mining the rubble of an inhabited world

[korora]

The Human colony on the planet Nessus was a nasty place to begin with, and it only got worse; in the end, a freak wormhole (read: divine wrath) appeared just long enough put a dwarf planet from another galaxy on a collision course with Nessus. Neither rock survived the collision.

Fast forward five hundred years. Various much-sought-after minerals are found in great quantities in the remains of Nessus' core. The prevailing Movinon attitude is that to mine the remains of an world that had been inhabited is irreverent. Is it?

Eudyptula albosignata

[torainfor]

Shades of Walmart in Hawaii.

They wanted to build a Walmart over an ancient Hawaiian burial ground. (They didn't know it was a burial ground until they found remains whilst digging the foundation. But, it's an island. Where wouldn't be a burial ground?) Locals didn't want them to. Of course, Walmart was going to win, but there's the big question: is it more honoring to build over the site, leaving the remains undisturbed, or move the remains to a museum or other dedicated place?

From an Old Testament viewpoint, I suppose you could go either way. Some wicked cities that God had the Israelites destroy, they could keep the spoils. Other cities, God made them burn everything.

That was absolutely no help at all, was it?

[mongoose]

Since when have miners, or their big bosses, or the government cared what lays destroyed in the area being mined? Since when have they cared what's alive and active in the area they want to mine? Since when have they cared about anything other than their mining operation, and the money they could gain from it? The only reason people don't mine, or logg, or drill, or farm on any given land is because someone rises up in protest to stop them. Is there anyone to protest the mining of this destroyed planet?

As far as reverence for the dead? I'm seriously trying not to laugh. You and I MIGHT care about such things, but mining interests and the governments that lease the property to them couldn't care any less.

[scintor]

You also have to separate the legitimate claims from the GAIA worshipers and the NIMBYs. The world was made for us and we were told to make good use of it. The creator is sacred not the creation.

It is also a completely different thing to destroy something that is dedicated and maintained as a memorial or dedicated holy place than to put all places that someone was buried off limits for all time. A respectful transfer and reburial of bodies has always been considered reasonable in Judeo-Christian cultures. Only in pagan cultures where ancestors are worshiped is this unthinkable.

As for the original post:

Mining in the rubble of two destroyed planets is completely reasonable. Selling or collecting human remains would be disrespectful.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[mongoose]

Just for my information, what are NIMBYs?

Consider, also, if you will, the full spectrum of interests pertaining to the questions of when and where to mine. Any and/or all of these may weigh in on the question of whether or not to mine the planet, if they have a cause for an interest there.

Where do Christian Environmentalists fit in there, those who love Creation and the Creator, but only worship the Creator? What about ecologists, who want to preserve wild lands for the benefits to the ecosystem, and ultimately to humanity, of said preservation? Or the people who survive by subsistence, or commercial harvesting of the wildlife or wild plants of an area, who's lives would be destroyed by mining operations? (I'm getting more conservative with each of these) Or the people who worry only about the damage to the health of people involved in the mining operation, or to those who live near by? Then, of course, staring them in the face just on the other side of the teeter totter are those who stand to get a job working in the mine, but wouldn't care otherwise, then those who would run the mine and make quite a bit of money, and want to keep doing it to make that money directly, then the governments and other organizations that stand to make money indirectly off the mine, then the developers who value development for development's sake (I saw a bumper sticker once that said, "What can not be mined must be harvested." Almost made me sick.)

All that to say only that there's a spectrum of interests that pertain to whether or not mining should take place in any given area, and all perspectives ought to be considered in any decision or literary treatment. Of course, the Environmentalist doesn't care about what the minors want, any more than the minors care what the environmentalist wants. And that conflict is an excellent focal point of a story, IF two groups who are historically opposed to each other have a vested interest in the outcome. But if the planet is dead, who cares? Go ahead and mine it.

[scintor]

NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard. These are the people who dissaprove of anything that is near them, whether it is benificial or not.

This is why it is impossible to build a new prision in California to relieve overcrowding. Any place you put it, the locals have a fit despite the fact that we are close to releasing thousands of criminals before their sentances end because of overcrowding.

Christian conservationists have a tendancy of looking at an area and saying, how can it be used and preserved. Thus, they created national parks to display the glories of God's creation in a way that it could be enjoyed.

