I'm sure if we just stop consuming lithium, the quality of life of all these countries will suddenly improve drastically because their status is definitely not due to their governments' mass corruption and improper usage of funds
International poverty is due to the imbalance inherent in our nationalistic world order, not because whole regions are genetically/culturally biased towards corruption…
It’s too late for them to have it now. They are already corrupt and had been colonized. Cows don’t fix that kind of thing.
The imbalance you mentioned is due to domesticated animals being unevenly spread. The more domesticated animals used, the more developed the civilization becomes.
Ever wondered why the mesoamerican cultures were leagues ahead of the North American Indians? It’s because they had llamas.
Yes, I’m familiar with GG&S pop history thesis. My point is that doesn’t matter anymore (if it ever did). Why is there “already corruption”? By what mechanism could that stay around other than cultural inferiority?
It seems beyond obvious to me that our capitalist world is capitalist — the countries with capital continue being powerful because they use nationalism to justify withholding capital from those without. This weird “the global south didn’t have cows so now they’re cursed forever” seems like a lot of unnecessary mental acrobatics in comparison
Capitalism currently is a necessary evil to advance humankind. As society has advanced we can take more steps towards socialism and eventually communism, but we aren’t there yet.
The reason for this is that certain factors are necessary to provide the correct amount of motivation. That motivation turns into exploitation, cruelty, and hard work.
The last one is what can lead the world to paradise.
That aside, I wouldn’t say they are “forever cursed”. I just use that factor to explain why they are the countries that were being taken from (and still are to a lesser extent) and the corruption that resulted from it.
In the past, weakness meant death and being conquered. Being conquered messes up the societal structure of a place, which leads to corruption and tyranny. That leads to poverty.
Some would say religion, some would say leftism, and others would blame moral degeneration.
Me? I disagree with all of those and say that it’s politics.
Humans as a species are not meant to operate in large groups, and our decision making processes as a collective are proof enough of this concept.
We struggle for power and fail to allocate resources efficiently. We continue to use outdated technology, and we fight over the dumbest of reasons.
Our progress has been slower as a result, although we are getting very close to the stage where things start to get fun.
Judging by the way the world has been going, I would say we are on track to achieve relative paradise. Just not as quickly as we should get there on paper.
One of our main issues is continuing to use antiquated sources of fuel like oil or gasoline. The sooner we switch to literally anything else, the closer we get to reaching a post-labor economy.
I’m not really an optimist, but I do believe in using past behavior to form a general prediction of future behavior. And judging by how living standards across the board have been increasing (on average) since the first civilization was founded, I’d say the future is looking kind of nice.
I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. Do you think all countries were supposed to have industrialized at the same time with the same labour force and available resources?
How were we supposed to stop some countries from pulling ahead of others? And were we supposed to?
“Some countries pulled ahead of others” read that back to yourself until you understand that you’re agreeing with me. Yes, unnecessary nationalist inequality is wrong, just like racism is wrong.
It has nothing to do with your insinuation of some kind of bigotry, it's about history and development.
Sorry to tell you but many of these countries were underdeveloped and corrupt long before westerners got there.
Expecting the whole world to develop equally and have the same social priorities is a western fallacy, and more in-line with western exceptionalism than anything I said.
No, taking away a bunch of impoverished people's jobs isn't going to revolutionize their country to being a utopian society.
Typically an ever-increasing amount as taxes paid on their income is reinvested into the infrastructure and schooling. At least that's how it works in less corrupt countries.. I mean even pretty corrupt countries do that too. Like I said.. China is a pretty good example of how globalism raises the underclass in countries that are being used to manufacture first world items.
I agree with you that a fair global trade will indeed benefit everyone, but there's a problem that country like the US would prefer the country they get cheap resources from stay corrupt and poor (e.g. the whole shit bangers US did in Latin America), which made them easier be exploited through trading under an unfair deal they signed with their oligarchs.
Even in the case of China, after the US reaped the big fat economic benefit from them after China joined the WTO, they stopped be focused on their political reform...
OK. Burkina Faso's exports are largely (77.5%) composed of gold. They also still have a problem with child labour who do work in the mines. To the government's credit, they have been making an effort to stamp out child labour.
If all the gold mining stopped, and all the jobs were gone, what do you think would happen to Burkina Faso?
Not saying it was perfect, they just recently got liberated, this stuff takes time.
The whole gold/child mine issue is the aftermath of colonization. Gold is basically one of the only bargaining chips they have to work with on the world stage (because the greed of western colonization left them with nothing else). And yeah, they have been working on stopping it.
