That’s a pretty ridiculous headline imo
- Nickel is used for lots of things
- “EV obsession” is not a thing unless “ICE obsession” exists, and both sound ridiculous
- The mining companies are responsible for their own actions, not consumers at large
- Indonesia is letting this occur and could theoretically step in at any time as far as I can tell
- Genocides are always on “an entire population” so that phrase is meaningless
What do you mean by your last point. Genocide only being on whole population. Where did you get this definition.
The word. Genus-cide.
It’s the killing of a genus, a race.
So you dont have a source of this definition? Because in international law its defined quite differently, which is quite obvious since your definition, as given, would not classify many real instances as genocide.
It’s the entomology of the word.
Legally they have a definition which broadens the concept to not just direct killing of a people, but also acts that lead to the eradication of a culture. For example: kidnapping the children of a group and raising the within your own culture is a genocidal act as it leads to the culture dying off, even though no actual killing has taken place.
entomology
You mean etymology.
Entomology is the study of bugs.
Yes and relevantly here it also ceases the necessity of total eradication.
I categorically disagree, and callous people like you are the reason why something like this is allowed to happen in the first place
Will you categorically stomp your foot and ignore every single argument in that comment as well? Because you’re almost there!
Blaming consumers for things that happen at least three indirections removed from them is childish. A consumer cannot know where all the resources are coming from.
Blaming EVs for this, is just as childish, if not actively evil, since the alternative would be oil extraction and that’s not exactly clean and happy either.
You’re so smart! I surrender, don’t think I’m cut out for the marketplace of ideas!
Maybe just maybe it is bad to be mining resources from uncontacted tribes who could not possibly consent to any of this, no matter how much you want to abstract it and say it’s no one’s fault for doing it.
See, if you would have read my comment and actually bothered to understand it, you would have seen, that I haven’t said no one is at fault here.
So I have to assume, you’re arguing in bad faith, you’re putting words in my mouth to defeat a straw man, while not addressing any of my actual points.
So maybe pull that infantile sarcasm out of your ass and try actually thinking about what you’re saying.
I’d love to understand the definition of “uncontacted” that includes them posing for photos and protesting in front of bulldozers
Well here you go, you could have clicked the link in the first paragraph of the article if you were so curious, but nonetheless
https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/honganamanyawa
As with uncontacted peoples the world over, forced contact has been disastrous for the Hongana Manyawa. Between the 1970s and 1990s, many Hongana Manyawa were forcibly contacted, evicted from the rainforest and taken to new villages by the government and missionaries. This immediately exposed them to terrible outbreaks of diseases to which the Hongana Manyawa had no immunity and which they still refer to as “the plague”. In a two-month period, in one village alone, it is estimated that between 50 and 60 people died, almost one person every day.
The uncontacted Hongana Manyawa have made it clear – time and time again – that they do not want to be contacted, to settle or have outsiders come into their rainforest. They are very much aware of the dangers which forced contact brings. As with the uncontacted Sentinelese people of India, it is little wonder that they have been known to defend their lands by shooting arrows at those who force their way in.
I did read it. Having lived in Malaysia, it looked like every interaction with orang asli tribes. How does “forcibly contacted” not contradict “uncontacted”? Are we doing “contacted status identity” now?
