59.        The author contends that it makes good sense to reduce funding for mining
regulation, because regulatory problems with over-mining and pollution will be solved
when scientists learn how to create large amounts of copper from other chemical
elements. One reason the author gives for this conclusion is that the problem of over-
mining will be quickly eliminated when the amount of potentially available copper is no
longer limited by the quantity of actual copper deposits. Another reason given is that
pollution problems created by production of synthetic copper substitutes will be
eliminated when manufacturers no longer depend on substitutes. This argument is weak
because the conclusion goes beyond the scope of the premises and because the
argument relies on questionable assumptions.
      To begin with, the wording of the conclusion suggests that funding for mining
regulation generally should be reduced, yet the premises are about copper mining only.
There are many mined resources other than copper; advances in copper synthesis
technology will in all likelihood have no bearing on whether regulation of other kinds of
mining should be changed.
        Furthermore, the argument depends on the assumption that copper mining will
slow down once copper can be chemically synthesized. However, the author provides
no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Moreover, it is entirely possible that copper
mining will remain less expensive than copper synthesis. If so, there will be no
incentives, outside of regulatory ones, to slow down copper mining. In a word, the
problem of over-mining will remain.
      Finally, the argument relies on the assumption that synthesizing copper will not
create the same kind of pollution problems as those resulting from the synthesis of
copper substitutes. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this
assumption. Without such evidence, we cannot accept the premise that pollution
problems will be eliminated by switching from producing copper substitutes to
producing copper itself.
      in conclusion, I am not convinced on the basis of this argument that the time has
come to cut funding for the regulation of mining in general, or even for the regulation of
copper mining in particular. To strengthen the argument, the author must restrict the
scope of the conclusion to copper mining rather than to mining in general. The author
must also provide support for the two assumptions underlying the argument