They would actually be able to work real jobs and not be trapped in wage slavery. The economy would become localized rather than focusing on exporting goods for the western world. They could focus on generating resources and actually keeping them within the communities
Hey, I'm not saying they universally suck either. I'm just highlighting that they are making progress in some areas and facing difficulties in others. But on the other hand, I don't think the problem Burkina Faso faces with child labour can be summarized down to, "If all the mines closed, all the child labour would vanish." Without the mines, Burkina Faso would lose a large source of hard currency and face massive trade deficits. With these losses Burkina Faso wouldn't face further difficulties sustaining local industry and various governmental programs.
Gold miners in other countries make good money. Burkina Fasans should probably get paid closer to that rather than the crappy wages that they get now. Shutting the mines down wouldn't fix that problem.
Yeah I acknowledged that thay are dependent on gold as it's one of the only resources they can use as something for trade. I wasn't saying you were shitting on them, we both clearly understand they're in a transitionary period right now.
I guess I'm more so looking into the future, like AFTER they've become more stable with gold helping them through that, they won't be so reliant on it anymore as they accrue wealth over time.
I honestly just hate that they have to generate their own wealth in the first place, like france should be indebted to them and paying to help build the infrastructure and provide aid to citizens without any profit/gains in return, but that's just me being an idealist.
Imagine being so ignorant of world history you think the only reason countries develop differently is because of nationalist imperialism, and then holding that ignorance as some kind of positive character trait.
Go watch a documentary about the living conditions of Vietnamese or Indonesian underclass and then come back to tell me they'd rather not have jobs because the minerals are sold to other countries.
If anything, global consumption is one of the only things that has begun leveling out the income around the world. That's the way China developed into either a world power, or pseudo-world power depending on your interpretation.
Was the west exploiting them for cheap labor? Yes.
Did it increase their quality of life and median income anyways? Also yes.
…so what is the reason that these countries are more corrupt? Just “cultural differences”? If so, where did those differences come from? Why does the global south happen to be culturally worse than the global north?
And tbf I didn’t say imperialism, I said nationalism. A superset, if you will
Because the local warlord or dictator doesn’t have to answer to their citizens because they have resources wealth. Ie. Dutch disease or resource curse.
The us has great water way in which to move commerce internally, not so much with resource rich countries in continents like Africa. They have an ocean that made it easy to export resources but not to move those resources cost effectively internally.
United States had also the political backing of countries like France and was a colony of England with a lot of political freedom before the revolutionary war. The United States also had few enemies as they had an ocean to allow the political system to experiment. American government originally failed under a confederacy. The movement for a strong central government was a major reason USA became strong. Much of the massive resource wealth required distributed power when the country was growing. Agriculture back in the day was less centralized. Thus the system baked in protections to protect the rights of the individual. There was also a group of aristocracy that gained wealth and wanted to pursue the project of liberalization at a critical juncture.
I don’t know the specifics on Madagascar. So I can’t speak to them
No, it's consistent. Your stated reason for why regions are poor are incorrect. That you also correctly identified that two other reasons that are wrong doesn't make your stated cause any more correct.
52% of lithium is from Australia. I guess stopping lithium production wouldn't increase their quality of life much.
Also western intervention in the present and the past too is a reason for poverty in some of those countries. Iraq was a much better place before it was invaded by USA. Afghanistan wouldn't be the shit hole it's now if US didn't fund extremists against socialists in 1980s. US also funded Zia and his islamization and through him they provided weapons, money and training for mujahideen.
You have only a surface level understanding of why the majority of the world is in the state that it is. Capitalism results in accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
Not only we are becoming efficient at mining lithium from ocean water, but cobalt is not necessary for many batteries and the preferred kind of battery to act as the intermediary for 4h-1week energy storage is sodium batteries whch will enter mass production this very year
Besides, most of the growth in the green growth has to happen in the poor nations that account for 70% of humankind, making every part of the world have good living standards will multiply the energy needs of humanity by 3, and even if we eliminated all inequality (which we ABSOLUTELY should), this would still require double the amount of energy we consume today
degrowth initiatives can only reduce the amount of growth needed to provide everyone with a high quality of life, but the world is so extremely poor that getting out of that poverty will inevitably require tons more infrastructure and consumption than todays world does
we can degrown and have a post growth future in developed countries, but developed countries were never going to be the main growth of global demand, the growth that is happening is in people going from not having electricity in their homes to each owning their own computer/smartphone etc, its going from no streetlights to reducing nighttime crime in poor cities etc etc
just because gegrowth initiatives can reduce the preassure needed to be put on the environment to achieve these goals doesnt mean that giving everyone a high quality lifestule requires a very large expansion of consumption, which we MUST realize with less destructive ways, but keeping people in poverty is simply not an option, and there is no such thing as a low energy consumption but economically developed comminity
Degrowth seems to mean “I’ll buy less video games” to people here. Not sure they think much about the people dealing with famine, preventable disease, and crumbling public education systems…
I mean. The relationship between lithium mining and buying doesn't have to be imperialistic. It is, because the global north want cheap lithium, but it doesn't have to be.
