techno-fixes don’t fix it all

LeCain is not completely ignorant the pros and cons of techno-fixes and makes that point clear when he says, “Even when the environmental techno-fixes do appear to solve problems for various human interest groups, they often appear to do so only by harming the natural world in some way” (137). LeCain is a very strong writer because of the ability he just demonstrated, to be able to explain his argument by seeing what it looks like from a different perspective. The hazards of mining are not new to this century, he states that mining and smelting have been causing large problems ever since the 1900s. The techno-fixes that came with the explosion of industrialization made pollution and other environmental concerns grow exponentially. The company in this text, Anaconda, were no strangers to using techno-fixes to ry to make hazardous and decaying mines safer for workers and the community. More often than not when they closed a window of problems a brand new door full opened. This is the reason that LeCain would agree that techno-fixes solve problems however. He would not endorse them due to his knowledge that their use would bring detrimental environmental effects.

what would today’s world look like without important minerals like copper? The first thing the capitalist world would notice would be the price of alternatives for this mining resources go through the roof. Next the pollution and other hazard excrement due to mining would basically fall off as their would be a large amount of machines. That produce waste out of order and not in use. Unless the world finds a new protocol for dealing with global warming and other environmental problems then I believe we must prioritize the citizens health rather than the companies economic welfare.