IAmaA mine worker in western australia.

nightowl878 · 2012-05-24T20:10:13.318282+00:00

What do you think about Open-Pit mining? (like enviromental impact, how tailings are dealt it)

Have you ever been to the super-pit or whatever it's called outside Kalgoorlie?

What's your position, exactly?

AwesomeNameGenerator · 2012-05-24T19:11:32.607157+00:00

I hate to say it, but I agree with the filthy conservatives on this one. I think they may have gone too far in not taking seasonal industries into consideration (ie fishing in the Maritimes) with the new rules regarding the frequent category. Otherwise, the changes seem fair.

AwesomeNameGenerator · 2012-05-24T19:04:15.768899+00:00

lol you make sure your final ROE says laid off. Not too hard to do if you're in with HR, or you work seasonal as mentioned

God_Wills_It · 2 days

I work at a highschool in Northern Spain and teach private lessons at the local university; there were protests, but all the institutions stayed open in the city and at my school classes were at about 50% attendance. People were commenting that this was actually quite an unimpressive protest compared to what they were expecting (Santander--I can't speak for other urban areas, obviously)

God_Wills_It · 2 days

Troll?

It costs money to keep the lights on at school.

arabacuspulp · 4 days

Well, my statement was in the conditional: 'So if a day ever comes where".

Bill C-30 could very well be the first of many pieces of legislation to begin drastically reducing your freedom, but I was asking hypothetically. When the citizenry becomes apathetic is when the government turns traitor and starts rolling back their freedoms. I will happily begin citing examples from the past, actual/potential examples from the present, and trends I see developing in the future on request, but I think you know of them/ I don't want to insult your intelligence

the point is philosophical: if you are unwilling to fight and to sacrifice to protect your freedoms, you will lose them. Americans deserve some credit for knowing this better than Canadians

arabacuspulp · 4 days

so if a day ever comes where your freedoms are drastically reduced and a police state has arisen because citizens like yourself were too apathetic and busy with their jobs to protest dracionian legislation introduced by the government, what would you do?

We have not always been a country of appeasement and moderation, nor are we entirely now. Because we attempted to be civil and non-violent with out colonial minders most of the time didn't mean it worked, or that other strategies weren't attempted. Think of the Metis rebellion for instance.

It's true that we're less quick to anger and prepared to have long discussions about things before any meaningful change arises, if at all. Your attitude worries me though, because it belies a trust in the government (this government, any government) that isn't deserved.

theturingator · 5 days

We'll see what they look like on the other side of this crisis, but as the article mentions, in material terms they do in many ways already fit the definition of superpower.

GoodTho · 8 days

I more or less agree with everything you've written here. Your last paragraph in particular speaks to a fact of life in the US today (and in many other places) that is counter to its stated values as a country and the spirit of its constitution.

To be blunt, although you're right the free market is the best economic model available, I think there needs to be vast governmental oversight in the name of protecting the environment. The ability for land and resources to be developed without regard must be limited at this stage, even if it's counter to certain fundamental currents within liberalism and democracy. Our governments need to do more to protect and ensure the viability of the ecosystems that make up this world. Until very recently in Canada, we were on this path and it has worked quite well, in terms of not impacting economic prosperity, maintaining our natural heritage for posterity and helping regenerate and reclaim polluted environments.

I also must say that the cheapest, most effective way to promote upwards mobility in society and make every member as productive as possible is to develop and maintain a viable welfare state: if you're poor and disenfranchised, there needs to be an avenue for you to change this, without incurring huge amounts of debt. No one should get a free ride, but we should also aim to think long and hard about what exactly a free ride is. Such a welfare state should be accessible in a limited way to businesses, but not after they reach a certain size. Corporate welfare on today's scale is a sham.

I believe that the free market, if truly competitive (i.e. without massive corporate welfare, monopolies, and a disgusting lobby industry), can respond creatively and dynamically to reasonable constraints placed on it (i.e. strict environmental review policies) and, with a large middle class to power it, spread prosperity wide.

MikeTheSpike · 9 days

Well who knows what their senior officers tell them? I don't know any that I've spoken to in the last five years, so I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't want to speak for all of them. Surely some of them do recognize that the Taliban doesn't threaten Canada's existence

GoodTho · 10 days

Me disagreeing with you does not mean I'm devoid of logic.

I suppose academically, an environmentally conscious free market society is not impossible. Here in Canada our government has just rolled back our environmental regulations like never before, in the name of free market economics, as it advances potentially some of the dirtiest industrial development plans in the history of the human race, so I will concede my bias.

Where do you draw you conviction from? Is there some magic ethical lighthouse that will keep profit-oriented companies from raping the world at will under a 'small government' (which in the USA seems to always want to disclude the EPA) that I'm unaware of

GoodTho · 10 days

Hence the current crack down on internet freedoms; they're scared

GoodTho · 10 days

It's neither. Profit at the expense of everything else is a failing ideology and yet that is the essence of free market economics. There is no invisible hand; human beings, alone or organized behind a corporate facade, cannot be counted on to do good when the economic paradigm they operate within rewards greed and selfishness. The market will not correct itself without sacrificing the livelihood and wellbeing of millions.

I appreciate the independence, flexibility and power that capitalism can and does provide; I like the technology that improves my life. I don't think it needs to come at the expense of clean air, clean water, healthy fisheries and resilient forests though.

You seem irritated that your point is lost on this forum, but you argue from a polarizing position assuming the absolute truth of a binary that hardly exists anymore.

