[Tanada]

Here is an interesting piece that got posted on FB this morning. The author calls it a paradox, I call it treating the symptom instead of treating the disease, but the vast majority call it PROGRESS! Much more at the link below the quote, along with pretty pictures and some graphs.

These days, it seems everyone is looking for a silver bullet solution to California’s drought. Some advocate increasing supply through more storage, desalination or water reuse. Others propose controlling demand through conservation or restriction of water use by urban and agricultural users.

Rarely do proponents of these single solutions seem to fully appreciate the complexity of California’s water situation.

The fact is that in this large and semi-arid state, water is intimately tied to every aspect of life. Over time, we have consistently increased supplies while reducing demands to support a growing population and higher levels of agricultural commodity production.

A good rule of thumb to go by when it comes to California drought solutions is “If it were simple, it would already have been done.”

To understand California’s water situation, one must recognize a fundamental paradox: Enough will never be enough. We are a land-rich but water-limited state, and increased supply leads to more demand, which makes answers to California’s water challenges complex, involving a combination of policy, technology and conservation.
Consumption paradox

California is blessed with an abundance of productive agricultural land in a climate that allows us to grow crops that thrive in only a few places in the world. The state’s agricultural sector is also its largest consumers of water.

Our abundant water supplies have helped create an incredible agricultural industry that leads the world in production. At the same time, given the size of the state, we will always have more land available to bring into production than we will have water to put on it.

This paradox – that enough water will never be enough – means that efforts to increase supply of water or reduce demand for water will ultimately lead to more agricultural lands being brought into production, more water available for cities to grow, and more water to remain in streams to ensure a healthy environment. But, eventually, we will face a new drought, and water supplies will again be inadequate to meet the new, higher levels of demand.

There are other arenas where this phenomenon is well understood. For example, when it comes to freeways, congestion leads to demand for more lanes to be built. More lanes temporarily reduce congestion and lead to increased housing construction, and over time, that increased housing construction leads to more congestion. That, in turn, leads to demand for more lanes. This is also true with flood control: better levees lead to safer communities, which cause communities to expand and demand even better levees.

Accepting this fundamental paradox doesn’t mean that we should throw our hands in the air and do nothing – and in fact, we aren’t. We should be, and are, looking at augmenting supplies and increasing conservation efforts. We need to pursue all of these options in order to have healthy communities, healthy agriculture and a healthy environment.

We also need to recognize, however, that these options will never fully eliminate future scarcity.

https://theconversation.com/californias ... ough-40889

[Newfie]

Tanda,
Back to your comment on communications equipment.......we are focused on end device because it is what we see. I think what makes that tech vulnerable is the global supply stream required to keep it running. It's not that you have to maintain the cell towers and back haul network, you have to maintain the entire supply stream to keep producing the goodies. About 20 years ago there was an earthquake in Tiawan that destroyed most all (3?) plants making solid state memory. Something like 85% of world production was in one very small area. The price skyrocketed and stayed high for a couple of years.

Think of China saber rattling in the South China Sea right now. There will be no war, neither country could exist without the other. Trade war is MAD.

To my mind that is where the complexity of progress has us most vulnerable, not in the gizmos, in the supply network.

[Timo]

With regards to global instant communications and diminishing returns, i think there is a direct correlation between Western interests in other parts of the world and the emergence of 24/7/365.25 news channels, the internet, twitter, facebook, and every other form of social media that exists today. As we observe events in other parts of the world with increasing frequency, we apply our own standards of moral conduct onto other cultures with different moral standards, and we cannot simply stand idle and watch atrocities being committed against other innocent peoples by their superiors and their enemies. The advent of global on-demand communications has initiated the homogenization of the understanding of human rights. I would argue that this is a very positive step in human progress, but it does have its consequences. Wars and terrorism are almost an inevitability as we slowly, and painfully, become one human race. At times, be careful what you wish for. You might not like what you get.

[Newfie]

Timo,

Your news sources must be a LOT better than mine. It amay be that we have the ability to get some fair and balanced news...IF we work at it. But the news that the average guy gets is pretty damn horrible.

