11 ms·

Instead of admitting that humans probably shouldn't live in a desert, at the very least not set up a tourist trap monument to waste and excess in a desert, they

Instead of admitting that humans probably shouldn't live in a desert, at the very least not set up a tourist trap monument to waste and excess in a desert, they invest choose to invest billions of dollars in trying to put lipstick on a pig. The water knife becomes more prophetic every day... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23209924-the-water-knife https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23209924-the-water-knife

bmelton 10y ago
When you think about it, factoring in earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, forest / brush fires, landslides, avalanches, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp and, rightly or wrongly, once someone does set up camp, they're hesitant to move. Either way, the situations described in the article, conservation, waste prevention, and innovation seem to be the exact opposite of that described in the Water Knife blurb, and will have the luxury of being applicable to places less arid. While California was having their record droughts, the opposite coast was experiencing flash floods. If we can improve conservation, and dramatically improve transportation, it becomes easier to get water from places that have a surplus to places that have a deficit, which means we can push flood waters to areas with drought, and move our way up the Kardashev scale. Edit: Forgot cold weather and volcanic activity. The cold weather sounds like something easy to disqualify, but considering the OP's assertion is that it's a bad idea to try to best nature, it seems that heating falls into that bucket.
- Retric 10y ago
  Most of Virgina area has no issues with any of that. You get all 4 seasons in reasonable levels which may be a good or bad thing. But, winter really cuts down on many pests which is a major bonus and summers are tolerable even without AC most of the time.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Summers are definitely not tolerable without AC. The humidity in VA is brutal.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  Seattle-Tacoma area, around Lake Washington, from east of I-5 out to the mountains, about to hwy 203. That's inland enough for when the big one hits again, great climate, good farming; its a good place to live. Just be sure to live at least 100 feet above sea level. The Piedmont area of Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Good climate, good farming, minimal natural disasters. The Hudson River Valley of New York is similar, although a bit colder. I've heard good things about the Portland, Oregon area, but I haven't been there. I suggest living east of I-5, again, though. The rest of the United States has interesting weather.
  - pyromine 10y ago
    Don't ignore the majority of New England, there really is no significant threats to most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, the northern half of New England might be a bit cold but it's not bad. Similarly most of the eastern seaboard is fine, and the intermountain west is similarly inhabitable with minimal meteorological issues. I don't know where this trope that there are so many issues everywhere comes from.
    - jdminhbg 10y ago
      Most of the eastern seaboard is vulnerable to serious hurricanes and winter storms like Sandy.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Not unless your at sea level or would have flooding issues otherwise. Area I grew up in had regular flooding on the property with both a river and large stream on it, but the house was 200+ years old and never had water get anywhere near it. It's kind of a simple rule don't put your house within 20' of the water level in the highest flood anyone knows about. In terms of snow that's a simple trade-off do you want an actual winter Y/N. It kills off a lot of pests which IMO makes it worth a lot, plus you get out of the monotony of dry vs wet that most tropical areas fall into. Some people like going further north so rivers / ponds freeze ect but again trade-off.
- maxlamb 10y ago
  When you think about it, factoring in earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, forest / brush fires, landslides, avalanches, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp and, rightly or wrongly, once someone does set up camp, they're hesitant to move. That is true for a lot the U.S. but not everywhere. Take Germany, Austria or France, only a very small percentage of the land there is affected by earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, brush fires, landslides, or avalanches.
- honua 10y ago
  The point isn't of the danger but the available resources. Disasters aren't a problem if you don't even have the resources to live
- coolgeek 10y ago
