4 ms·

Mining exploration of any kind impacts ecosystems, what of it?

Ztynovovk 4y ago
[dead]
TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Yes and that’s what makes mining an environmental issue. Considering what humanity is doing to the earth it’s always worth asking if what we’re doing is really the right thing. Just because a resource exists does not mean we have to extract it.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  You would be scarcely rubbing two sticks together rather than browsing HN if we did not extract resources. Encroachment is not a function of the specificity of resources but of demand. Damaging a marginal piece of Earth in and of itself does not matter in any existential sense, the only thing that does is long term survival. Since population growth is poised to stagnate in 100 years or so globally, we can expect demand to level off in kind, all the while gains in efficiency through innovation and recycling will continue to the extent that encroachment will be minimal. There is far more damage done owing to the demand for fossil fuels, which is still irreplaceable currently for non-electrical cases (75% of their use). We use it for ammonia, steel, concrete, plastics, all pillars of modern civilization. The most rapid viable intervention in the near term is lowering growth, by expanding access to contraceptives, and other incentives. Westerners treat that as a right so everyone should be on board.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    > You would be scarcely rubbing two sticks together rather than browsing HN if we did not extract resources. There is a chasm between "we do not need to extract every last resource we find" and "no resource extraction". > Damaging a marginal piece of Earth in and of itself does not matter in any existential sense, the only thing that does is long term survival. I would prefer not just to merely survive, but still have the fish and the birds and the insects intact as well. It's not about one piece of "marginal land" (whatever that means), but about our desire to scrape every last piece of this earth clean to extract everything we can. In any case you said "Mining exploration of any kind impacts ecosystems, what of it?" and I answered your question. There are environmental costs at play and they should be considered and balanced against our need to continue consuming more and more of the planet's surface. > The most rapid viable intervention in the near term is lowering growth, by expanding access to contraceptives, and other incentives. Actually the people who already have contraceptives use the most resources, so instead of pointing fingers at "them" we would do well to look at our own resource consumption.
    - slothtrop 4y ago
      > There is a chasm between "we do not need to extract every last resource we find" and "no resource extraction". That is rather redundant seeing as we already do not extract every resource available - we extract to meet demand. > still have the fish and the birds and the insects intact as well. Another redundancy as the large part of the human population would face doom if most animals cannot survive. We do not have the means to engineer survival for even a fraction of 8 billion people without ecosystems. > There are environmental costs at play and they should be considered and balanced against our need to continue consuming more and more of the planet's surface. They are. And the growth in consumption is largely driven by emerging middle class in China and other countries. It would be inhumane to demand that they do not improve their quality of life. > Actually the people who already have contraceptives use the most resources, so instead of pointing fingers at "them" we would do well to look at our own resource consumption. You still don't see the big picture. Fertility rates in the west are stagnant. Growth rate is pegged through policy, as a device to prop up the GDP (primarily benefiting the rich). This is a measure of consumption. Immigration is the reason total GDP (consumption) grows over time. It should be trivial to infer that those elements that lead to our individual carbon footprint are what constitutes a better life for those moving over - the houses, infrastructure, food, comforts, etc. No one moves here to lower consumption. Notwithstanding, the significant increases in consumption are in emerging economies, not ours. This will continue as more of the world is lifted out of poverty. It's a positive, but will lead to more emissions. Fertilizer, steel, cement, and plastics require it. The basic pillars of modern living, even if you keep gadgets like iPhones out of the picture. Ultimately, the global population growth is projected to level off in 100 years. If you care so much about birds and fish though, you would do well to support initiatives to expedite the stagnation. The numbers don't lie. Blaming consumers in abstract is ineffective and absurd. We could and should target some problem areas through policy (greener homes grant to improve insulation is a good real world example, also reducing food waste), but ultimately consumption will rise with our growing population and you cannot outrun that.certainly not with innanities like scolding people about arbitrary consumer choices like buying a phone or driving a car to meet their needs. Since the radical leftists have appropriated the green sphere, I detect more cognitive dissonance, such as the notion that it is imperative that any and all should have the opportunity to emigrate here owing to better standard of living while simultaneously calling on people to lower their standard of living in completely arbitrary ways. This bears repeating: even if you hypothetically lowered consumption of a large demo of westerners through messaging (unlikely), the govt policy is explicitly to increase consumption. Immigration would just increase. Consumption WILL increase, at least for 100 years. The anti-consumer rhetoric is pissing in the wind.