GoodTho · 10 days

Ok I don't think we are going to get anywhere by arguing. I see things completely differently than you, I feel you are stuck in a binary that isn't reflective of reality and that you have an insular understanding of how 'socialism' as you put it operates.

You have correctly indicated the presence of 'socialist' policies and states that tend towards 'leftist' social democracy, but you have not indicated in any way how these trends have contributed to poverty (because they haven't), you've simply stated it.

We should probably just agree to disagree.

GoodTho · 10 days

I addressed this in another reply; my statement here is poorly phrased to address the context it is meant to (that being with regard to the indigenous way of living referenced in the article/by Hedges in general, capitalism creates a huge poor underclass by nature). Capitalism's rise has seen a huge increase in the number of poor and disenfranchised people living in the world. I mean this globally, and in the scope of the last 200 years.

It is true that in recent decades eastern European countries, China and other Asian states, and of course many Latin American countries have succeeded in growing their middle class (and also their upper class).

GoodTho · 10 days

You didn't understand the article, nor are you taking other instances in history into consideration. Humans have lived successfully for millennia in paradigms other than the status quo.

GoodTho · 10 days

Ok so I fail to see any evidence of your claim and suspect you misunderstand socialism. Can you indicate examples of this so that I have a better idea of what you are talking about?

GoodTho · 11 days

I guess my statement could be constructed better, you're right. When I typed it, I was thinking about a much longer continuum of human development, in keeping with the original article's point that we lost a crucial element of human societal development when we moved against the indigenous peoples of the world. Given our huge population increases, there are more poor people than ever before, and our current means of developing societies begets poverty.

Thanks for the correction. I must say though, as the current growth model isn't sustainable, I doubt this newfound chinese middle class is either.

GoodTho · 11 days

I feel like we disagree fundamentally on this matter and doubt we can reach a middle ground over reddit.

I will respond to your lines of questioning though

The "market" will always exist, whatever the brand of -ism that is determining the source and flow of money through it. Currently, capitalism has been on the INSANE rise, you're right, but don't mistake this for success. I reiterate my above point: it is failing because there are more poor people than ever before, our weapons industry holds economic primacy and free market interests have been actively sabotaging technological progress away from fossil fuels for almost two generations now. It doesn't work. It doesn't make as many people as possible happy, nor does it enable personal responsibility or create hope. It its current iteration, it disables these things. You are imagining capitalism as it was post WWII. That fantasy expired after 1970.

Capitalism IS destroying the environment. I'm sure communism would have been equally capable of doing so. Who cares at this point? We need to change the way we consume resources now, to ensure we can preserve the greater part of our society's accomplishments for posterity.

A final note: capitalist structure caused the problem. Government overreach, at least in America, is not the reason for turmoil

EDIT: I don't begrudge these things; we aren't perfect, and therefore the institutions we create aren't perfect. We need to admit this and move forward without hubris though. It's time for a new socio-economic paradigm

GoodTho · 11 days

I don't think the point being questioned here is the market's ability to create wealth and improve society, nor does a redditor sharing a thought-provoking article necessarily ally himself or herself with everything it claims.

Capitalism is failing: there are more poor disenfranchised people in the world than ever before and the wealth of society is pooled around the means of producing weapons and dirty energy.

Capitalism does not come packaged with freedom, and many of its subjects are the furthest thing from free. The social contract, the means by which the middle class (read: the critical mass of humans) in western countries acquired a long-lasting illusion of freedom from corporate control, was the direct result of western governments acting to prevent the spread of communism. It has steadily been eroded since communism has ceased to be a threat.

Now there's a lot to be said back and forth about the good things and the bad that have come from the past two centuries, but the critical point here is that we no longer place value on a centrally human trait (the imagination) and we no longer see ourselves as part of the life on this planet. Rather our society views itself as entitled to consume whatever energy exists for as long as it can. The author is urging a return to sanity and precaution and a different worldview (that of the extinguished or near-extinguished indigenous people that flourished in the past) in order to stave off ecological catastrophe and totalitarian dominion.

MikeTheSpike · 11 days

I don't think Canada is what our soldiers are fighting for in Kandahar. Canada doesn't need that war; they're fighting for the US ability to maintain strategic geopolitical positioning, and that is all.

Buster01 · 11 days

had a great white surface in the trough between two waves about 50ft away from my friend and I in Lancelin WA. He pointed it out as we were on the crest of a wave passing beneath us, and we both hightailed it to shore--the sight of that fin in the water was terrifying. If I had to guess I'd say the thing was 8ft but I can't be sure--It was bigger than me is all I'm sure of.

We caught a wave in, and sort of stumbled/ran out of the beach. What's weird is the shark sort of circled around where we'd been for a while, appearing inside the shoulder of each successive wave, 'surfing' it before disappearing behind and coming back in the next wave. Unnerving as fuck.

TheJungleVIP · 11 days

I hate to go meta but this thread represents the asshole-like aspects of reddit many high-rated comments are complaining so much about.

tarrmachine · 12 days

Well I'm no expert but I bet IT is an easier field to get back into with a felony than, say, teaching or medicine. I'm sure you'll find your feet again, good luck with everything man!

tarrmachine · 12 days

in context, those are some really positive answers. I'm glad you managed to avoid some of the truly devastating risks that are out there for users.

You implied you were pretty successful before your addiction(s) took hold. Can you tell us what kind of career you had, or the field you worked in?

deceptecron

TROPHY CASE

deceptecron

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login