradov 7y ago
Have you ever been to the Death Valley area? Despite the name there's actually a lot of life in that area including several threatened and endangered species. We probably do need to mine there for the greater good but with due care to minimize the environmental impact. Yes I absolutely would oppose converting the desert to agricultural land. We have more than enough existing agricultural land. No need to wreck the desert.
- mc32 7y ago
  Only few areas of DVNP have any flora or fauna. Most areas are devoid of life. I have no idea what section of the park this mine would be in, so your concern might be deserved, but also could be overblown.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    And the park is huge, larger than Connecticut in the US or Kosovo in Europe. About one third of the size of Switzerland or one half of the size of Massachusetts.
    - francisofascii 7y ago
      Only 3% the size of California. And 5% the size of Nevada.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        “Only”
  - eesmith 7y ago
    According to the article, Panamint Valley. The article goes on to link to "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-CA-D050-2019-007-EA" at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/120541/168863/205513/Panamint_EA_20190308_508.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/120... . It contains more precise location details. You want section 3.3 "Biological Resources", which shows that it is not "devoid of life", though one of the sections is "on sandy soils with no discernable aspect." Note however that this is for exploration. It doesn't assess long-term effects of commercial mining. Also, as the L.A. Times article points out, this ...: > "does not include mapping of floodplain boundaries, nor any hydrologic modeling or analysis," the response read. "There is no discussion of the risks to cross contamination from the deep brines to the freshwater aquifer, and the drill site reclamation practices do not appear to have taken this risk into account."
- matz1 7y ago
  I don't think I'm going to miss those endangered species if they go extinct. What are they useful for?
  - PorterDuff 7y ago
    lol. Exactly. The entire planet needs to become human habitat in the Empire of Man.
  - mugenettowa 7y ago
    Per the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/fish/species/dhp/dhp.html https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/fish/species/dh...): "Devils Hole pupfish has much to teach scientists about adaptation to adverse conditions. It has adapted to survive in very warm water with very low oxygen content. Envision each living thing on Earth, including humans, as being a thread in a piece of cloth. Each time a species goes extinct, a thread is removed and the fabric is weakened. As more threads disappear, one-by-one, the strands separate and fall away. Eventually, the original piece of cloth falls apart and disappears. All living things are part of a complex, often delicately balanced network called the biosphere. The earth’s biosphere, in turn, is composed of countless ecosystems, which include plants and animals and their physical environments. No one knows how the extinction of organisms will affect the other members of its ecosystem, but the removal of a single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others. Only time will tell."
    - matz1 7y ago
      Human is part of nature too, if these species extinct due to human then its means they are not good enough to adapt to the changing nature.
      - mugenettowa 7y ago
        I think that's a fair point. From an overall survival perspective it makes sense. It may be to our disadvantage later on though. But like the quote ends, I wouldn't know for sure one way or another. It could be useful to keep them around, or it might never make a real difference for human use. Separately there is the simple act of conserving a species for its own sake, but that's a separate topic from its helpfulness for material human needs.
TomMckenny 7y ago
Go to Zabriskie point, go hear the eire tinkling of the devil's golf course. Go to the hot spring oasis in the middle of a neighboring desert valley. Walk through canyon a hundred feet deep and 5 feet wide. And go to the Panamint Valley in spring after a rainy winter. They are certainly as unique as any other natural monument.
francisofascii 7y ago
Because parks and preserves should be off limits. Why not mine in the desert area that is not a National Park. The entire southern part of Nevada for example?
- chr1 7y ago
  Why declare a desert as a national park? It doesn't look like something much more worthy of protection than the southern Nevada.
  - wcarron 7y ago
    Because it's beautiful. Because we can and should preserve Earth's natural monuments. Because fragile and vulnerable species live there and nowhere else. Have you ever been to Death Valley National Park? I was never interested in it until my SO dragged me there. Never did I imagine it would be as incredible as it was. It is otherworldly; surreal; lunar (or martian - if you prefer). It almost feels like you are no longer on Earth. Ubehebe crater is a geological monument. The alluvial fans are so vast as to be almost incomprehensibly large. Surprise canyon is gorgeous. The racetrack playa is home to wandering stones that seemingly migrate of their own accord. Teakettle junction is a fantastic reminder of the trials of many generations of settlers. Badwater basin, Telescope peak, Artists' Palette, Zabriskie Point, Golden Canyon, the wildflower blooms, unique wildlife, etc. etc. are all amazing sights and features of a desert that's apparently not "much more worthy of protection" that are found nowhere else on Earth. Death Valley is a severely underrated and under-visited national park that is, in my opinion, far more impressive than Joshua Tree NP, for example. Or Pinnacles NP. Or Cuyahoga NP or Acadia NP or others. If I were you, I would go visit DVNP.
    - chr1 7y ago
      The question is about choosing what to protect while we can't protect everything. There are enough lunar and martian landscapes on moon and mars. Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? My viewpoint seems to be highly unpopular here, but i didn't see any good argument why significantly reducing the number of deserts on earth is not a good thing. Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.
the_watcher 7y ago
Just because you can't see the life in a desert in the same way that you can see a forest doesn't mean it isn't there. I grew up in a desert, they are fascinating ecosystems.
- chr1 7y ago
  I live near a desert and i know that there is some life in deserts, and some deserts even look lush for a couple of weeks after rain. But the amount of life in a desert is orders of magnitude smaller than life in more lucky places that get more water. I agree that deserts are fascinating ecosystems, but at the same time they are very sparse and very miserable places. And it's hard to find a better place for a mine other than ocean floor (for which we do not have a good technologies yet, unfortunately).
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    Would you support mining in the Antarctic or Arctic regions? They're very similar to Death Valley in terms of total amount of life, and fewer people live anywhere near them.
    - chr1 7y ago
      Yes, if it means one less mine in tropical regions or near the places where people live, that is a net benefit. Arctic region is not even in its natural state, but is a result of human intervention from 10K years ago, when by eliminating mammoths we converted highly productive savanna-like arctic steppe into mosquito infested empty place it is now. Of course any mine anywhere must be controlled to produce as little pollution as possible, and rare species must be protected, or their genomes must be digitized. But if it was technologically feasible, i would even support terraforming both of this regions to make them habitable.