Ecologists (including christian ecologists) tend to go the other way saying, how can I put this area where people are prohibited from using it so that it can be left untouched. To them, national parks are a travesty that need to be eliminated so that human beings cannot trample on nature's realm.

BTW: Almost all mines are in remote locations that inconvienence no one. Even open pit mines are tiny compared to the local area.These things need to be kept in perspective.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[mongoose]

Absolutely so on the perspective thing. But I believe you are wrong on two points, and failed to comment on one:

1. Ecologists aren't trying to keep people from using or "trampling" upon wild areas. That's the environmentalists. Ecologists want to keep it untouched so they can study it, and for the sake of the system as a whole, rather than for the sake of any given species or population therein.

2. Many mines in remote areas do inconvenience people. Take, for instance, the proposed pebble mine in the Bristol Bay watershed of Alaska. The largest and most vocal group in opposition to this mine are the commercial and subsistence fishermen who use that watershed to live. They would be greatly inconvenienced by a mine near the source of that watershed.

1. You said something about Christian conservationists, but nothing of Christian preservationists, or Christian environmentalists. I find that curious.

Did people from one of these groups do something offensive to you? If so, on their behalf, I apologize. There is no reason that members of any of these groups need to resent members of any of the others. Sure, we disagree about how the land ought to be used, but that doesn't make any of us bad people. Except for . . . Never mind. *snicker*

[scintor]

Environmentalists offend me greatly. They worship the creation rather than the Creator. Their triumphs have been great travesties. The EPA has given the government and private groups the ability to sieze property without paying for it. They don't actually take the title, they just make it worthless with no compensation. Far more lives and livelihoods have been ruined by beauracrats and lawyers than by mining and other interests.

If a miner ruins your livelihood, you have a right to sue him for your losses. If an enviromental group has you property "protected" you have no rights whatsoever.

"Silent Spring"the most lauded work of the environmentalist movement traded apex avian preditors for about 300 million human lives. Now I love hawks and eagles, but I don't think that they are more important than human beings like enviromentalists. They have no problem blatently lying, cheating and ruining lives as long as mother Gaia is put first.

The conservation movement was taken over by thes jerks and they have been doing their best to ruin things for everyone ever since. If you don't think they hate christians, then why did they fight so hard to get religious meetings banned from National Parks (and yes, they are banned now and used to be quite common.)

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[mongoose]

Hey Scintor, I'm sorry you've seen this kind of treatment from those who called themselves environmentalists. Clearly, many people within that group have done wrong, and stated things that are incorrect, to various extents. I truly wish that the wrongs done by extremists on both sides would not so color our judgments of all others within those groups. I have good friends who work for oil companies, and I do not think of them as I do of the owners of those companies, who, of course, I don't know, and thus, can't judge.

Just for the sake of the knowledge of anyone else reading this, there are many environmentalists who appreciate nature and wild lands for their innate value, apart from what people can gain from them, but who would never consider worshiping them. Some of those are Christians.

Also for the sake of other readers' information, I am not an environmentalist, but an ecologist, which is one step more conservative than are environmentalists.

Again, I am sorry that environmentalists have wronged and offended people. In so doing, they have showed their true colors, and hurt the cause. I really hope those of us who care about both people and the rest of God's Creation can salvage things, including our relationships with those who have been wronged and/or offended. I also hope some good fiction will come out of this, whether in support of development, or in support of preservation of wild lands.

[scintor]

I should have stated what you might have guessed, which is that I am a conservationist. I believe that the Earthe is here for our benefit, and that it is our duty to protect and husband the world and its creatures for the glory of the Creator. Wasting or wantonly destroying those rescources is a violation of the trust we have been given by God. It is a bit different perspective than the environmentalists, which leads to similar goals, with drastically different actions and results.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[Divides the Waters]

The difference between a conservationist and an environmentalist:

The conservationist treats the Earth as though it is God's.
The environmentalist treats the Earth as though it is God.

[mongoose]

Not true. The environmentalist does not treat the earth as though it is God, and this is one of the most problematic misconceptions of environmentalists. People hear the word "Environmentalist" and think "Tree Hugger" or "Eco-Terrorist" or "Pagan Earth goddess worshiper." But no more are most environmentalists any of those three, than most Christians are bombers of abortion clinics and persecutors of homosexuals. Rather, there is a continuum of views on the environment, as described in an earlier post, ranging from those who believe that if it doesn't make them money, it has no value whatsoever and might as well be destroyed, to those who worship it for its innate value.

