Ethical Crystal Mining

Are people and their behavior not part of Nature? (Before I get skewered, which happpens enough already, I ask because I heard this argument once.)

Norman you are right, but at least we can choose to change our behaviour. That just might be the difference between Homo Sapiens and the others who are (were) condemned to change their behaviour by natural selection. If we blow ourselves up or die in our own excrement, then we are no different. Natural selection will just grind on.

Of course as others have pointed out, the gorilla in the room is over population. Cure that and the environmental worries will vanish with a little fore thought.

Two things that bother me about this are banning specimen mining and reclamation. Too often our irreplaceable heritage just weathers to dust when collecting is banned. Mining's footprint is very small compared with agriculture and reclaimed dumps are obviously not what they were before mining. Reclaiming dumps just makes it more expensive to mine when metal prices continue to increase and it denies collectors the possibility of collecting while waiting for the dumps to be mined.

I know that I'm continuing to stray, but imagine how without mining and quarrying everyone's collection would fit into about three flats.

One flat would be self collected Thomas Range topaz, and another, purloined Sawtooth smoky quartz. The third out here would be dribs and drabs from Washington Pass..

Bart

Men have been mining the earth for Millions of years for flint, ochre, salt, etc, it's certainlyan intrinsic part of our nature. We admittedly dig bigger holes nowadays and we should consider how long we can expect to mine at this rate and scale - the earth is not getting bigger, but our population and demands are. Not giving up my car, house or computer though!

Regards,
Ralph

Isn't it true that the overpopulation and the strictest "don't-touch-anything" rules are spatially separated?

The third-world countries, which mostly contribute in the global overpopulation, are not the ones that enforce the strictest environmental taboos. Understandably so, as they are pursuing industrialization and rely heavily on their mineral resources sector.
It's the richer countries, which have experienced their industrialization times way back, have reached the point when they demand clean, untouched rivers, mountains, forests, grasslands. (If it's not too late that is...) Good luck surviving on tourism alone, if the country's population is more than 5 million people!

That's what feeds the accusations of the exploitation of the developing countries by the mining companies from the rich countries. I am not saying it's not true - in the majority cases it is! - but it's not the whole truth. Just think what would the OPEC countries be today, if not for the universally hated oil companies who brought the technology for oil production and processing.

The issue as complex and touchy as this will continue to be a point of contention for the foreseeable future.
But again, as was said not once in this thread, all that applies to big mining business.
I don't believe that even the sizable garimpos in Brazil, using hydro monitors to wash out sediments, can undermine the ability of the jungle to reclaim everything in 2-3 years. Not even close to the damage from timber harvesting operations.