derdmeh

I received this email note today and thought there might be some members of the TG community who would be interested:

My thought is that the rights of the individual people and individual families, as well as the "rights" of the environment, are being violated for the sake of a collective good. Nothing new there; things go that way. But given this articulation of the situation, I'm skeptical that the "collective" involved here has anything at all to do with the individuals whose world is being up-ended. Were I in the situation of the local farmers, I hope that people would be concerned for my welfare.

NorCalRoach

You rule Derdmeh!

__________________
.

Steeler

Collective good being defined as profit for the Chilean government and private international investors. Sad.

The problem has always been determining the good of which collective.

__________________

CingularDuality

And we're seeing the same thing here in the USA with the recent Eminent Domain decision...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

Of course, they never tell the whole story in online chain letters...

More to the story

I especially like this quote:

__________________

thebleakaffinity

Speaking of Chile, Pinochet just died. I hope I speak for everyone when I say good riddance.

derdmeh

amen, with the caveat that he should have died in jail.

jepzilla

The source of mountain streams is snow-melt. But snow-melt is a seasonal thing, with the snow-caps being replenished annually from the warm, wet ocean water being forced over mountains. This cools the air and condenses out the water (also causing the rain shadow effect). Removing a glacier will not stop this seasonal process.

If the glacier were the source of the water, it would have melted away a long time ago.

Kerostasis

In short, the next time you get an internet chain letter: Assume its a hoax until research says otherwise!

__________________

derdmeh

Two presuppositions have to be in place before anyone can stake out a defense of Barrick with an easy conscience. The first is that mining operations in Chile have been an unproblematic source of fair labor in that country. That’s not clearly true. The country’s major source of income at the time of Pinochet was its copper mines, and the copper miners were an instrumental part of Pinochet’s rise to power. I think a decent wage is the right of a hard worker, but there is a duty to preserve the larger context in which that work and that wage are possible. Employees of the Chilean copper industry in the early 70’s supported Pinochet against President Allende because they wanted to protect their decent wage, and in so doing they contributed to a massive perversion of the larger context in which their work was nested. The country belongs to the people, not to a dictator; I think everyone would agree to that. It seems to me naïve to say that massive numbers of job applicants prove anything about the virtues of a mining operation. Furthermore, it seems to me irresponsible to claim that there are massive numbers of applicants without citing your sources.

The second presupposition is that the mining operation will not severely impact the larger physical environment. I’m wondering how far one has to go to argue against this assumption successfully. As far as I can tell, this operation requires gigantic and violent deformation of the land. If you look at Barrick’s defense against this chain letter, you’ll notice that there is a 400 point list of precautionary measures the Chilean government has required of the company. That’s a lot of precaution, because there’s a lot of destruction involved.

As far as the idea that the glacier has nothing to do with the water supply, or that somehow the water supply is supposed to be derived from glacial ice stored up from pre-historic times, I think no one was saying that. From Barrick: “The approval of the project in Chile (Resolution - RCA 024/2006) lists more than 400 conditions which Barrick must meet to be able to build and operate the Pascua-Lama Project, including very stringent commitments and controls for the protection of glaciers/ice fields and water resources.” The company has agreed (in some sense of "agree") to protect glaciers, ice fields, and water resources because they are all part of the same system.

I write this not because I am an expert in these matters. My research amounts to having watched one four-hour documentary on the overthrow of Allende and a few google searches. I’m writing this only to point out that it is exceptionally naïve to think that the interests of a multi-national mining company in Chile can be justified by the fact that they’re able to attract people looking for and needing work.

Kerostasis

But is it not equally naive to condemn their actions based on the fact that someone sent out a chain letter over the internet?

__________________

Steeler

That's how I make all MY decisions in life. Which is why I'm now a Nigerian Prince.

__________________

leejo

When I read discussions like this right after reading a discussion about the growing wealth gap, I smile. It seems that whenever some villager is presented with the opportunity to move from the stone age to a 1700s European lifestyle, some endangered rat or a pristine glacier becomes much more important than fixing his wealth gap. I suppose the only environmentally-acceptable solution is for me to just write a check to the IRS. Doesn't help me or the villager but that's not really the point is it?

Steeler

All people with whom you disagree are united in common cause to piss you off, leejo. It's time you knew that.

__________________

PanzerHans

So it is you who have been sending me all those kind letters about the money you need to get out of the country. I´ll get around to send you my account number and 50 dollars in transfer fees right away....

__________________
--
VI VI VI - the number of the beast