Native people are left poor as tech world takes lithium from under their feet
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster." https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
I'm sure the newspapers, though, are totally fair, neutral observers who have no reason at all to have grudges against tech companies: https://www.baekdal.com/blog/what-killed-the-newspapers-goog...
You'd think that after thousands of years these "great thinkers" would learn that nothing good will come from taking private property and making it a "common resource" (read: property of the state)
The "Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics" becomes relevant if one is convinced that mining companies are totally honest, reasonable negotiators who's primary concern is solving the local communities' problems and not extracting maximum resource at minimum cost. Personally, I don't believe that. YMMV.
That's a clear false dichotomy: either people have no self-interest, or else they must be the bad guys. But almost everyone in any market operates primarily from self-interest. If a company that was losing money offered you your current job at twice the salary, would you say no, because you placed their interests above your own? Of course not. If you didn't take it, it would most likely be because you worried the company would go broke and lay you off, a clearly self-interested motivation. And the communities here - if someone offered them far more than the lithium was worth, would they turn that down? I really don't think they would. So either being mainly motivated by self-interest doesn't make someone bad, or else almost anyone who buys or sells anything is bad.
It's reasonable to desire that resources extracted from a country or region should benefit the people of that country or region more than the companies extracting those resources. The problem is that that is a classic tragedy of the commons, making it unreasonable to expect or hope that that sort of problem gets solved on an individual basis. Yes, let's hold mining companies to task for not further helping impoverished communities near mines, but let's not mistake that it is the government of Argentina that allowed this to occur to begin with.
Nobody is suggesting the mining company is the "bad guys" for having an interest in making a profit. They are suggesting they might be the "bad guys" for allegedly exploiting the naivete of local residence to pay a pittance to wreck their environment.
In other words, if you find a young girl trapped in a well, knowing she would die without you, you are morally just if you keep her there, fed, watered and use her for your 'amusement' because her other alternative was death.
Or am I reading that wrong?
What I learned from the documentary is that you can't change overnight a huge system (like, how little rights people in China have, how production in China cannot be avoided, or the gang wars and child labour in Africa) even if you want to. You need to lower your standards to the status quo of the social environment you are working with, and improve it from there, little by little. Plus, you will experience setbacks. Also, his goal was pretty much impossible for various practical reasons so he had to lower expectations.
Their profit margins are very low for standards (IIRC < 10 EUR per smartphone), yet the price/performance of the phone is also low compared to flagship devices like latest SGS or iPhone. Playing devil's advocate this means that, by definition, every owner of a smartphone is doing less good than Fairphone, and now that you know the above, you "know you are a monster". One could even argue Fairphone are monsters since they profit.
For the record, I wouldn't put it like this. I think there's a lot of shades between such harsh, black and white statements.
[1] http://www.vpro.nl/programmas/tegenlicht/kijk/afleveringen/2...
"Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side."
I'm sure you're just quoting this conveniently exonerating 'truth' for honest reasons.
Note: demagoguery works exceptionally well when using seemingly rational, preferably contrarian, arguments with a public that considers itself very rational and wouldn't dream of being persuaded by a narrative because it confirms their prejudices.
At first I was thinking it's ridiculous to consider someone as well part of the problem if they observe a problem and do nothing. But doing something could be as simple as calling the police.
The CMR royalty is based on a company’s annual profits from mining. It is typical of Canadian mineral royalties, which are mainly profit based, and all of which have some specific peculiarities, often related to embedded incentives. In the case of the CMR, its main characteristics are:
̇ a stepped ladder of royalty rate –
̇ no royalty on the first $10,000 of annual profits;
̇ 5% of annual net profit between $10,000 and $5 million;
̇ escalating in 1% increments per $5 million of net profit, to maximum 14% (for net profit above $45 million);
̇ subject to an overall maximum rate on all net profit of 13% (for profit above $220 million);
> By the time the plant is running, Exar will have paid about $250,000 to the indigenous groups. And after that, the six communities would share a total of about $178,000 each year.
> Many indigenous residents were unaware of the contracts, learning about them from Post reporters who were able to review the documents at the provincial mining office.
How much of the problem boils down to education and information asymmetry? -- (e.g fracking here in NA.) -- Terrible contracts signed by small under-educated communities who only later find out they're getting screwed.