by chr1 7y ago

nradov 7y ago

Have you ever been to the Death Valley area? Despite the name there's actually a lot of life in that area including several threatened and endangered species. We probably do need to mine there for the greater good but with due care to minimize the environmental impact. Yes I absolutely would oppose converting the desert to agricultural land. We have more than enough existing agricultural land. No need to wreck the desert.

mc32 7y ago
Only few areas of DVNP have any flora or fauna. Most areas are devoid of life. I have no idea what section of the park this mine would be in, so your concern might be deserved, but also could be overblown.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  And the park is huge, larger than Connecticut in the US or Kosovo in Europe. About one third of the size of Switzerland or one half of the size of Massachusetts.
  - francisofascii 7y ago
    Only 3% the size of California. And 5% the size of Nevada.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      “Only”
- eesmith 7y ago
  According to the article, Panamint Valley. The article goes on to link to "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-CA-D050-2019-007-EA" at https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/120541/168863/205513/Panamint_EA_20190308_508.pdf https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/120... . It contains more precise location details. You want section 3.3 "Biological Resources", which shows that it is not "devoid of life", though one of the sections is "on sandy soils with no discernable aspect." Note however that this is for exploration. It doesn't assess long-term effects of commercial mining. Also, as the L.A. Times article points out, this ...: > "does not include mapping of floodplain boundaries, nor any hydrologic modeling or analysis," the response read. "There is no discussion of the risks to cross contamination from the deep brines to the freshwater aquifer, and the drill site reclamation practices do not appear to have taken this risk into account."
matz1 7y ago
I don't think I'm going to miss those endangered species if they go extinct. What are they useful for?
- PorterDuff 7y ago
  lol. Exactly. The entire planet needs to become human habitat in the Empire of Man.
- mugenettowa 7y ago
  Per the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/fish/species/dhp/dhp.html https://www.fws.gov/nevada/protected_species/fish/species/dh...): "Devils Hole pupfish has much to teach scientists about adaptation to adverse conditions. It has adapted to survive in very warm water with very low oxygen content. Envision each living thing on Earth, including humans, as being a thread in a piece of cloth. Each time a species goes extinct, a thread is removed and the fabric is weakened. As more threads disappear, one-by-one, the strands separate and fall away. Eventually, the original piece of cloth falls apart and disappears. All living things are part of a complex, often delicately balanced network called the biosphere. The earth’s biosphere, in turn, is composed of countless ecosystems, which include plants and animals and their physical environments. No one knows how the extinction of organisms will affect the other members of its ecosystem, but the removal of a single species can set off a chain reaction affecting many others. Only time will tell."
  - matz1 7y ago
    Human is part of nature too, if these species extinct due to human then its means they are not good enough to adapt to the changing nature.
    - mugenettowa 7y ago
      I think that's a fair point. From an overall survival perspective it makes sense. It may be to our disadvantage later on though. But like the quote ends, I wouldn't know for sure one way or another. It could be useful to keep them around, or it might never make a real difference for human use. Separately there is the simple act of conserving a species for its own sake, but that's a separate topic from its helpfulness for material human needs.

