I can say victoria is a rugged character. She’s doing contrary jobs. I think she is more money conscious than environmental conscious. Although the outcome from mining is huge based on the minerals gotten, with little pollution, this may override the environmental consciousness she has.
I'm not sure how environmentally friendly mining is but I believe one can have good intentions for the environment while being a business person. It's not exactly black and white. It is highly unlikely though, so I'll tilt towards it being unrealistic.
Well, in the day and age we live in, people can be anything they want to be and it's fine. Though the relationship between running a mining business and being an environmentalist is far-fetched, it isn't unrealistic. Not to spoil the book, but I think it made sense in the end.
Considering the benefits of mining, we can't just jump to the conclusion that mining is bad. Likewise, it is important that we carry out the mining process with moderation to avoid harming our environment. Furthermore٫ people like Victoria tends to make a living from this type of profession.
Those two occupations are diametrically opposed to each other. Mining involves taking resources from the earth while being an environmentalist means preserving the earth, Therefore, I do not think Victoria can be both.
Victoria is a bold and audacious character. Despite her enthusiasm in mining, I presume she can use her expertise to undertake eco-friendly operations. However, deception is a part of being human and can be used to manipulate the human heart. So it's a difficult question.
I believe that she can be both. Mining has been going on for a very long time, and it does not necessarily have to affect the environment. Being an environmentalist helps her make sure that her business does not affect the environment even though it is mining.
I don't believe it's realistic. An environmentalist seeks the welfare of the environment while a business person seeks profit. So for a character to possess these rare duality, it just doesn't add up.
At the risk of provoking people, it intrigues me that those choosing to weigh in on this question almost uniformly declare that it is impossible for an ethical or righteous person to be an environmentalist and to work for a mining company (or perhaps any corporation extracting materials from the earth). Doesn't this lead to a circumstance whereby the only people working for corporations are rapacious and those trying to protect the environment are outside the system complaining? The simple truth here is that, for those wishing to return to some earlier time when there was no environmental destruction, no mining, no widespread forestry, etc etc, doesn't that mean returning to the time of Sarah's and Henry David Olsen's and Laurie's dreams, thousands of year ago before agriculture and settlements and technology? And even back then there is evidence ancient people used fire often as way to clear the understory and create fields where wild fruits could grow. I went to graduate school in the stone age, I will admit this, 1969-1971, before there was even such a thing as an environmental degree (I went to UMass and it was either forestry or wildlife biology, and some were landscape architects) and I was in school when the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act etc were passed, and back then the whole point was to learn how to come up with strategies such that necessary development was undertaken with minimal impacts on the environment. Back when, for example as Victoria's father said, someone would design a swale to collect runoff from a parking lot. So it concerns me a little that there appear to be many people who have determined that it is not only improper but maybe even morally wrong to try to work within an industry while at the same time doing one's best to protect the environment. Everybody needs a source of income, and for most of us this means a job, with a paycheck, from working for government or a company, and everyone must wrestle with the moral dilemma of how this particular job is proper or not. Everyone makes choices. Victoria was trained as an environmentalist, meaning she received her training in the early 1990s (?) and she wanted to contribute, as many do, and along comes this big company that claims to have found a method whereby you can burn coal with no pollution or carbon. Think about it. Coal is a hugely abundant resource all over the globe. If a way is found whereby you can burn coal and NOT add to CO2 or air pollution, or water pollution (my thesis was erbium and other materials can do that, which oddly enough a former coal engineer told me might be the case!) then, to maintain electricity and power everywhere, wouldn't this be a total game changer? So in my tale I set up a circumstance where this person, driven to contribute (Victoria) but also needing to support herself (salary and an income) is offered a maybe too good to be true chance to be part of a groundbreaking technology. If it works, the world is a better place, and she is part of something fantastic. If it doesn't work, she did her best. I will also point out, by the way, that if you carefully read the final pages of Totem, the erbium experiment is still live, the ship is loaded. The evil Buckhorn did concerned the artifacts found, which would have stopped its effort. So does this make Victoria a hypocrite? I wanted to set up a situation that was not so black and white because life is not black and white, it is all grays, all the time, we all struggle, we all make choices, and Victoria made hers. In the end I'd like to believe she found her moral center, and courage. Most of the people who train in environmental science may then go to work for government or think tanks or consulting firms or non profits, but maybe not, maybe most go to work for corporations trying to make sure those companies meet the requirements. I'd hate to think the general view these days is that you become a hypocrite if you work for a company that extracts resources. Without oil and gas and iron and minerals and a million other extractive industries we'd be living a very different life.....and who is to judge those among us who choose to work with those industries trying to make them better?
Yes, I think so. I think that people who believe differently, are a bit hypocritical because if you use transport, or have a fridge or phone or TV, you are using products that depend on mining.
It is possible to be an environmentalist and a miner at once. In fact, miners should be indoctrinated in the ways of environmentalists. We can not get some essential elements without mining, but mining would be less disruptive if miners were environmentally conscious. We need to be practical.
Innovations are usually the result of desperate times
It will have to depend on the mining activities to judge this part. They could be done in a way to limit their disturbance to nature. If not, then claiming that is an actual environmentalist is nonsense. Or perhaps she compensates in other aspects, like raising awareness and limiting other sources from disturbing nature.
I think she's being a hypocrite. You can't be environmentally conscious and an aggressive businesswoman whose career is in mining. Mining significantly contributes to pollution.
It is possible to be an environmentalist and a successful business person. Social entrepreneurs explore business opportunities that create positive solutions for the community and society. There are also environmentally sustainable mining approaches that minimize the harmful impacts to the community and the environment. It would require proper management and good governance to achieve this. Victoria will find it challenging if her principles are different from the intentions of her bosses.