[dead]

Yes and that’s what makes mining an environmental issue. Considering what humanity is doing to the earth it’s always worth asking if what we’re doing is really the right thing. Just because a resource exists does not mean we have to extract it.

slothtrop 4y ago
You would be scarcely rubbing two sticks together rather than browsing HN if we did not extract resources. Encroachment is not a function of the specificity of resources but of demand. Damaging a marginal piece of Earth in and of itself does not matter in any existential sense, the only thing that does is long term survival. Since population growth is poised to stagnate in 100 years or so globally, we can expect demand to level off in kind, all the while gains in efficiency through innovation and recycling will continue to the extent that encroachment will be minimal. There is far more damage done owing to the demand for fossil fuels, which is still irreplaceable currently for non-electrical cases (75% of their use). We use it for ammonia, steel, concrete, plastics, all pillars of modern civilization. The most rapid viable intervention in the near term is lowering growth, by expanding access to contraceptives, and other incentives. Westerners treat that as a right so everyone should be on board.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  > You would be scarcely rubbing two sticks together rather than browsing HN if we did not extract resources. There is a chasm between "we do not need to extract every last resource we find" and "no resource extraction". > Damaging a marginal piece of Earth in and of itself does not matter in any existential sense, the only thing that does is long term survival. I would prefer not just to merely survive, but still have the fish and the birds and the insects intact as well. It's not about one piece of "marginal land" (whatever that means), but about our desire to scrape every last piece of this earth clean to extract everything we can. In any case you said "Mining exploration of any kind impacts ecosystems, what of it?" and I answered your question. There are environmental costs at play and they should be considered and balanced against our need to continue consuming more and more of the planet's surface. > The most rapid viable intervention in the near term is lowering growth, by expanding access to contraceptives, and other incentives. Actually the people who already have contraceptives use the most resources, so instead of pointing fingers at "them" we would do well to look at our own resource consumption.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    > There is a chasm between "we do not need to extract every last resource we find" and "no resource extraction". That is rather redundant seeing as we already do not extract every resource available - we extract to meet demand. > still have the fish and the birds and the insects intact as well. Another redundancy as the large part of the human population would face doom if most animals cannot survive. We do not have the means to engineer survival for even a fraction of 8 billion people without ecosystems. > There are environmental costs at play and they should be considered and balanced against our need to continue consuming more and more of the planet's surface. They are. And the growth in consumption is largely driven by emerging middle class in China and other countries. It would be inhumane to demand that they do not improve their quality of life. > Actually the people who already have contraceptives use the most resources, so instead of pointing fingers at "them" we would do well to look at our own resource consumption. You still don't see the big picture. Fertility rates in the west are stagnant. Growth rate is pegged through policy, as a device to prop up the GDP (primarily benefiting the rich). This is a measure of consumption. Immigration is the reason total GDP (consumption) grows over time. It should be trivial to infer that those elements that lead to our individual carbon footprint are what constitutes a better life for those moving over - the houses, infrastructure, food, comforts, etc. No one moves here to lower consumption. Notwithstanding, the significant increases in consumption are in emerging economies, not ours. This will continue as more of the world is lifted out of poverty. It's a positive, but will lead to more emissions. Fertilizer, steel, cement, and plastics require it. The basic pillars of modern living, even if you keep gadgets like iPhones out of the picture. Ultimately, the global population growth is projected to level off in 100 years. If you care so much about birds and fish though, you would do well to support initiatives to expedite the stagnation. The numbers don't lie. Blaming consumers in abstract is ineffective and absurd. We could and should target some problem areas through policy (greener homes grant to improve insulation is a good real world example, also reducing food waste), but ultimately consumption will rise with our growing population and you cannot outrun that.certainly not with innanities like scolding people about arbitrary consumer choices like buying a phone or driving a car to meet their needs. Since the radical leftists have appropriated the green sphere, I detect more cognitive dissonance, such as the notion that it is imperative that any and all should have the opportunity to emigrate here owing to better standard of living while simultaneously calling on people to lower their standard of living in completely arbitrary ways. This bears repeating: even if you hypothetically lowered consumption of a large demo of westerners through messaging (unlikely), the govt policy is explicitly to increase consumption. Immigration would just increase. Consumption WILL increase, at least for 100 years. The anti-consumer rhetoric is pissing in the wind.