Very good compensation, you can retire earlier, etc.
Talking about living in other places - you can leave in Siberia believe Arctic circle and still have -40C for a long time, etc.
"Very good compensation" - haha, unfortunately not true.
Well... they get "milk coupons" though (to literally get a couple liters of free milk per month), as a "sorry" for the exposure to the dangerous environments and toxins at work. It's more a legacy inherited from USSR where it was largely believed that milk reduces the danger of hard work envs, removes toxins:
Why did people stay in Detroit when it was down? Moving is not as easy as it seems. Only very few have courage to leave their nest. But that's a whole different story.
In Russia, besides the fact that movement is not "free" because of propiska ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union ), general conservative propaganda highly encourages pin-pointed "nationalism". You leave your city - you are a traitor, how could you leave your friends and family.
Well, "propiska" in Russia is a dying institution, actually no one is really interested where your "propiska" is. In recent past there were some troubles finding job without "propiska" in region, but it passed. We have fees for people, who do live outside of their "propiska" region and do not tell government where they live, but these fees applied to people extremely rarely.
About "traitor" thing - well, usually everybody understand that there are better places to live than small city in Siberia. People move very often. For example, after school 20% of my classmates moved outside of Siberia and almost everybody left my small city and moved to a bigger one. I were born in Siberia and moved to Saint-Petersburg a year ago -- no one called me a traitor. They even come as guests, stay in my apartment and sometimes think about moving too.
I've met a couple of people from Norilsk - they are glad they moved out, but proud of the place of their origin. Which I consider pretty healthy position.
„Propiska“ was a Soviet thing and it no longer exists in the same form - in no way it restricts free movement. It is called now a registration on a place of residence and it is a thing that exists in many countries. There’s no difference between the Russian registration and German Anmeldung - they restrict your life in a similar way (though in Russia you have much more time to register).
1) Basic economics. Most people around the world do not have the means to uproot their lives and move. It's a big
2) Momentum and roots. Norilsk was founded in 1935, which means at this point you have multiple generations of families for whom it's their home.
3) Work and money. Norilsk exists because of mining. It continues to employ mostly people in mining, and pays them reasonably well for the harsh environment.
I think your comment #2 is the most important one. Basically, people just get used to it. I think this way about a lot of cities that are basically awful when it comes to human habitation. For example, New Delhi. I visited New Delhi a couple of times for work and I couldn't imagine why anyone with means wouldn't get the hell out of there ASAP. Especially the area around Gurgaon reminded me of something out of Bladerunner. The pollution was just so ungodly indescribable I couldn't stand being outside for even a couple minutes. But a lot of my Indian colleagues stayed there by choice. They thought the pollution was bad, too, but they looked at it in more of a "pros vs cons" mindset, where I looked at it in a "not being able to see the sun at noon due to smog is a deal breaker for me" mindset.
Russian north is either industrial (mining, oil and gas), commercial (sea ports) or military and have enough money for people to spend some part of their life there. Norilsk is not the only city on the far north, though probably one of the most notable ones along with Mirny (huge diamond mine).
The plants and mines around the city have a double digit percentage share of the world production of platinum, palladium, nickel, rhodium, cobalt and other metals.
The area is extremely rich in resources. Looking at the way people live they definitely deserve a bigger share of those resources. The company that produces those metals and spoils the environment is owned by billionaires Vladimir Potanin, Oleg Deripaska and others, closely associated with Putin.
It has the richest nickel-copper reserves in the world. Sulfide deposits from the vents of the largest large igneous province known (Siberian traps). People would be paid whatever is necessary to stay.
I find this city fascinating for some reason. It's something about the fact that it's so harsh, but humans are still able to live there. Here's a YouTube video of it that makes it look almost artistic:
Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live particularly well.
Also at the massive cost to the surrounding environment.
I guess Inuits live in the extreme cold as well, but their entire world population is smaller than the city of Norilsk.
