At first glance, I think this measure makes a lot of sense - profits from mines mostly leave the country.
That being said, I'd expect this will lead to a surge in illegal mining operations, which will likely be a lot more environmentally hazardous.
That being said, I'd expect this will lead to a surge in illegal mining operations, which will likely be a lot more environmentally hazardous.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/magazine/sand-mining-indi...
The argument by itself is not moot, and the writer did not explicitly support an agenda.
That the comment doesn't suggest action is the form of defeatism I was refering to. Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction.
> Defeatists don't normally call for inaction they just present all the problems that action leads to promote inaction.
Suppose someone called for prohibition again as an action to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related car accidents and domestic abuse.
You have the information that this leads to a lot of money flowing into the hands of criminals. How is stating that defeatism?
you don't do mining for fun, nor does anyone get the urge to suddenly mine something. outlawing alcohol was/is pretty useless because pretty much everyone and their mother wants to drink some alcohol every so often.
You're conflating a simple statement that presents factual information to a mindset.
One in fact can use that information to try influencing people to be scared™. However that is not always the case, and people can for example offer an alternative.
The case in point is not that I agree or not with the passing of the law, but that passing it may have unintended consequences, so that you need to account for that.
The analogy was intended to be used as a context for a debate against decision makers using factual data, the fact that it's mining or liquor does not make difference. It was devised to counter-attack your understanding that just by warning of something bad if you do something else you're being defeatist.
> Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining?
Since you're assuming something implicit in our discussion maybe you can answer the question yourself.
I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.
Ok, so I'll guess you are assuming it is easy to detect and punish irregular mining then.
I agree and understand your point as how the increased propensity for illegal mining can be combated.
I think it was not exactly cynical, and that's coming from someone who supports El Salvador's action. We need clarification of all possible issues to understand how to act on them, but I guess at this point it's a difference on how each one of us took the statement.
That was a good discussion though.
A problem for most developing countries, especially when the company is backed by a much more powerful country.
Compare that to small scale illegal miners. The scale at which they can pollute is a lot less and localised. Yes they damage, but do not have the potential to damage as the large corporations.
Ideally, legal mining / oil extraction would be heavily regulated and monitored to avoid (minimise) contamination.
But in remote areas of developing countries, the profit at stake is too corrupting to "both" sides. It is all too easy to see the developing country as being the corrupt partner (which it is) but many forget the corruption of the powerful side who set up the corruption in the first place. A chicken and egg situation. Was the country corrupted before, or was it made corrupt by the offer of money to chase bigger profit
You don't solve these problems as easily. To really fix it, a way to produce minerals in economically safe and preferably, sustainable way (like, filtering out of ocean water) is needed.
Does "proper mining" somehow police against illegal mining?