Unless, of course, you have evidence you are able to furnish.
Admittedly, our environment would be largely unspoiled if this were the case.
This raises an interesting point about what people really want. Given the choice, would most people opt to live in an economically backward but pristine wilderness, or not?
Such an environment might lack modern conveniences like electricity, sophisticated city services, piped water and sewerage, but may possess an abundance of natural riches, like fresh air, clean water, and a beautiful landscape that was unscarred and intact.
I think many people would choose that life. I know I would, at least for a while. But many are also probably unfamiliar with the hardships of doing so, which may prove a decisive challenge for people and lead to them returning to more 'advanced' way of life.
It could also be argued that the seeming dichotomy presented above represents an oversimplification of the reality, and that in general the choice would not be between such extremes.
An optimistic take might also consider that ideally we don't need to choose, we can bring sustainable technologies with us to the wilderness, or we can make our existence in advanced cities environmentally friendly.
It's important to remember that people often choose to migrate from less developed regions to more developed ones, primarily for the economic opportunities they believe are available to them and their loved ones there. It might be hard to argue that this is a bad thing, particularly as our concepts of ethics and morality are often based in notions of access to opportunity, sanitary conditions, and shelter.
The interaction between humanity and the environment comprises complex dynamics involving seemingly competing considerations. It's crucial to consider the ethical intersection of good of the environment, and the good of the people.
Economics and the environment interact in complex ways: we depend on the health of the environment for our economic growth, but often end up harming it in the process, endangering ecosystems and ourselves. Yet without that growth we would be without many things that people seem to prefer.
There's a cost to mining, it's not cheap.
To me, that is in no way shape or form: "reclaimed".
Reclamation is the noun form of the verb to reclaim.
Do you think mines today are missing that in the US?
I think the cost of mining is a long-tail problem. Just throwing some top soil over a mine isn't solving many of the problems a mine introduces. One of the examples I'm giving is heavy metal pollution of important-to-human water ways.
In general, mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues. I think one be a fool for believing the greenwashing marketing of a huge multi-national mining company, or their honest intent to put the land back in a state - or better - than what it was. That is a fantasy. As they reap enormous profits from the mining, I would want you think of who is actually bearing that cost.
"mines in the US have a very piss poor track record of dealing with long term environmental issues" - you are conflating old, abandoned mines with current mines. Current mining processes deal with everything you've listed.
We need mining. We should be mining in the US for a variety of reasons. If that can be done responsibly, why wouldn't you want that?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation
Are there no examples of mines that have recently finished the reclamation stage with noticeable environmental impact remaining?
"Reclamation of mineral development was not a requirement under the Mining Law when enacted 150 years ago. Pursuant to FLPMA, the BLM issued regulations in 1981, which were amended in 2001 and require notices and plans of operation to include detailed reclamation plans. These regulations also require operators to provide financial guarantees covering the full cost to reclaim mining operations. Additionally, the BLM’s regulations allow the agency to require an operator to establish a trust fund or other funding mechanism to ensure the continuation of long-term treatment to achieve water quality standards and for other long-term, post mining reclamation and maintenance requirements after a mine is closed. These regulations provide the BLM with a mechanism to provide for protection of the environment after mining has concluded. In response to Government Accountability Office recommendations, BLM implemented a tracking system under which BLM certifies each fiscal year that the reclamation cost estimates for proposed and operating mines have been reviewed and are sufficient to cover the cost of reclamation. Currently, the BLM holds financial guarantees of $3.3 billion which is held to fund the costs of reclamation of mining operations on BLM-managed public lands. Furthermore, the BLM continuously reviews reclamation bonding requirements." https://www.blm.gov/congressional-testimony/reforming-mining...
It's essential to approach discussions about industries with a balanced view. While it's valid to critique several aspects of their past or present actions, it's equally important to acknowledge the innovation and progress they've fostered.
And conquest coupled with slaving their rivals is what powered most indigenous tribes, too! In fact, essentially every human society of the time or before.
Weird that outrage is selectively applied.
To put it into context, I have worked with lawmakers / politicians, lobbyists, fortune 100 boards / exec teams and porn companies. By far the worst human beings I have ever encountered in my life (who weren't like, legitimately criminals, at trial) were the people in the mining industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart
Clive buying Adolf Hitler's Mercedes-Benz 770, and Gina's poetry might give the astute reader a hint.