Their buildings are collapsing due to permafrost disappearing :) Also it will release lots of pollution from the ground which will even further worsen environmental situation.
So on one point yes, it will be warmer but it will make their life more difficult than it is now :(
>Make no mistake - humans are only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity. And they don't live particularly well.
People have lived in such places for millennia, before "burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons" was a thing...
Have they? Norilsk seems to have been founded in the 20th century, so I guess people have been living there during two different millennia, technically. But not before hydrocarbons.
I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk. Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
>I was interpreting "such places" to mean cities like Norilsk.
And why would we know how you "interpreted it" if it wasn't spelt out? And what would be the limits to accept other places as being "like Norilsk"?
Cold cities only (e.g. not a cold village)? Cold places in Russia? Cold industrial cities only? Cities that get dark in the artic for months? Would similarly cold places elsewhere count? Does it have to get to -40 celcius or a city that gets to -20 will do?
The "most reasonable interpretation of a comment" of what we were already discussing in this thread is that we weren't talking about Norilsk lookalikes, but about whether people could live in such adverse settlements before or are "only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity".
That was literally the claim that started the subthread.
>Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
It's not that difficult to not have heard of the Inuit, or to have heard of them but believe they lived if other conditions, or whatever.
The "outrage" is rude, and probably violates the same HN recommendation it invokes (if not others too). The parent replied very calmly to a question.
HN is global and has people of all places and all ages, including people who know little or nothing about Alaska and the Inuit. And people don't know all kind of basic things if they're not in their interests. Heck, many people can't place basic countries on the map, much less know about the Inuit. Just because someone is a programmer, and reads HN, is no guarantee.
Every time someone at a fancy party drinking Napa Cabernet and munching on double cream brie from France tells everyone that the United States and Europe can do just fine without China and Russia show them these Youtube videos. That pollution and those kind of hell on earth condition is what we have moved over there.
> 5 second Google indicates France and Australia both produce more nickel than Russia. Brazil is not far behind. China comes in 6th.
> So, I think you picked a bad example.
It is not just nickel. Rather it is the entire mine->produce chain for most of the minerals has largely been "outsourced" to countries that we think are incredibly polluted.
Great point. Not sure about unfettered though, it's just socialism period. Everything is controlled by the government and not the market. Planned economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy).
Unfortunately some see socialism as a candy, a glorious oasis we should all paddle towards without realization that it's a giant trap. A pure hell with great marketing for ordinary people.
Ah right, great fallacy! Great argument! Love when people throw Denmark, with population of 5M, under the bus while having not a slightest idea of what's actually going on. And why bother researching. Good old bernie sanders already said US can become a Denmark of tomorrow. Right? Right?? :D
That could be a great and passionate discussion over a beer with snacks and pizza. But since we are far removed (on the "internet") I'll just say that socialists tendencies are extremely destructive long term in complex economies/countries. My arguments are a nagging, somewhat harsh (maybe annoying), nudge towards research and unbiased conclusions about the matter. Unless you are a running "democratic" politician, you should get the gist.
I'm baffled every time I encounter the the widespread belief among young american adults that Northern Europe is a socialist utopia. Denmark ranks higher than the US in ease of doing business (regulations, taxation, etc), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index#R..., but deregulation is not exactly what people bringing Denmark up as an example have in mind, is it?
Actually, it's unfettered state capitalism in this case. Stalin mandated Norilsk's development to enrich the state. Similar to the modern Chinese model. So socialism has little to nothing to do with it.
Sudbury Ontario is farther south and has a warmer climate. However, it is of a similar size, fairly isolated, and has severe environmental problems due to a history of nickel mining and smelting.
56 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadLike in... why do people stay?! Russia's a huge country and with free movement you'd imagine such places would get depopulated quickly...
Well... they get "milk coupons" though (to literally get a couple liters of free milk per month), as a "sorry" for the exposure to the dangerous environments and toxins at work. It's more a legacy inherited from USSR where it was largely believed that milk reduces the danger of hard work envs, removes toxins:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA...