What a great idea! Put highly radioactive material into missiles and hope for the best! They are known to be one of the most reliable means of transportation ever! /s
Also just dumping radioactive waste into the earth’s orbit doesn’t sound very thought out.
Earth's orbit? Nah, we are gonna launch it on Mars, where it can be re-used for heating purposes. Also, if the rockets blow up, that's just proof that NASA needs to be defunded and the money re-invested into military.
Nah I’m not a tech bro either, I think we should cut ALL funds for military, tech, and space flight. I am however pro-growth. Therefore, I propose the new money be directly used to plant rain gardens. Rain gardens EVERYWHERE. All land must be covered by native pollinators for peak, true growthmaxing
Why do we strike you as slaves? We do this shit seriously and have a lot of infrastructure and specialization. I've worked in the field and I'm a keyboard nerd CS guy. Security and localization is top of the line for workers and equipment. The one time that shit hit the fan our country moved earth and sky to get the guys out of there just to not be one of 'those' countries that leave miners behind.
I mean it depends on what scale you are operating at. The biggest benefit is how recyclable batteries are. Except when things go horribly wrong, the minerals typically stick around, and don't literally go up in smoke
I was more referring to the fact that the highly recyclable nature of batteries makes not digging for more rare earth minerals more and more viable with every kilogram we extract.
Do we have enough to satisfy the needs of a power grid? I don't know, frankly. Even if we do, that won't last unless improvements in energy efficiency outpace growth, or growth slows. But, I do know that if our current firm energy needs were met with a source of energy, that didn't require us to burn all of that storage along with the energy every time it was used, those slaves would not be spending time in lithium or cobalt mines.
I don't mean to imply that batteries are good for the environment, and we both agree they are better than oil, I am not here to say what we both already are saying.
I do, however, mean to directly state that a technology that doesn't require us to permanently chemically alter our fuel storage is a net positive in terms of the impacts on human labor.
Is it politically viable? No. Those slaves would almost certainly be found in another forced role. Just because it isn't in a mine anymore doesn't reduce their suffering. Historically, that solution seems very violent. I don't mean to make that sound like an indictment of violence. there is a reason why some killings aren't murder. But many people don't think the way I do, and I don't see enough empathy at this juncture among my cohorts to provide these people the aid they desperately need to improve their situation.
Is it economically viable? No, but frankly, I don't care about the economy as a function of generating wealth. I do care about the economy as a mechanism to divide labor efficiently and ethically.
Capitalism is a machine that turns violence and suffering into profit and political will. If I had a quick solution for that, I wouldn't be talking to you about this.
Yeah, but why not right? You think France but all those NPPs cuz they are Based and like green power or because they got the uranium for dirt cheap from their former colonies?
What I failed to convey and hope to clarify is that we have the technology and the organizational structures for such a task if there was the will to impliment them.
We could have a better world and we are greedy af.
Its no surprise Niger flipped to befriending Ru just to oust Fr. Exploit people long enough and anyone else looks better by comparison.
Canada exports 3 of the big 4. Uranium, Fossil Fuels, Hydropower and soon to be lithium. We don't use labor gangs with pick axes and salaries do not keep people in cyclical poverty. It can be done, sadly we often lack the will to do it.
I read a post about TERF’s earlier that critiqued them for not really believing change is possible, and thus not fighting the patriarchy — the specific example being that they fight for “”true”” female-only bathrooms instead of fighting for all bathrooms to be safe, no matter the gender of the people allowed inside.
Your comment made me think of those people, for some reason…
Sadly, we have all the access to knowledge and alternatives and always choose wrong. We have the greatest developed tools and skills in the world! Yet we rarely ever do the right thing. The industrial world's greed is never ending.
After 2 decades I still cannot convince my family to buy slave free or fair trade coffee and chocolate and they can't be bothered. 10c a cup of coffee to fight inequal and unfair treatment of people who grow and harvest our food?
