Sand trafficking in Latin America
insightcrime.org
insightcrime.org
Organised crime can make it profitable because they already have manpower and equipment, but it isn't necessary.
The smuggling operations between Guatemala and Mexico go both ways, depending on market prices in both countries for some very unglamorous products like eggs and gasoline.
There definitely does seem to be a breed of people like this, and Latin America or Africa can present some interesting opportunities (see alo cowboy capitalists by vice).
I remember when I was young and unemployed being plucked from the street when I was looking at job cards in the window of a job centre by members of an MLM. They tried to rope me into their ugly embrace selling door to door on commission only deals that were dubious in nature.
What's kind of spooky to me is how thin those lines can be, it only takes one mistake, lapse in judgement in youth or rolling your birth into an unstable family to end up on the wrong side of that line. This is why I personally find it quite distasteful when people who travelled the happy path turn up their nose at people who fell off onto the darker one. In some cases some kids excel in their black market roles and would have applied the same gusto to a white market profession if they'd had that opportunity.
All your contacts are ‘in’, you have a reputation and people trust you to do what they expect, etc. etc. If you get arrested, even more so, as now people ‘outside’ have a clear signal which side of the line you’re in.
People looking down on you is as much a defense mechanism for them as anything else too, of course, as it provides not only a us vs them mechanism, but also makes it easier to segregate themselves and avoid crossing the line.
It’s genius really.
The director helps reveal what's inside the killer's mind by suggesting to him to make a movie of his experiences. In one scene [2], we're at a lush waterfall, we see angels dancing and the victims of the killers thank him for freeing them from communistic godlessness and sending them to heaven, with the song "Born Free" playing in the background...
Emotional and social consequences from killing are not so easy though, usually, but the actual act itself is pretty straightforward, especially with a little training and some forethought/prep.
It tends to change one’s view of society and other people quite a bit. Which makes re-integrating with society and/or integrating childhood conditioning hard. Hence the flight to delusions or drugs for many.
But often the hardest part for many people to understand is how easy it can be for many to just shrug their shoulders and go ‘ok’ and continue on with their lives with not only no guilt, but feeling good about it. Because sometimes people needed killin’.
Being government sanctioned it makes sense that it would attract people who find it easier (even enjoyable for some) to kill and live with it afterwards, or at least it makes it easy by providing the moral cover that it was necessary and moral. They were enemies after all.
These people are far more likely to continue to find killing easy during and after the fact as ling as they’re given even the vaguest sense of moral cover.
And even in the worst wars, very few front line soldiers ever actually killed anyone - even infantry.
("roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes", https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)
It’s actually a much lower percentage though. As most combat arms folks will be stuck guarding something and never see action, be in an indirect fire type role (artillery, sitting in a bomber or in a connex piloting a surveillance drone), or even if actually infantry have a super boring tour patrolling some pointless BS in the middle of nowwhere.
It also depends on where you draw the line at ‘killing’ of course. Does being a loader in an artillery battery count? A forward observer? A pilot who fires a cruise missle? A dude pushing the button to fire a cruise missle on a ship? An officer ordering an air strike?
About the only folks who are ‘killers’ in the way most folks would recognize the term though are infantry (of various forms, including mech. inf.), and perhaps some pilots if they have really good optics.
Soldiers follow orders. If they’re good ones anyway. Most have been trained to be able to be killers, and are often armed as such, just in case some folks need killing (per the chain of command and appropriate ROE).
But it rarely comes up, and anyone going into most MOS’s in the military hoping to do that is likely to be sorely disappointed.
Even those high speed low drag types.
> 7% to 14% of active military personnel
These are the people I had in mind - that the Pareto principle applies to them
Don't forget cops. Their job is literally to be willing to kill you over compliance.
I really wanted to build houses but could never find a confluence of opportunity. I was sucked in by the available opportunities. My family were all artists and skilled industrial laborers. A lot of whom picked up their trade in the military. My opportunity was tech and I consider myself very lucky.
My father was a failed artist turned retailer bootstrapped by his father's GE stock he was granted as a precision welder, and I worked as a retail clerk and manager in the retail business for a time when I wasn't working in tech.
Farmers kid becomes a farmer. Maybe another opportunity comes up and they take it.
I'm never impressed by anyone's professional title until I hear their story. 99% of the time it's a result of the circumstances they were born into. Usually the only people with an interesting story were born into very modest or limited opportunity and had to grind it out until a better opportunity presented itself.
Sand trafficking is a perfect example. It is the best opportunity they have.
To my knowledge, but not necessarily fact, they aren't even working with the country's national government, but small poor regional governments directly.
>A few years ago, an entire beach in a remote area of Jamaica vanished. Thieves dug up hundreds of tons of sand and hauled it away in dump trucks in the middle of the night. The sand--white, powdery, Caribbean sand--was worth about a million dollars.
Ever since that I’ve assumed it’s about 2.5 tons per cubic metre. This works much better.
It’s a silly way to buy a lot of concrete, but does help someone without a tow bar.
From there, you've got 40-100 truck runs from wherever the barge unloads to wherever the sand's in use, assuming you can't run the barge straight to the customer. Again, that's not a huge amount +to the CFR above.
Above using barge capacity of 20-50k tons, and truck capacity 50 ton.
If they would engage in sand stealing, the prisoner slaves might help keep the labour cost down.
> “The police will do the right thing: Aim at their little heads and fire! So there is no mistake”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/world/americas/brazil-rio...
If anyone invents a cheap process, it may have revolutionary consequences, probably.
The easy thing about sand is that it takes whatever shape you want it to. The hard thing about sand is that it has to be firm (strong internal chemical bonds) and in small granules (somehow, lots of energy had to go into breaking those bonds, in the beach case this is wave energy).
But if you had a large enough library of rocks with known shapes or which will break along predictable lines, and a precise enough idea of the ultimate desired shape for your project, you could skip the energy intensive middle part and just use large rocks that mostly fit instead of tiny rocks in the form of sand-based concrete. Then you'd glue those rocks together with concrete--which would still require sand, but now much less of it.
I'm not sure how the monetary economics would shake out, but from an energy budget perspective it seems like a win to not require things to be broken up so tiny just to have them glued back together into something so large. "cheaper" to just mostly solve the puzzle out of already large pieces.
How do you imagine competing in price with pebbles?
You can’t replace it with fist sized rocks and expect it to behave appropriately, regardless of ‘compensation’
Perhaps we don’t need to use actual rocks, even! Dried clay can work just as well. If we put it in fire, it should become firm enough for most purposes.
This would leave block/stone to mostly go into pure vertical loading applications. It'd probably be reasonably useful for some wall applications, but that seems pretty limited. Even for a true foundation application, it seems like large stone blocks embedded in a concrete matrix would be pretty heterogenous, and you could potentially end up with weird stress concentrations that would be more difficult to model (and perhaps have less desirable failure modes) than rebar concrete.
Another benefit of the "break down and put back together" approach of concrete is that it allows you to get very accurate and precise predictions of behavior. Large blocks will be less predictable. This will likely lead to requiring higher safety margins (which means more material/energy/cost).