I would like to believe you post, I just do t think it's accurate.

And frankly we don't give a damn about human rights elsewhere except in special circumstances where it gets called out.

And maybe we should not care. I mean it is there country, where ever, it is their responsibility to make it what they want. Do we really have the right to impose our vision of human rights on Afganistan? We have done this already much in the history of Western culture. We sent missionaries around the world screwing up local cultures everywhere. How are we different now?

[Tanada]

Timo,

Your news sources must be a LOT better than mine. It amay be that we have the ability to get some fair and balanced news...IF we work at it. But the news that the average guy gets is pretty damn horrible.

I would like to believe you post, I just do t think it's accurate.

And frankly we don't give a damn about human rights elsewhere except in special circumstances where it gets called out.

And maybe we should not care. I mean it is there country, where ever, it is their responsibility to make it what they want. Do we really have the right to impose our vision of human rights on Afganistan? We have done this already much in the history of Western culture. We sent missionaries around the world screwing up local cultures everywhere. How are we different now?

It reminds me of a story relayed to me by a friend in Newcastle UK. It seems with the ease of exchange via satellite TV the local cable system was showing a lot of American cop drama/reality/court TV type shows. They were very popular with the local populace and introduced certain ideas to the population that were not part of UK or Municipal laws, like search warrants having to be issued by a court, the Miranda rights you hear repeated endlessly in cop shows and so on that were not part and parcel of the UK legal system. Caused a lot of local headaches as the person being arrested were often just as ignorant of the law as any average American and they would expect to be released when they complained about their rights being violated. Different land, different legal rights codified in law, and cheap international TV made a hash work of peoples expectations.

[Newfie]

Just goes to show exposure to information does not always result in education.

[ennui2]

We sent missionaries around the world screwing up local cultures everywhere. How are we different now?

But where do you draw the line? Genital mutilation? Honor killings, beheadings in soccer stadiums? Allow genocides to occur without lifting a finger? There's a difference between allowing "local culture'' and allow what any sane person would construe as crimes against humanity to occur in the name of moral-relativism and isolationism. Conscience aside, the only way isolationism really works is if these problems don't spill over somehow. Considering how mobile people are today, a problem in one country soon becomes a problem elsewhere due to the refugee crisis. There are a few countries which are fairly self-contained shit-holes. North Korea comes to mind, although even there, there's clearly a necessary foreign policy component due to their belligerence.

[Timo]

Timo,

Your news sources must be a LOT better than mine. It amay be that we have the ability to get some fair and balanced news...IF we work at it. But the news that the average guy gets is pretty damn horrible.

I would like to believe you post, I just do t think it's accurate.

And frankly we don't give a damn about human rights elsewhere except in special circumstances where it gets called out.

And maybe we should not care. I mean it is there country, where ever, it is their responsibility to make it what they want. Do we really have the right to impose our vision of human rights on Afganistan? We have done this already much in the history of Western culture. We sent missionaries around the world screwing up local cultures everywhere. How are we different now?

I wasn't commenting on the quality or accuracy or fairness or balance of the news that's now an inescapable aspect of our lives. I was merely pointing out that news of whatever quality, or whatever accuracy, or whatever balance is now an inescapable aspect of our lives. The VOLUME of news we're subjected to is now an inescapable aspect of our lives, and whatever the value of that news is, it affects how we think and how we react. News from the other side of the world now affects how we live, and how we think on this side of the world. Can you go a day without catching the news from some source to see what's happening somewhere else in the world? Does what you see affect how you feel about your life here in this part of the world? THAT was my point.

[Timo]

It reminds me of a story relayed to me by a friend in Newcastle UK. It seems with the ease of exchange via satellite TV the local cable system was showing a lot of American cop drama/reality/court TV type shows. They were very popular with the local populace and introduced certain ideas to the population that were not part of UK or Municipal laws, like search warrants having to be issued by a court, the Miranda rights you hear repeated endlessly in cop shows and so on that were not part and parcel of the UK legal system. Caused a lot of local headaches as the person being arrested were often just as ignorant of the law as any average American and they would expect to be released when they complained about their rights being violated. Different land, different legal rights codified in law, and cheap international TV made a hash work of peoples expectations.