And that is true about milk thing in USSR, people actually still believe that milk removes toxins.
Why did people stay in Detroit when it was down? Moving is not as easy as it seems. Only very few have courage to leave their nest. But that's a whole different story.
In Russia, besides the fact that movement is not "free" because of propiska ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propiska_in_the_Soviet_Union ), general conservative propaganda highly encourages pin-pointed "nationalism". You leave your city - you are a traitor, how could you leave your friends and family.
About "traitor" thing - well, usually everybody understand that there are better places to live than small city in Siberia. People move very often. For example, after school 20% of my classmates moved outside of Siberia and almost everybody left my small city and moved to a bigger one. I were born in Siberia and moved to Saint-Petersburg a year ago -- no one called me a traitor. They even come as guests, stay in my apartment and sometimes think about moving too.
I've met a couple of people from Norilsk - they are glad they moved out, but proud of the place of their origin. Which I consider pretty healthy position.
2) Momentum and roots. Norilsk was founded in 1935, which means at this point you have multiple generations of families for whom it's their home.
3) Work and money. Norilsk exists because of mining. It continues to employ mostly people in mining, and pays them reasonably well for the harsh environment.
So it's an industrial city.
The area is extremely rich in resources. Looking at the way people live they definitely deserve a bigger share of those resources. The company that produces those metals and spoils the environment is owned by billionaires Vladimir Potanin, Oleg Deripaska and others, closely associated with Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks9E9XQp_2k
Also at the massive cost to the surrounding environment.
I guess Inuits live in the extreme cold as well, but their entire world population is smaller than the city of Norilsk.
Assuming you didn't mean global warming here, there was never much of environment there humans could damage.
There’s a lot of ways humans can ruin the environment even without global warming.
People have lived in such places for millennia, before "burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons" was a thing...
And why would we know how you "interpreted it" if it wasn't spelt out? And what would be the limits to accept other places as being "like Norilsk"?
Cold cities only (e.g. not a cold village)? Cold places in Russia? Cold industrial cities only? Cities that get dark in the artic for months? Would similarly cold places elsewhere count? Does it have to get to -40 celcius or a city that gets to -20 will do?
The "most reasonable interpretation of a comment" of what we were already discussing in this thread is that we weren't talking about Norilsk lookalikes, but about whether people could live in such adverse settlements before or are "only able to live there while burning copious amounts of hydrocarbons to stay warm and/or generate electricity".
That was literally the claim that started the subthread.
>Assuming I've never heard of the Inuit or whatever is offensively patronizing and violates the HN recommendation to respond to the most reasonable interpretation of a comment.
It's not that difficult to not have heard of the Inuit, or to have heard of them but believe they lived if other conditions, or whatever.
The "outrage" is rude, and probably violates the same HN recommendation it invokes (if not others too). The parent replied very calmly to a question.
HN is global and has people of all places and all ages, including people who know little or nothing about Alaska and the Inuit. And people don't know all kind of basic things if they're not in their interests. Heck, many people can't place basic countries on the map, much less know about the Inuit. Just because someone is a programmer, and reads HN, is no guarantee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
Not to mention the whole of human population passing through an ice age:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
I think Norilsk is undeniably artistic, in both the idea of the city, and in its unique aesthetics.
So, I think you picked a bad example.
Edit: the above may not be reliable - a different source puts the Philippines at the top. But anyway.
It is not just nickel. Rather it is the entire mine->produce chain for most of the minerals has largely been "outsourced" to countries that we think are incredibly polluted.
Unfortunately some see socialism as a candy, a glorious oasis we should all paddle towards without realization that it's a giant trap. A pure hell with great marketing for ordinary people.
Like, for starters: what is actually going on? Don't leave us in suspense. Spit it out, lad.
Deregulation is fine with me as long as capitalism is producing the desired outcome.
Meanwhile unfettered socialism leads to absolute hell holes like Denmark.
[1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120490-300-rich-pic...