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
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.
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.
French mining company Eramet and the Indonesian government is placing an entire population at risk of genocide
Fify
good for you, wipe your hands clean from caring about anything
I wonder whose government assisted the Indonesian army in overthrowing their progressive president and slaughtering 100,000s of Indonesian leftists?
Could it have been your government the United States that did this with your grandparents tax money? Midwest.social user?
FIFY
If you actually consider yourself a leftist commenting on c/communism you are beyond a disgrace, read the Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins and learn something
The thing is, you’re blaming the consumer when most EV consumers are just trying to do their part to reduce emissions. I don’t understand why you’re so mad that some people are trying to point out that the cooperations are doing the bad thing. I think it’s wrong, I am sure, as you cite, that the buck doesn’t stop with the Indonesian government (I’m aware of many of the atrocities my government has perpetrated), but acting like the consumer is the one at fault is counterproductive.
Also, your hostility and assumptions don’t make for a very productive conversation. I could have said more before, so that’s on me, but assuming that I have “wiped my hands clean from caring about anything” is a huge leap from my original statement.
Also, your hostility and assumptions don’t make for a very productive conversation.
If you wanted to have a polite response you should not post Fify, that is a smarmy and rude way to talk, so practice what you preach
I am not blaming the consumer, I am specifically pointing out that it is not just on Eramet and the Indonesian government who are responsible and pointing out that places closer to home to you were involved in making the Indonesian government the way it is, not just an isolated company and an isolated country leading to this
Yes, I was being snarky about a title implicating the EV consumers and not the companies are truly responsible, when the article itself tells the real culprits. In fact, I liked the original title “The Global North’s rush for EVs are threatening an entire people with genocide (emphasis:mine)”, which more accurately puts responsibility on both the consumers and the companies.
I trust you that my country probably made the dominos fall, but you mentioned the taxes of my grandparents- do you think they knew where that money was going? I mean, did you see who “we” elected? Many of “us” are controlled by a deceptive media system and secretive government that is actively trying to divide us. But the little people buying the EV (the ones having the “obsession”) are the wrong ones to be pointing the finger at.
I don’t disagree it is primarily the companies faults for accepting minerals mined from places where they shouldn’t be. If the mining company couldn’t sell their minerals they wouldn’t bother mining it there in the first place.
I think the reason the title is called “EV obsession is placing an entire population at risk of genocide” is to one catch the eyes of the reader who might not know much about where the minerals to make electric batteries come from and two to highlight since their is so much more demand because of the proliferation of EVs these mineral companies are looking to mine in much greater quantities everywhere and anywhere which is why there is a push to mine in this territory to begin with.
Many of “us” are controlled by a deceptive media system and secretive government that is actively trying to divide us. But the little people buying the EV (the ones having the “obsession”) are the wrong ones to be pointing the finger at.
This article did not point the finger at “the little people” in any way, including either version of the title
It’s obscene that a nickel rush to fuel supposedly sustainable consumption is in fact on the verge of wiping out the uncontacted Indigenous Hongana Manyawa, who truly live sustainably.
Survival International is calling for the urgent, immediate recognition and demarcation of their territory, an end to mining on their land and the establishment of a ‘no-go zone’ – the only way to ensure the survival of the uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people.
It’s also vital that electric vehicle manufacturers publicly commit to ensuring that their supply chains are entirely free of materials stolen from the territories of uncontacted Indigenous peoples, or from companies operating on (or sourcing from) the territories of uncontacted peoples, including the Hongana Manyawa.
The most it did is call for international recognition of their territory and EV manufacturers “publicly commit to ensuring their supply chains are entirely free of materials stolen from the territories of uncontacted Indigenous peoples or from companies operating on (or sourcing from) the territories of uncontacted peoples”
They are saying that the demand for EVs is causing this, which it is, if the “little people” in great numbers did not want to buy EVs the companies would not be rapidly expanding mineral extraction into places where they haven’t historically done so. They did not pin the blame solely or mostly on the “little people” given their stated demands of accountability from international bodies and companies. Just because you and most of the other people took issue with the phrase “EV Obsession” does not change this.
I think the reason the title is called “EV obsession is placing an entire population at risk of genocide” is
That, as I stated before, is not the title. It is the title YOU gave the post. I read the article, I know what the article said, all I ever took issue with was the title that you picked, which is why I made the “snarky” comment. And yes, it does blame the consumers, because they are the ones with the “EV obsession”, are they not? Maybe you should stick to posting the titles of the articles as-is and you wouldn’t get so much push back.
if the “little people” in great numbers did not want to buy EVs the companies would not be rapidly expanding mineral extraction into places where they haven’t historically done so.
And here you are again putting the emphasis on people who are trying to do something to combat climate change. Be like the article you quoted and talk about the companies sourcing ethically, making their sources known publicly, and government bodies making sure they are. People stopping buying EVs takes care of one problem while ignoring another. If the “little people” in great numbers demanded the EV manufacturers prove their nickel is ethically sourced, maybe the manufacturers would comply. It looks like much of Indonesia’s nickel is going to China, and a French mining company is involved I this one, so those governments and the governments of any manufacturer that buys from these mining companies, should be holding them accountable.
That, as I stated before, is not the title. It is the title YOU gave the post.
When you post an article into lemmy, it will grab a title that was specified in a field by the article, this was the title it grabbed, YOU can test this out for youself by creating a post with the same link, I DID NOT create the title, it was automatically fetched by lemmy, which means at some point in time this article had this title.
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?
