But there are many ‘unethical’ behaviors here - or do you not think low child mortality, low standard of living, and an almost zero job growth is not unethical? The question isn’t unethical behavior vs. ethical behavior, the question is reducing the total amount of unethical behavior, with environmental damage, low job growth, low standard of living, low child mortality, etc…being unethical behaviors.

As far as Romania goes, here are some more stats on the area in question:

This “lifestyle” includes 70 percent unemployment, two-thirds of the people having no running water and using an outhouse in winters where the temperature can plummet to 20 degrees below zero centigrade.

So tell me, are 70% of the population really just lazy people who don’t want to “get along ok”? Because unemployment that high tells me its things outside of their control.

I sympathize with your experiences growing up, but there are two sides to that same coin. Sure, in some circumstances the environment - and community - takes a heavy toll for the economic benefit of a few…but there are also areas where the communities well being (often in terms of child mortality, life expectancy, standard of living etc) takes a heavy toll for little to no environmental gain.

This example seems to be the latter…and with Romanians themselves requesting the mining company to come, the solution seems even clearer - let them in.

I actually have family in Romania and believe me, it isn’t that bad of a place. No doubt, there is a ton of poverty but it is not unlike Mexico… life isn’t easy but with hard work most people get along ok. Things are slowly improving and in a generation or two Romanians will be on par with at least the same level most EU countries are at if they continue in the same direction. The mining industry is not the future and a few village landowners unable to turn a nice profit by selling off their land isn’t going to make a difference in the long run. Having natural resources protected and ensuring a clean environment for future generations will, however.

I’m particularly sensitive to environmental issues because I grew up in a neighborhood that became a superfund site. A large lead smelter polluted the surrounding area and resulted in high rates of cancer especially amongst children. I lost a few of my friends early on to cancer that was largely thought to be a side-effect, not to mention my own family and neighbors experienced other health issues including a higher than normal rate of miscarriages and stillbirths. Sure, that factory may have created a few jobs and put a bit of money into the local economy but we never saw much of it. We just carried the burden while a small group of businessmen quietly walked away with the profits.

If these people have been living in squalor for 2000 years, isn’t that enough time for them to improve their own situation? Why should we blame environmentalists for their state? All sides of any issue are capable of making mistakes, but I am not going to change my environmental outlook on one example in a remote village in Romania.

Well you can blame the USSR for this - not only did they control Romania, but they also drained much of what little scarce resources they had and forced them to pay war reparations. This is without mentioning the human rights violations done to the Romanians by the USSR, whether they are camps, torture, deportation or just plain murder.

Why should we blame environmentalists for their state?

Their only hope in escaping poverty remains with the one tool shown to work over and over again, free trade. Environmentalists are blocking free trade, a free trade that the people of Romania are requesting, thereby denying them their autonomy.

This isn’t meant to be the end all discussion on environmentalism, this is just yet one of many examples of how when dealing with underdeveloped countries, the trade off seems to be between economic growth vs. the environment. And let’s remember, in underdeveloped countries economic growth means basic things like life expectancy, jobs (any jobs), health, clothing, basic nutrition etc. When you’re at that level, the environment becomes alot less important (which is why environmentalism tends to be more concentrated in higher income countries…rich people can afford to be environmentalist).