That's progress.

Or not.

[Timo]

We sent missionaries around the world screwing up local cultures everywhere. How are we different now?

But where do you draw the line? Genital mutilation? Honor killings, beheadings in soccer stadiums? Allow genocides to occur without lifting a finger? There's a difference between allowing "local culture'' and allow what any sane person would construe as crimes against humanity to occur in the name of moral-relativism and isolationism. Conscience aside, the only way isolationism really works is if these problems don't spill over somehow. Considering how mobile people are today, a problem in one country soon becomes a problem elsewhere due to the refugee crisis. There are a few countries which are fairly self-contained shit-holes. North Korea comes to mind, although even there, there's clearly a necessary foreign policy component due to their belligerence.

Not necessarily true. Human rights should be universally applied and enforced, regardless of national boundaries.

This is the problem i'm referring to. If we know about a problem that we interpret as violating someone else's human rights, we're not going to wait until a refugee spreads that violation across a border before we address it in some manner. We're going to try diplomacy, or sanctions, or all-out war to address what we see as a legitimate violation of human rights. Refugees are now the scapegoat of much larger problems, and are being used to make those problems even worse. Blame the refugees. Stop the refugees. Problem solved.

Really?

[Newfie]

The problem is there is no universilly accepted standard of human rights. We in the Western world have one idea. I kinda like it. Mbut it is not universally accepted.

So is the solution to force our idea of human right me on everyone every where? Doesn't that in itself abridge their human rights?

As to the news? I can go a week or more without seeing any news. In fact I get most of my news from here. Kinda scary!

[ennui2]

Even in the US the supreme court is clogged with cases related to pitting one group's definition of rights over another, like businesses trying to avoid any connection with abortion, birth-control, or LGBT. Hobby Lobby sorts of things.

It's a damned if you do situation, really. Stand by and watch massacres or go in and get labeled a colonialist and become a target of and endless stream of IEDs.

And on top of that you have the looming inevitability of lifeboat ethics.

As a matter of principle, yes, I think we should do something, but our ability to do so without exacting an unacceptable cost is dwindling.

[Timo]

Anyway, my whole point was that we like to think that our advances in global media coverage and accessibility is a very positive reflection of our progress as a species. This entire discussion questions that assumption.

Media. Propaganda. It all depends on your point of view.

[Tanada]

Anyway, my whole point was that we like to think that our advances in global media coverage and accessibility is a very positive reflection of our progress as a species. This entire discussion questions that assumption.

Media. Propaganda. It all depends on your point of view.

Every story one human tells another is biased through the perspective of the teller, then biased again by the perspective of the hearer. This is a it has always been, and always will be. Propaganda does not work in a vacuum, the hearer has to be per-disposed to believe what the propaganda says by their own biases. The key is often the "big lie technique" where something on the very edge of what people can accept as possible is reported as gospel truth, and then repeated so often that the average person comes to accept it because 'everyone knows that'. Once the Big Lie has permeated the public and been accepted a new edge of believable Big Lie is structured and disseminated. By this technique people can be gradually shifted further and further in the direction of a new viewpoint, and if the Big Lie is actually a Medium Lie the vast majority never even realize their view has been gradually shifted over a period of months and years.

[Timo]

Tanada, agreed. Completely. However, the teller (corporate and social media) is now much more powerful and controlling over what the story is, and what the story isn't. The size of the audience is also now beyond comprehension. The story is a controlling factor in the behaviors of the listener, and the story is quickly becoming more controlled and more narrowly defined.

Social media may be a mitigating factor to the extent of the control that corporate media can gain, but the number of people who can successfully escape the reach of corporate media is growing exponentially smaller all the time. Social media is a real-time reflection of events around the world. It can be a closer reflection of reality, as opposed the the scripted view of reality presented by corporate media. However, social media is also, as you said, reflective of the teller's point of view which, almost by default, has been influenced by corporate media.