I wonder are there organizations that help small communities understand their own bargaining power and long-term impact when structuring such deals?
The article then goes on to say that the companies aren't "taking" anything. They've signed contracts with the government and tribes to rightfully mine lithium. Sure some people want a larger cut of the pie but the companies aren't doing anything unethical and the article is clearly biased from the get go.
"Yolanda Cruz, one of the leaders of the village of Catua, said she signed the contract with Minera Exar but now regrets it. At the time, she valued the opportunity to create jobs for her village. But she now worries “we are going to be left with nothing,” she said."
In any case, I think you're wrong saying that the article is biased. One of the quotes in the article is even a remark that there is a good and bad side to mining. It's not incorrect for the article to say that "Native people are left poor as..." because resource extraction doesn't create lasting wealth. Once the lithium is gone, the communities will still be poor while the West benefits far more from the resource inputs into its industries on a long term scale.
It is not hard to construct an argument that resource extraction is fundamentally unethical on grounds like this. Whether or not one agrees with it is another matter. I don't think making this argument is more biased than the presumption that companies negotiating with communities with far fewer resources than them is ethical until proven otherwise because there's plenty of historical evidence that it's rarely the case.
Under that criteria, it'd be impossible to do business with any group that has lesser legal funding. Neighborhood organizations, common families, local businesses. All probably have inadequate legal representation when interpreting and signing these agreements.
They do this everywhere in the country. Most parts of Argentina are dry because the Andes block most of the humidity. Large mines use a lot of water. Indigenous people and farmers (lots of wines grow in deserts, but also olives etc.) no longer get the water they need.
This is why we have the IMF. To make financial crack junkies out of countries that are controlling the resources. Thank god there's a republican government now and the ban on lending money has been lifted now they've paid off the vulture funds.
What could go wrong?
It takes a certain sort of person to screw the indigenous out of not only their traditions and culture by destroying their source of food and other supplies, and then turn around and say they don't deserve to profit off that destruction because they're simple and provincial.
Are the benefits of living in Argentina society, bolstered by shared oil revenue, good enough for the people who born in the Andean salt flats region? That's a political question, not a moral one.
Additionally, I don't like how this is being framed.
Titling this as happening to 'indigenous peoples' instead of "Citizens of Argentina" and talking about the destruction of culture, as opposed to 'evolution' or 'melding with multicultural society'. Or people 'subsisting' instead of merely being poor. "Provincial" instead of 'uneducated'.
It slants the whole conversation in a direction I think is utterly unfair.
Pretty sure it's both.
Yet most people question why a natural resource extraction should result in a windfall for 300-1000 people at most, and leave the rest of the nation without any immediate benefit.
We can question why X people get more and Y people get less, but that's really getting into the scope of the politics of a foreign nation which I bet none of us are really capable of discussing.
The people living on top of the resources may have legally relinquished their rights to it and the intact land it's buried beneath, but the drafters of those contracts have a lot of room and leverage to act in bad faith in order to exploit them. This can prevent these people from escaping a cycle of subjugation because they are given mere subsistence instead of wealth in return for their resources.
Legality of things like this are often just procedural facades to release mineral extraction companies from accusations that they are doing something wrong, harming someone or, sadly, indirectly enslaving vulnerable people.
There is a large difference in power and knowledge
between these two sides, which is the heart of the
ethics argument.
This is exactly the point where these conversations break down. The natives negotiated a contract for fixed rates, not proportional rates of payment. The advantage of fixed rates is that you know what you are going to get, the advantage of proportional rates are that you get more if they get more.Had the Lithium extraction here turned out to be really really hard and the payment to the communities was nearly all of the profit the mining companies were making after extraction, the natives would not complain. But when it is a small fraction of the profit, it is "unfair".
So what is the right answer? Well in one view of the world the correct answer is to build a mining company with the indigenous population so that they can start providing a commodity that the rest of the world wants to buy. That creates a local boost to the economy and employs as many native people as want to be employed.
That seems great until the lithium runs out. Then you end up with a derelict mining town.
Finally of course there is the "So what" aspect of it, I don't think anyone seriously argues that the US or other strong powers simply mow down the sovereignty of countries because they abuse their own citizens. If you want to advocate for a single world government that is another issue entirely.
[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Chinas-...
I think you may be confusing "illegal" with "unethical".