5 ms·

The whole thing with california reminds me of the story about that one civilization in the pacific - "what were they thinking when they cut down the last tree ?

by 1971genocide 11y ago

The whole thing with california reminds me of the story about that one civilization in the pacific - "what were they thinking when they cut down the last tree ?" Water exists until it doesn't.

dalke 11y ago
That's a question posed in Diamond's "Collapse", regarding Easter Island. Of course, the same applies to the last of many things - what were they thinking of when they killed off the passenger pigeons, or the aurochs?
- 1971genocide 11y ago
  Its different though - since water is very basic. A lot like food.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Certainly they are different, but you brought up how it reminded you of the person who asked Diamond about cutting down the last tree on Easter Island. That's neither water nor food either.
- Gravityloss 11y ago
  Economics and local optimization http://throbgoblins.blogspot.fi/2006/12/blog-post_2817.html http://throbgoblins.blogspot.fi/2006/12/blog-post_2817.html
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  They were thinking solely of their immediate individual gain, of course. They had bills to pay, and mouths to feed, and no time to watch the tragedy of the commons unfold. Even if it is the last one, if taking it is the only way to individually profit, then it will be taken. The only way to preserve an endangered common resource is to make the conservation pay more on an individual basis than immediate harvest. Usually, this is accomplished by imposing stiff penalties such that harvest is a net loss, but that is very dependent on being able to reliably catch poachers. Bribing people to not destroy their own commons also works, but is much more expensive, which is why when this happens at all, the bribes are usually paid out from money that was originally taken from the people being bribed. * As for the article, my household runs about 180 gallons per person-day, without any extreme conservation measures. We flush every time, plus gratuitous flushes to dispose of dead bugs or simply to refresh the hands-free toilet cleaner product, and take long showers. Our water bill stopped having intermittent spikes and unexplained fluctuations when we put plumbing locks on our outdoor-accessible faucets. Some neighborhood dipshit had been stealing our water. That, by itself, was no big deal. A cubic foot or two here or there is small change. But they also left the water running while no one who cared was around to turn it off. If you are forgoing flushes, skipping showers, and such, there is no way you're using more than 170 gallons per person-day without "help". You could probably make some decent money buying up some faucet locks and then peddling them door-to-door in those water districts.
masklinn 11y ago
Well there's a difference in that water is never really lost, though it can become unusable for our purposes.
- mattlutze 11y ago
  New trees can eventually grow on a barren island as well... but I think it's not really practical in the article's time frames to make a point of the distinction, in either case.
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > New trees can eventually grow on a barren island as well... Not necessarily (with no trees, the island is at the mercy of erosion) save for geological-scale "eventually". And that's not the same, the tree is lost and you need a new tree to take its place, that's not what happens to water unless you dissociate it.
bryanlarsen 11y ago
Using water doesn't destroy it.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  Except when you are overusing groundwater resources. (Over here, no shortage of clean water whatsoever, but per-person usage is much smaller than California average numbers. The average consumer uses 155 litres (41 gallons) per day, which is 4700 litres or 1250 gallons per month.)
  - bryanlarsen 11y ago
    It's still not being destroyed. Even splitting water into it's component parts rarely destroys it for long, since the subsequent hydrogen is usually burned, creating more water.
    - scott_s 11y ago
      You are correct that it does not literally destroy it, but it's also true that there is a finite water supply in that system, and that number is dropping.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      The water as element (H2O) is not being destroyed, but the water source (usable groundwater resources) may actually be destroyed or at least depleted so that recovery takes a very long time.
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        Good. Then we'll move to sources that are super-expensive right now (desalination, etc), and we can finally have a discussion about the agriculture situation and whether it makes sense to irrigate a desert just because you can.
    - astrodust 11y ago
      When it ends up in the environment and eventually the ocean, fresh water is destroyed. Period. It is no longer fresh water. You can reconstitute it at great expense, manufacture it practically. When it's pulled from deep, ancient reservoirs that get replenished very slowly it's slowly destroying the reservoir. Given the time-scales involved, where tens of thousands of years or more are required to re-fill these, it's effectively permanent destruction. Your argument is extremely misleading. It's like saying gasoline isn't destroyed by cars because you can always reverse the process.

