Not quite there

LeCain’s argument is very simple yet effective, the “fix” that people are using is simply fixing one problem by causing another. (LeCain, 137) LeCain also talks about how that generally science is unable to predict what the next problem will be. It seems to be human nature, to look at the problem at hand and not into the future. His example of the mining, and how scientists, wee turning the waste into sulfuric acid, this was a fix to one problem but it led to another. The problems that are caused by fixing others seems to be unintentional. However many new issues are unforeseeable, science will always look to fix the issues that are plaguing the world but many of these fixes according to LeCain lead to more new problems, there seems to be no clear solution.

With the information that was presented, I would say that we do not need copper and other minerals. The risks do not outweigh the benefits. The world that we live in is far too valuable and the minerals that we are extracting are not worth the toll that it is talking on the surrounding ecosystem. I agree with LeCain, the mining that we have done to not only Montana but to the world at large is devastating, as science advances there is a chance that they could develop methods that are less taxing to the environment. Until then like LeCain says a realistic goal could be to simply cease mining operations until safer methods are discovered. (LeCain, 151)