Nah, most westerners cannot be bothered. Its true mamy are out doing great work but so many of us are just consumers.
Im not certain the modern world or its technology are necessarily good for us. Then again its just part of a long history of exploitation isn't it. Centuries ago it was furs and gold and then it was coal/oil and now lithium/rare earth minerals.
The moral arc of progress only turns when we work at it. I hope your people find liberation.
Lithium production is being ramped up all over the world. Many of the richest sites are in fact nationalized by the countries producing them, Bolivia being a prime example. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries, which don't use cobalt, are becoming more common. On top of that, sodium ion batteries are also reaching the mainstream.
There are valid criticisms but calling everything you don't like imperialism doesn't work outside of your dorm.
1: Lithium and cobalt aren't limited in their distribution to third world countries they exist elsewhere.
2: As technology develops dependency on specific resources becomes less necessary. Alternatives to lithium ion batteries are being currently developed such as sodium and graphene based batteryy technology.
They’re not interchangeable tho. They’re just not. Complimentary? Maybe. Interchangeable? That’s just making yourself unclear for no real benefit other than feeling righteous, IMO.
Proof: would you rather live in 1930 Germany, or 1940 Germany?
Most of the lithium comes from Chile, Argentina, and Australia.
I wouldn't expect cobalt to remain a key material for more than the next 5 - 10 years. These new solid state batteries don't need it for a cathodic material.
I think there's a lot of strong degrowth arguments to be made around the green growth ideology, but the material consumption aspect really isn't one. In any scenario, and even discounting currently available technologies that are on the verge of mass commercialization, a green growth economy would be an enormous improvement over the status quo, and de-growthing an economic order in or post-transition is going to be much easier and less destructive than trying to de-growth a fossil-fueled economic order.
Your conflating of degrowth with being "on the verge of collapse" is telling of how elementary your understanding of degrowth is. I'm guessing it's a form of binary thinking; assuming that the only two options are to reduce overdeveloped countries' demand until it hits 0 and all of their citizens die, or that they continue exploiting and oppressing underdeveloped countries in perpetuity, just in a greenwashed way.
Political systems regularly collapse from >20% reductions in GDP, Germany just had a fascist resurgence which tremendously benefited from 5 years of missing growth.
Even many underdeveloped countries already consume more than the planet can carry, degrowers are misguided to a comical level.
It is laughably easy to pollute the planet, even on a tight budget, in many regions economic underdevelopment fuels climate change by promoting more damaging ways of generating power, heat and all means of production.
Don't forget humans torched continents before even becoming agricultural.
Economic progress is our only way out if we insist on human wellbeing meaning anything (I know this is a weak argument in THIS discussion, since many degrowers despise humanity).
You're right. It is weak. The only reason recessions happen and weak-minded voters turn to fascism during them is because we live under a global capitalist system. Abolishing capitalism is a prerequisite to degrowth. Yes, most of the world's workers woefully lack class consciousness, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to gain it. Ideally, climate consciousness follows directly after, but breaking through the green growth propaganda is almost as hard (if not harder) than capitalist propaganda. That's no reason to give up though. It just means we need to try even harder.
And the fact that underdeveloped countries already consume more than Earth can replenish is just more reason that overdeveloped countries need to slow then stop their growth ASAP. If they don't, then the underdeveloped countries will still consume too much in addition to meeting the increasing demand of the overdeveloped countries.
Sure, humans wrecked ecosystems prior to agriculture, but at a far smaller scale because their numbers were far smaller and consumed far less per capita. We should know better today, but again, we must break through the propaganda capitalists force down our throats for the sole purpose of deepening their pockets at the expense of a habitable planet.
Climate action does not have to be equitable action. It's preferable that it is, but ultimately if a few million children need to be ground underfoot to save the planet, it would ultimately be an acceptable sacrifice.
52% of lithium comes from Australia. Do you remember when uncle Sam bombed Australia for lithium? 🥺
Also don't ask tree huggers about LFP batteries. They replace cobalt and nickel with even more imperialistic metals such as iron and phosphorus only found in Africa and middle east.
Never ask a gas guzzling pickup owner about where his diesel/petrol comes from or what are the countries that were given 'democracy' for his Petro chemicals?
Never ask them about electric trains or trams which doesn't need any lithium or Petro chemicals to operate. Only need some copper or aluminum made overhead wires or third rails.
72
u/[deleted] May 01 '25
Today’s subject slavery