What happens when particular resources become necessary for public good?
That is, does the world in general have the right to extract the resources necessary to manufacture solar panels and grid-scale batteries &etc even if the local people object, because replacing fossil fuel power is a necessity for the survival of the human race entire?
What happens when acquiring and using a resource becomes a requirement for treating human life with value?
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
the mining of these resources must be done with respect and in cooperation with the people who would be harmed by doing so without respect and care. we must also take an approach of being considerate in our consumption habits, otherwise we’re just participating in eco-colonialism
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ah, well that makes it easy then. You leave the people the fuck alone, and let them go on with their lives.
Why? Because the necessity is to some rich cunt who needs to exploit the natural resources of an area they have no larger claim to than anyone else, as well as the labour of whoever they can coerce into working there, to extract further riches for themselves. It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is only a necessity from a capitalistic lens. We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
That is the problem with capitalism. It is inimical to life and humanity, and cares only for profit. Capitalism is the paperclip maximiser.
Refusing to manufacture solar panels because the people living over the whatever refuse to let us mine the whatever would lead to us burning more fossil fuels and killing the planet sooner, and it would even be worse for the people living above the whatever.
OK.
What happens when particular resources become necessary for public good?
That is, does the world in general have the right to extract the resources necessary to manufacture solar panels and grid-scale batteries &etc even if the local people object, because replacing fossil fuel power is a necessity for the survival of the human race entire?
What happens when acquiring and using a resource becomes a requirement for treating human life with value?
Sorry, what biological change in humans made it such that humans as a species require electricity to survive? Or that made it a prerequisite to “treating human life with value”?
Methinks you are conflating maintenance of the human species and maintenance of your desired quality of life.
Medical technology, for one thing. You can’t have modern medicine without electricity. Give up electricity and you drop life expectancy back to what it was in the early 1900s:
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/global-average-life-expectancy-has-more-than-doubled-since-1900
That’s an awful lot of human life.
Methinks you have no real concept of what life was like 100 years ago.
It is an awful lot of human life, but it’s certainly not all human life, by any measure.
My tongue-in-cheek quip about human evolution was in response to your hyperbole about human existence being threatened.
Human existence is threatened. Just browse some of the articles at /c/climate@slrpnk.net :
France’s June heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths
Warming Could Ravage a Third of Plants Used by Amazon Communities | Hotter temperatures and harsher droughts could cause Indigenous societies to lose many of the species they have used for medicine, r
The world’s oceans are warming at a record-breaking pace
Climate change causing more species to go extinct in temperate regions, UA study shows
It’s hardly hyperbole. The environment we live in is actively disintegrating. The effects of the damage are accelerating, right now.
The most effective thing we can do to address the problem is increase renewable energy sources: What actually works — right here, right now — to address climate change
That means more copper, steel, aluminum and concrete, for the whole world, as quickly as we possibly can.
the mining of these resources must be done with respect and in cooperation with the people who would be harmed by doing so without respect and care. we must also take an approach of being considerate in our consumption habits, otherwise we’re just participating in eco-colonialism
That sounds great… on paper. A very Disney ending to the long story if international resource conflict.
It also doesn’t really address my question, which is:
What happens when the extraction of a resource is necessary, but the local people object? What if they refuse to cooperate?
What kind of resource is that, what makes it necessary, and to whom?
OK.
Copper. The answers to necessary and to whom should be self-evident.
Other examples would be the rare earths which China has done so much work to acquire control over, and also sand for concrete which is such a high-value commodity that it has developed a global black market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, complete with international organized crime groups, and has caused a lot of environmental damage.
Ah, well that makes it easy then. You leave the people the fuck alone, and let them go on with their lives.
Why? Because the necessity is to some rich cunt who needs to exploit the natural resources of an area they have no larger claim to than anyone else, as well as the labour of whoever they can coerce into working there, to extract further riches for themselves. It is not about life or death. t is not about the betterment of a particular community, or society at large. It’s about profit.
This is only a necessity from a capitalistic lens. We have already extracted these materials, and they are out there ready to be reclaimed and reused. It just so happens that it’s more profitable to trample communities and destroy the earth to get more of it, rather than use what we already have.
That is the problem with capitalism. It is inimical to life and humanity, and cares only for profit. Capitalism is the paperclip maximiser.
Refusing to manufacture solar panels because the people living over the whatever refuse to let us mine the whatever would lead to us burning more fossil fuels and killing the planet sooner, and it would even be worse for the people living above the whatever.