Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plants were not able to have their equivalent of our current debate "Is is all right for our descendants to populate the planet even if it alters the global environment and climate" ? It's ironic that we are able to and that may only reduce our evolutionary fitness.
Plants and animals are natural parts of this world. Humans burning everything they can get their hands on is not.
An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farming consumes most fresh water, not cities. Upstate New York, along with most of the country, used to be wilderness, sometimes huge forests, and is now farms. Most farms only exist because they are subsidized . It's a welfare program. Economically and environmentally it makes no sense, farms in upstate New York or Wyoming, when food grows so much better in Illinois and California. Another good book: An Indigenous…
I think a lot of upstate NY (and new england in general) used to be farms, and is now forest. Because most farming stopped making sense, once you could ship food from the midwest cheaply. But how much water is consumed by the farming that remains in NY? I never had the impression any of it was irrigated, but haven't tried to look up numbers. Farming in CA is of course a wildly different story. Left without water it's…
Nonetheless for some geographic reason, sure, it makes sense to send water there to grow things. The politics of it all are, if capitalism didn't deliver on efficiency in things that bring justice, like providing everyone with good food and shelter better than alternative governments, nobody would tolerate redirecting huge amounts of water to deserts in California or cities on Manhattan island.
Without capitalism, there would be something intrinsically valuable to pastoral, moneyless living, like the kind of farming people were doing when these reservoirs were built.
It's just ironic that, people have been living in the Americas doing just that, for at least millennia, and the same exact 1800s people and their descendants who felt they were entitled to do what they wanted with their upstate New York land, however inefficiently, will do nothing to remedy the same exact kind of losses for people who were there before them. Which is to say, just for the people who used to live on precolonized land, the "human costs" were not resolved by a free press, or laws, or money, it was resolved by simply ceasing to "account" for those costs.
Although, like I said, today you can go farm for subsidies if you wanted to, which is as good as a government-sponsored remedy will get, turning $1 tax into $0.10 of low cost of living and $0.90 in agricultural business income domiciled in... New York City.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plants and animals are natural parts of this world. Humans burning everything they can get their hands on is not.
And it's not a moral question, really, it's purely practical. Pushing the world into something like a Big Five extinction would be horribly painful.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water som…
Water is a natural resource. Food hasn't been a natural resource since the invention of agriculture. You also seem to be unaware of the difference in scale. The average American uses between 500kg and 1000kg of water per day. The weight (and volume) of food they eat isn't even in the same ballpark. There is almost a 100x difference here.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The plants were not able to have their equivalent of our current debate "Is is all right for our descendants to populate the planet even if it alters the global environment and climate" ? It's ironic that we are able to and that may only reduce our evolutionary fitness.
Plants and animals are natural parts of this world. Humans burning everything they can get their hands on is not.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizur…
I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity. But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was contr…
The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's not a moral question, really, it's purely practical. Pushing the world into something like a Big Five extinction would be horribly painful.
Animals can be destructive and overpopulate. Deer and pigs are a good example of species that can overpopulate and destroy nature.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Water is a natural resource. Food hasn't been a natural resource since the invention of agriculture. You also seem to be unaware of the difference in scale. The average American uses between 500kg and 1000kg of water per day. The weight (and volume) of food they eat isn't even in the same ballpark. There is almost a 100x difference here.
Growing and raising food requires a huge amount more water than it's literal weight once it sits on your dinner plate. As another commenter has already mentioned, most water goes to rural areas for farming, and within farming most of the water is being used for producing beef, dairy, and pork.
... which is why the growing is done near the water source and fertile soil.
If the soil and water aren't in the same place you move the water, because the soil is even more massive and volumous.
I think you've missed the point of this thread. It isn't about what we do or don't do, but about where we do it.