4 ms·
That looks like a fallacy reasoning. In the same way if we would compare any harm that is happening on our planet to let say: Solar system, galaxy or universe,
by NiceWayToDoIT 5y ago
That looks like a fallacy reasoning. In the same way if we would compare any harm that is happening on our planet to let say: Solar system, galaxy or universe, combined with age of a star, so it would be negligible and therefore justifiable?
Collateral damage is justifiable unless you are not that damage isn't it?
Better reasoning could begin with the question: would I leave my comfortable home, go there, and live there in community where water is contaminated by lithium mining sludge. Would I drink that water every day? Is there anyone who is suffering so I could enjoy comfortable life?
- jeffbee 5y agoI'm not suggesting that you should move to a salt flat in Bolivia where nobody lives, no, nor am I suggesting that you move to an acidic retaining pond at an old copper mine in Shasta County, California. What I am suggesting is that there are already way, way more people suffering from global consumption of gold, copper, lead, nickel, iron, cadmium, and other metals than are or will potentially suffer from lithium mining.
- NiceWayToDoIT 5y agoI'm saying that more people suffering from other type of mining does not justify more lithium mining just because it is polluting less in comparison to another long establish industries. Instead it should concentrate people thinking power to solve those other issues in mining industry of metals as gold, copper, lead, nickel, iron, cadmium... Also going outside and seeing that it is beautiful kind of sounds as ostrich way of dealing with problems buy turning on the blind eye concentrating to things in local vicinity, convincing yourself that all is good and we should move on.