Please provide feedback

[asu281]

The following appeared as part of an article on government funding of environmental regulatory agencies.

“When scientists finally learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical elements, the regulation of copper mining will become unnecessary. For one thing, since the amount of potentially available copper will no longer be limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits, the problem of overmining will quickly be eliminated altogether. For another, manufacturers will not need to use synthetic
copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. Thus, since two problems will be settled—overmining and pollution—it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining regulation and either save the money or reallocate it where it is needed more.”

The argument in question advocates reducing funding for the regulation of copper mining. In its defense the argument provides two incentives: That scientists will eventually learn and be able to create copper from other chemical elements thereby overcoming the issue of overmining and that the supply of copper would become unlimited, thereby eliminating the need to use synthetic copper substitutes, the production of which creates pollutants. The whole argument and its conclusion is heavily flawed because it relies on assumptions which may not be true.


Firstly the argument relies on scientists ability able to learn and create large amounts of copper. The arguments provide no evidence on the state of the research being done in this field. No evidence is provided on whether scientists are finding success in this venture. If is entirely possible that any kind of success may be decades away and until that time, traditional mining of copper is the only practical solution.


Second the argument assumes that the process through which copper will be created by other chemical elements, will be able to suffice in quality and quantity required for today's world. Perhaps this new process requires chemical components sparsely available and thus limiting large scale production. Perhaps the new copper would not of quality desired for today's products.


Third the argument provides no evidence of how effective/ineffective current mining regulations have been. It is entirely possible that these regulations have been very effective in regulating copper mining and have vastly improved production of copper. Further funding for mining regulations may yield better production methods and improve mining yield that may negate the need for copper substitutes, thereby reducing pollution.


In conclusion the authors of the article need to provide factual information regarding scientists endeavors in creating copper from other elements. This data along with efficacy of mining regulations would be effective in assessing if funding for copper mining regulation is warranted.