Urgent measures need to be taken to address the human rights violations and potentially irreparable harm to biodiversity a controversial inter-oceanic canal portends, a group of scientists from the U.S. and Latin America state.
Ethical Science…Just because we Can doesn’t mean we Should.
If these scientists had been around when the Panama Canal was being built, they would have been saying the same thing!
‘–a group of scientists from the U.S. and Latin America state.’
Jealousy gets you nowhere.
Sounds like the same group who denied the world was round.
They must have come across to the States from Europe together with the Puritans and the Nazis and others who in conceit still assert they have the one and only way.
The simple truth is that the canal is opportune and if it does not benefit the environment and the first settler people there, it is not the canal but the designers, financiers, operators and engineers who must be held responsible.
This proposal is based on the fallacious presumption that shipping will still be a major factor in operations when the canal is finished.The technological systems of industrial civilization have already irreversibly used up a high proportion of the available natural resources, including oil. The demise of shipping is bound to be only one of the unintended consequences of the ravishing of natural wealth by technology.
(What Would Augusto Sandino Do?)
This total desinformation, the region of SE Nicaragua is not populated by indigenous people, they are all settlers from the Pacific coast that had degraded the land, destroyed the forest and nearly exterminated the wild life since 1965 when the USA allied,dictator general Somoza,
Sent them to die away in the then jungle, land that later could be acquired by the rich a rock bottom prices. Lake Nicaragua is also polluted with swage waters and industrial spilage plus the agro chemicals. Every oponent of the Canal, uses it as a weapon againt the progessive Sandinista government that for the first time in the history of Nicaragua,is developing the country and exterminating poverty. Thats a fact.
This canal was proposed more than 100 years ago.
But the one in Panama was build instead.
This is just to say it’s a very old project that didn’t just start when you bought land in Nicaragua.
Then your defense of the canal sounds like of a lot boosters who are likely to profit from whatever project.
Exposing a massive freshwater late to the sea (even if not directly) seems like a mighty big risk.
None of this for a second means that the US hasn’t treated central America abysmally for 150 years.
I think you need to check the size of the lake.
And because one canal harmed a jungle and brought salt water deep inland doesn’t mean the next canal is a good idea.