4 ms·
The article concludes: "poorer countries are not a dumping ground for the rich." They are indeed a dumping ground for the rich. Whether they should they be so
by Eupraxias 4y ago
The article concludes: "poorer countries are not a dumping ground for the rich."
They are indeed a dumping ground for the rich. Whether they should they be so is another question.
- ovi256 4y agoCommon misuse of positive statements for what should be normative statements.
- stdbrouw 4y agoA dumping ground is a place where it is appropriate to dump waste. To say that poor countries are not a dumping ground for the rich means that it is not appropriate for the rich to dump waste there. The word itself is normative, and therefore so is the sentence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mpweiher 4y agoWhat are your grounds for dismissing the well-supported conclusion of the article? Are their data faulty? Incomplete beyond what they themselves show?
- Eupraxias 4y agoI'm not dismissing anything - I tend to agree with the findings of the article. I'm just taking issue with the words choice of that sentence.
- NineStarPoint 4y agoIt’s incomplete in that it only considers direct imports/exports of waste. It can be argued that rich countries have exported manufacturing and resource extraction to poor countries as well, generating waste that wouldn’t be accounted for in this analysis. (Such as: We know that fishermen from poor countries create a lot of ocean plastic waste, but how much of that is generated to sell fish to rich countries). Understanding how much waste is generated by each country’s consumption would paint a more complete picture. Of course supporting that argument also isn’t clear cut in a way where just stating it outright makes sense, and the article does indeed do a good job of showing that direct waste exports are not really a major contributing issue.