I think we're evolving into a living, breathing species of artificial intelligence. Or, artificial ignorance, depending on your point of view. Let's ask Sean Hannity.

[onlooker]

At some point Civilization became Industrial Civilization and so became too big and complex to be controlled by flawed human beings .So Civilization was initially good but then became not so good for the welfare and well being of most humans

[ROCKMAN]

Looker - Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But long beforer the industrial age much of the world was "controlled by flawed human beings"...the Romans. Or by Huns when they ranged far and wide. Or the Persians when they controlled much of the ME.

Perhaps the industrialized world has just became more efficient at it. LOL.

[DesuMaiden]

I believe human progress is largely a myth. Yes, we've made some amazing technological and scientific progress over the centuries and millenia, but that has come at a huge ecological and sociological cost. The myriad of problems humanity faces today (whether it is overpopulation, overconsumption, resource depletion, pollution, environmental degregation, war, climate change and list goes on) were caused by technofixes to the problems we were faced in the past. The technofixes of the past, present and future might solve one problem, but it will always come at the price of creating two extra or more problems. For every problem we solve with technology, we create an least another two extra problems. So over human history, we have been acculumating a net increase in problems.

For example, the invention of the internal combustion engine has made humans more mobile allowing global trade and travel to be feasible. Yet at the same time, with automobiles becoming ubiquitous, we have produced a myriad of unsolvable problems ranging from unavoidable deaths in automobile accidents, pollution from automobiles contributing to climate change, enoromous waste of resources in constructing and maintaining our automobile fleets and of course, overdependence on the internal combustion engine that is compounded by impending future fuel shortages caused by peak oil. Overall, the negative consequences of the internal combustion/automobiles outweighs the benefits they provide especially over the long term. We might have been able to reap some short-term benefits from this specific technology, but in the long-term, our overindependence on it (like any other technology) will be our downfall.

While there has been progress that arguably made life more convenient, it has come at a great environmental and ecological cost. Besides, most of the progress made throughout human history has only allowed us to more efficiently extract energy and resources from our environment. Thereby allowing us to use up/consume resources and produce waste materials at an ever-accelerating rate. This so-called progress has resulted in overconsumption of the world's resources, which inevitably leads to future resource shortages. Ironically, despite the short-term benefits of convenience and temporary overabundance of material wealth, our technological "progress" has only accelerated the rate at which we will meet our demise or extinction.

So basically the term human "progress" is just another fancy way of saying "discovering ways to use up/consume the world's resources at a faster and faster rate, until we run out of stuff to consume. And as a result, we are marching faster and faster to our inevitable demise and extinction". So progress is a myth in the sense that people imply it has supposedly made us more humane and intelligent over the course of history. We are not much humane or intelligent than people of the past, if at all. But our progress has allowed us to ever-increase our ecological footprint to the point where we become the biggest threat to not only most life on Earth but also ourselves. To the point where progress has made us so powerful that we will end up destroying ourselves and most life forms around us.

[Tanada]

Real progress is when living condition improve for everybody, which includes the lowliest worker and the richest 0.001%

What we have right now is not progress because the workers and the poor are not in any way having their lives improve. Not starving is important, but it is only one aspect of living. The same for not freezing. If those were the only criteria we could do like Pete suggests and throw everyone in an institutional housing unit where they are kept warm and fed, but the other aspects of their humanity are eliminated for convenience.

[Pops]

The progress humans have been working toward forever is a sense of stability and freedom from worry.
What did H/G want that made them give up their footloose ways and take up ag?
It was freedom from the worry of periodic starvation. If you could plant a bunch of stuff in a confined area, you harvest a bunch of stuff to squirrel away.

I remember the first time I put up a barn full of hay, it was amazingly good feeling, even though I'd made good money here and there, bought all manner of silly stuff and actually been a "prepper" my entire life. That hay was better than any number of buckets of beans, lol

So, we likely got a little carried away when we found an apparently unlimited means to power our new machines to whatever thing we could dream. We got a little sidetracked by the shiny trinket. But, I think we are, or at least will be, the wiser for it.