The whole thing with california reminds me of the story about that one civilization in the pacific - "what were they thinking when they cut down the last tree ?" Water exists until it doesn't.

dalke 11y ago

That's a question posed in Diamond's "Collapse", regarding Easter Island. Of course, the same applies to the last of many things - what were they thinking of when they killed off the passenger pigeons, or the aurochs?

1971genocide 11y ago
Its different though - since water is very basic. A lot like food.
- dalke 11y ago
  Certainly they are different, but you brought up how it reminded you of the person who asked Diamond about cutting down the last tree on Easter Island. That's neither water nor food either.
Gravityloss 11y ago
Economics and local optimization http://throbgoblins.blogspot.fi/2006/12/blog-post_2817.html http://throbgoblins.blogspot.fi/2006/12/blog-post_2817.html
logfromblammo 11y ago
They were thinking solely of their immediate individual gain, of course. They had bills to pay, and mouths to feed, and no time to watch the tragedy of the commons unfold. Even if it is the last one, if taking it is the only way to individually profit, then it will be taken. The only way to preserve an endangered common resource is to make the conservation pay more on an individual basis than immediate harvest. Usually, this is accomplished by imposing stiff penalties such that harvest is a net loss, but that is very dependent on being able to reliably catch poachers. Bribing people to not destroy their own commons also works, but is much more expensive, which is why when this happens at all, the bribes are usually paid out from money that was originally taken from the people being bribed. * As for the article, my household runs about 180 gallons per person-day, without any extreme conservation measures. We flush every time, plus gratuitous flushes to dispose of dead bugs or simply to refresh the hands-free toilet cleaner product, and take long showers. Our water bill stopped having intermittent spikes and unexplained fluctuations when we put plumbing locks on our outdoor-accessible faucets. Some neighborhood dipshit had been stealing our water. That, by itself, was no big deal. A cubic foot or two here or there is small change. But they also left the water running while no one who cared was around to turn it off. If you are forgoing flushes, skipping showers, and such, there is no way you're using more than 170 gallons per person-day without "help". You could probably make some decent money buying up some faucet locks and then peddling them door-to-door in those water districts.

masklinn 11y ago

Well there's a difference in that water is never really lost, though it can become unusable for our purposes.

mattlutze 11y ago
New trees can eventually grow on a barren island as well... but I think it's not really practical in the article's time frames to make a point of the distinction, in either case.
- masklinn 11y ago
  > New trees can eventually grow on a barren island as well... Not necessarily (with no trees, the island is at the mercy of erosion) save for geological-scale "eventually". And that's not the same, the tree is lost and you need a new tree to take its place, that's not what happens to water unless you dissociate it.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

Using water doesn't destroy it.

ptaipale 11y ago
Except when you are overusing groundwater resources. (Over here, no shortage of clean water whatsoever, but per-person usage is much smaller than California average numbers. The average consumer uses 155 litres (41 gallons) per day, which is 4700 litres or 1250 gallons per month.)
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  It's still not being destroyed. Even splitting water into it's component parts rarely destroys it for long, since the subsequent hydrogen is usually burned, creating more water.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    You are correct that it does not literally destroy it, but it's also true that there is a finite water supply in that system, and that number is dropping.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    The water as element (H2O) is not being destroyed, but the water source (usable groundwater resources) may actually be destroyed or at least depleted so that recovery takes a very long time.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      Good. Then we'll move to sources that are super-expensive right now (desalination, etc), and we can finally have a discussion about the agriculture situation and whether it makes sense to irrigate a desert just because you can.
  - astrodust 11y ago
    When it ends up in the environment and eventually the ocean, fresh water is destroyed. Period. It is no longer fresh water. You can reconstitute it at great expense, manufacture it practically. When it's pulled from deep, ancient reservoirs that get replenished very slowly it's slowly destroying the reservoir. Given the time-scales involved, where tens of thousands of years or more are required to re-fill these, it's effectively permanent destruction. Your argument is extremely misleading. It's like saying gasoline isn't destroyed by cars because you can always reverse the process.