TomMckenny 7y ago

Go to Zabriskie point, go hear the eire tinkling of the devil's golf course. Go to the hot spring oasis in the middle of a neighboring desert valley. Walk through canyon a hundred feet deep and 5 feet wide. And go to the Panamint Valley in spring after a rainy winter. They are certainly as unique as any other natural monument.

francisofascii 7y ago

Because parks and preserves should be off limits. Why not mine in the desert area that is not a National Park. The entire southern part of Nevada for example?

chr1 7y ago
Why declare a desert as a national park? It doesn't look like something much more worthy of protection than the southern Nevada.
- wcarron 7y ago
  Because it's beautiful. Because we can and should preserve Earth's natural monuments. Because fragile and vulnerable species live there and nowhere else. Have you ever been to Death Valley National Park? I was never interested in it until my SO dragged me there. Never did I imagine it would be as incredible as it was. It is otherworldly; surreal; lunar (or martian - if you prefer). It almost feels like you are no longer on Earth. Ubehebe crater is a geological monument. The alluvial fans are so vast as to be almost incomprehensibly large. Surprise canyon is gorgeous. The racetrack playa is home to wandering stones that seemingly migrate of their own accord. Teakettle junction is a fantastic reminder of the trials of many generations of settlers. Badwater basin, Telescope peak, Artists' Palette, Zabriskie Point, Golden Canyon, the wildflower blooms, unique wildlife, etc. etc. are all amazing sights and features of a desert that's apparently not "much more worthy of protection" that are found nowhere else on Earth. Death Valley is a severely underrated and under-visited national park that is, in my opinion, far more impressive than Joshua Tree NP, for example. Or Pinnacles NP. Or Cuyahoga NP or Acadia NP or others. If I were you, I would go visit DVNP.
  - chr1 7y ago
    The question is about choosing what to protect while we can't protect everything. There are enough lunar and martian landscapes on moon and mars. Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? My viewpoint seems to be highly unpopular here, but i didn't see any good argument why significantly reducing the number of deserts on earth is not a good thing. Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.

the_watcher 7y ago

Just because you can't see the life in a desert in the same way that you can see a forest doesn't mean it isn't there. I grew up in a desert, they are fascinating ecosystems.

chr1 7y ago
I live near a desert and i know that there is some life in deserts, and some deserts even look lush for a couple of weeks after rain. But the amount of life in a desert is orders of magnitude smaller than life in more lucky places that get more water. I agree that deserts are fascinating ecosystems, but at the same time they are very sparse and very miserable places. And it's hard to find a better place for a mine other than ocean floor (for which we do not have a good technologies yet, unfortunately).
- the_watcher 7y ago
  Would you support mining in the Antarctic or Arctic regions? They're very similar to Death Valley in terms of total amount of life, and fewer people live anywhere near them.
  - chr1 7y ago
    Yes, if it means one less mine in tropical regions or near the places where people live, that is a net benefit. Arctic region is not even in its natural state, but is a result of human intervention from 10K years ago, when by eliminating mammoths we converted highly productive savanna-like arctic steppe into mosquito infested empty place it is now. Of course any mine anywhere must be controlled to produce as little pollution as possible, and rare species must be protected, or their genomes must be digitized. But if it was technologically feasible, i would even support terraforming both of this regions to make them habitable.