7 ms·

Capitalism 101, get rich by plundering the earth (and leave someone else to clean up the mess). Mining is a truly nasty business, and not just environmentally.

Capitalism 101, get rich by plundering the earth (and leave someone else to clean up the mess). Mining is a truly nasty business, and not just environmentally. No small problem is that of assigning value to a clean environment, or to sustainable practises. ETS anyone?

ThomPete 7y ago
You are most likely using products based on mining to write that comment. Doesn't that make you complicit if we are to follow your hard stance here?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Did you know by just being alive you are destroying the earth? Clearly anyone that dosen't immediately kill themselves has no grounds for criticizing anything.
- mathieuh 7y ago
  No, this is just a reformulation of the same old facile "if you're such an anti-capitalist why don't you move to the DPRK" comment
- pjc50 7y ago
  Everyone is complicit in everything to a slight degree. That's simply no longer a useful thing to say, nor is it a means to dismiss an argument that something should not be done. It's just a statement that disentangling yourself from the system comes at an extremely high cost, if it is possible at all.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Pointing the ethical/moral finger at someone else while you are part of the problem is the very definition of disentangling yourself from the system. Some of us are perfectly fine with the negative consequences because we believe the positive far outweighs the negative. In other words, there are other ways to think about this which actually do make it useful to say.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      That doesn't make the negatives go away. Mining is a nasty business, even if it's also beneficial.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        It doesn't make the negatives go away but it could mean it's a net positive which changes what to read into it.
    - Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
      And others among us think the negative in certain aspects of the system can outweigh the positive and things could be improved, and it doesn't mean that we should live in the wilderness hunting our own food if we want to criticise any aspect of said system. The computer mrspuratic is using exists thanks to products from current mining... true. But it could also exist thanks to products from more sustainable mining, if the world worked differently. It's not like he was given a choice. So your kind of argument, if you intend it to discredit criticism or making other people appear incoherent with their principles, is basically a fallacy.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        The fallacy as far as I can see is yours. Mining companies don't have more choices than the consumer. The mining companies are also forced into making the choices they do or go out of business based on the reality around them.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Only a little. Mining can be less environmentally harmful if we make that our priority. China didn't care and bankrupted the environmentally concious competitors.
  - ljf 7y ago
    Let's not forget, that the buyers of the minerals had total choice where to get their supplies from. They could have purchased from American or other mines, but chose to go with the cheapest - knowing both that doing this would bankrupt safer mines, and leave environmental waste in China. The Chinese mines are not blameless, but they are only part of the 'profit at all costs' mindset that many shareholders demand.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      They didn’t really have a choice though. Oh sure, those companies could pay twice as much as their competitors, but they would simply go out of business and not exist anymore. So if they existed before, they can’t exist now. It’s all predicted by the free market: the mines that had higher costs because they followed environmental regulations can’t compete with those that don’t, likewise companies that purchase from more expensive sources can’t compete with those that purchase from cheaper ones, since ultimately consumers are going to choose the cheaper product. Hence the need for regulation and perhaps even trade restrictions to force the right choices to be made.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        No it is not predicted. The free market does not require you to use the cheapest supplier, it requires you to use the best for your situation. Sometimes it is worth paying for quality. If using the cheapest supplier causes your customers who care about the environment to boycott you, then using that cheap supplier isn't a good decision. So the failure comes back to people not actually caring about the environment in China.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
patrickaljord 7y ago
The USSR was way more polluting than the US.

ThomPete 7y ago

You are most likely using products based on mining to write that comment. Doesn't that make you complicit if we are to follow your hard stance here?

throwaway2048 7y ago
Did you know by just being alive you are destroying the earth? Clearly anyone that dosen't immediately kill themselves has no grounds for criticizing anything.
mathieuh 7y ago
No, this is just a reformulation of the same old facile "if you're such an anti-capitalist why don't you move to the DPRK" comment
pjc50 7y ago
Everyone is complicit in everything to a slight degree. That's simply no longer a useful thing to say, nor is it a means to dismiss an argument that something should not be done. It's just a statement that disentangling yourself from the system comes at an extremely high cost, if it is possible at all.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Pointing the ethical/moral finger at someone else while you are part of the problem is the very definition of disentangling yourself from the system. Some of us are perfectly fine with the negative consequences because we believe the positive far outweighs the negative. In other words, there are other ways to think about this which actually do make it useful to say.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    That doesn't make the negatives go away. Mining is a nasty business, even if it's also beneficial.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      It doesn't make the negatives go away but it could mean it's a net positive which changes what to read into it.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
    And others among us think the negative in certain aspects of the system can outweigh the positive and things could be improved, and it doesn't mean that we should live in the wilderness hunting our own food if we want to criticise any aspect of said system. The computer mrspuratic is using exists thanks to products from current mining... true. But it could also exist thanks to products from more sustainable mining, if the world worked differently. It's not like he was given a choice. So your kind of argument, if you intend it to discredit criticism or making other people appear incoherent with their principles, is basically a fallacy.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      The fallacy as far as I can see is yours. Mining companies don't have more choices than the consumer. The mining companies are also forced into making the choices they do or go out of business based on the reality around them.
imtringued 7y ago
Only a little. Mining can be less environmentally harmful if we make that our priority. China didn't care and bankrupted the environmentally concious competitors.
- ljf 7y ago
  Let's not forget, that the buyers of the minerals had total choice where to get their supplies from. They could have purchased from American or other mines, but chose to go with the cheapest - knowing both that doing this would bankrupt safer mines, and leave environmental waste in China. The Chinese mines are not blameless, but they are only part of the 'profit at all costs' mindset that many shareholders demand.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    They didn’t really have a choice though. Oh sure, those companies could pay twice as much as their competitors, but they would simply go out of business and not exist anymore. So if they existed before, they can’t exist now. It’s all predicted by the free market: the mines that had higher costs because they followed environmental regulations can’t compete with those that don’t, likewise companies that purchase from more expensive sources can’t compete with those that purchase from cheaper ones, since ultimately consumers are going to choose the cheaper product. Hence the need for regulation and perhaps even trade restrictions to force the right choices to be made.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      No it is not predicted. The free market does not require you to use the cheapest supplier, it requires you to use the best for your situation. Sometimes it is worth paying for quality. If using the cheapest supplier causes your customers who care about the environment to boycott you, then using that cheap supplier isn't a good decision. So the failure comes back to people not actually caring about the environment in China.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago

patrickaljord 7y ago

The USSR was way more polluting than the US.