Conservationists and preservationists are both somewhere in the center.
Environmentalists are a very large and diverse group that include both conservationists and preservationists.
Earth worshipers are the extreme, heretical offshoot of environmentalism, just as Mormonism and abortion clinic bombers are of Christianity. Are there Mormons and abortion clinic bombers who are Christians? Perhaps. Are there Earth worshipers who are environmentalists? Perhaps. But Mormons and abortion clinic bombers do not define Christianity, and Earth worshipers do not define environmentalism.

A conservationist wants to harvest, drill, or mine a natural resource sustainably so he/she/they can continue to do so into the future.
An Environmentalist wants to ensure that the Environment is taken care of. They have the full range of reasons and motivations for this, often including the sustainable development into the future
A Preservationist wants to preserve wild land in their wild state, for their own sake and because of their innate value as wild lands.
An Earth worshiper not only wants to preserve wild lands, but wants to worship them, assigning them the status of divinity, which preservationists do not assign to wild lands.

I hope very much that this is clear, because none of us, myself included, enjoy being lumped with the bad apples and tossed out because of the wrong characteristics being assigned to the wrong label, being assigned to the wrong people. You'll still be conservative and a conservationist, and I'll still be centrist and a preservationists, but I want at least for all of us to know where all the rest of us stand, based on our own statements rather than on assumptions, generalizations or stereotypes made about any given group.

It's more useful to compare conservationists with preservationists.

[scintor]

Mongoose,

I'm afraid that your definitions are off again. There is an environmentalist movement in the United States and the world at large. An awful lot of good people go along with it and follow some of its tennents because it sounds good and thaey don't think about it much.

However, what the average person who is tangentially involved with the movement, and what the leaders and financers of the movement believe are completely different. I always define a movement by its leaders and its actions, not by its public statements or what the rank and file believe. Thus, while I agree with the goals of union members, I find Unions to be a destructive force in this nation because of the actions and goals of their leaders (which often have nothing to do with their members goals.)

The environmental movement's leadership and primary financers are completely dominated by those you call preservationists and Earth worshipers. Any support for environmental causes is always used by this leadership to further the goals of this leadership, even if they lie to the rank and file about what their goals are.

"By their fruits you shall know them." I would challenge you to find any piece of enviromentalist legislation or environmentalist lawsuit that has not furtherd the preservationist or Earth worshiper's adgendas.

In conclusion, I contrats environmentalists and conservationists because the environmentalist adgenda is controlled by the preservationist and Earth worshipers, and therfore there is no practical difference in the movements at this time.

Scincerely,

[e-mail]

[Divides the Waters]

Excellent points. And one must indeed be careful about definitions because "He who defines, wins." For example, I've had to disabuse countless people of the notion that the creation vs. evolution debate is about science vs. religion. It's not. It's about the inappropriate redefinition of science as naturalism, alternative interpretations of evidence, and two religious views of origins. But as long as the ill-informed public has the incorrect terminology shoved down their collective throat, much will not change. The same is true of the abortion debate. Which sounds worse: "pro-life" or "anti-abortion"? Which sounds more enlightened: "anti-life" or "pro-choice"?

[mongoose]

Just as long as environmentalists are not portrayed as being all Earth worshipers, I'm fine with the last two posts. Preservationists are doing what God wants done in the preservation of His Creation, so I'm fine with being thought of as a preservationist. Earth worshipers are worshipers of false gods, so I'm not fine with being lumped with one of them.

I'm not really familiar with the leadership of the Environmental movement, so I'll take your word for those assertions, In the end, I don't really care what movements or leaders thereof do, as long as we agree on the definitions. I don't need the Sierra club to tell me to fight against oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's a no brainer. I can write letters to my legislators on my own, and so I do. I would hope others would as well, just as I would hope they would feed the hungry without waiting for their pastor to tell them to do so.

Again, I understand that many (maybe most) Christians disagree with me about what we ought to do with wild lands, and that's okay. It's not a fundamental point of the faith. I'm just glad people aren't assuming that I'm doing something bad to them, to God, or to the world just because a few who called themselves environmentalists did do something bad. Thank you for looking at people and issues as people and issues, not as representatives of whatever hurt/offended you in the past.