  First off, it's simply not true in any practical sense that there are no areas of the US that are safe from environmental disasters. The entire northeast and mid-Atlantic down through Appalachia - at the very least - is reasonably safe from natural disaster. So justifying a decision to live somewhere that is highly prone to one or more types of disasters with a glib assertion that "there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp" is not even wrong. Second, I'm no historian, but I feel confident in asserting that for the entirety of history, a principal criteria for evaluating the suitability of an area for settlement is its proximity to fresh water. This criteria was intentionally, brazenly ignored in building Las Vegas - as well as much (most?) of the Sun Belt southwest. Third, your geoengineering "solutions" are not realistic. Are you suggesting that we're going to move flood waters from (to use your own example) the east coast to the west coast? Or even from the Mississippi River to Las Vegas? In a world where our existing infrastructure is drastically, if not catastrophically, underfunded? Where are these areas of surplus fresh water of which you speak? Lake Mead, Vegas's primary source of water, is 80 feet below historical levels. The rest of the Colorado River, serving seven states, is similarly depleted. Aquifers throughout California are near tapped out. The bottom line is that vast areas of arid land were foolishly (over)developed for the banal reason that somebody was able to make a buck on it. People with money were able to buy government that allowed them to do what they wanted to make that buck. I'm no doomsdayer, but the water wars have already begun, albeit at low intensity. One day, the demand is going to outstrip the supply and it's going to get very, very ugly, at least from a financial perspective, if not outright violence.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    WRT the East Coast and environmental disasters, fracking and shale development along major water channels in upstate NY and along the Delaware River Basin (among others) have been very hot topics locally. There is great fear that fracking in NY could destroy major water access for millions of people from NY to DC. The states, governors, authority coalitions, corporations, and activist groups have been doing heavy battle. It looks like for now, fracking has been prevented, but potential environmental disaster on the East Coast isn't as far fetched as you think. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/what-new-yorks-fracking-ban-means-for-drilling-along-the-delaware-river/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/what-new... But hey, don't think it's over. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572876/propane-fracking-proposal-could-sidestep-state-ban http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572876...
ec109685 10y ago
They already reuse 40% of their indoor water and go to great lengths to limit outdoor water, and outside this drought, haven't needed to increase their allotment of water from the Colorado River. What do you suggest they do with their water supply instead of powering their economy? Use it for farming? Give it to Los Angeles? Keep it for a non rainy day?
- spilk 10y ago
  Nevada is only allocated 4% of the flow from the river. The other 96% is allocated downstream. I don't think Las Vegas is the problem here.
  - djcapelis 10y ago
    It may seem unfair that California gets a larger percentage of water from the river than Nevada does, but remember that not only is California over a dozen times larger, California also grows much of the food Nevada (and the rest of the country) eats.
fsaneq2 10y ago
It was set up there precisely because there was a lot of water available... it used to be an oasis. Las Vegas is probably way better at water management than say the Bay Area, which most people don't criticize for this, even though we ship water from a billion miles away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy).
- gonzo 10y ago
  While Las Vegas translates as "The Meadows", it was never "an oasis". There were artesian springs which served as a watering stop for wagon trains, and later the railroad. But most of the valley is dry to the point of being parched.
- djcapelis 10y ago
  Uhm. 1) Hetch Hetchy brings water to San Francisco from 167 miles away. 2) The Colorado River supplies 90% of Las Vegas's water and brings it from up to a 1,000 miles away. 3) Per person water use in SF for residential customers is 45.7 gallons. 4) Per person water use in Las Vegas for residential customers is 74 gallons. So. No, Las Vegas isn't even close to being better at water use than the Bay Area.
mc32 10y ago
I think what matter is the "footprint" per person, rather than where people live. "In some ways people living in a desert might be preferred over their living in fertile land and basically wasting the fertility of the land. Now, it's entirely possible the per person footprint (all things considered) is higher in a desert like Las Vegas over a place like say the Santa Clara valley in CA.

bmelton 10y ago

When you think about it, factoring in earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, forest / brush fires, landslides, avalanches, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp and, rightly or wrongly, once someone does set up camp, they're hesitant to move. Either way, the situations described in the article, conservation, waste prevention, and innovation seem to be the exact opposite of that described in the Water Knife blurb, and will have the luxury of being applicable to places less arid. While California was having their record droughts, the opposite coast was experiencing flash floods. If we can improve conservation, and dramatically improve transportation, it becomes easier to get water from places that have a surplus to places that have a deficit, which means we can push flood waters to areas with drought, and move our way up the Kardashev scale. Edit: Forgot cold weather and volcanic activity. The cold weather sounds like something easy to disqualify, but considering the OP's assertion is that it's a bad idea to try to best nature, it seems that heating falls into that bucket.

Retric 10y ago
Most of Virgina area has no issues with any of that. You get all 4 seasons in reasonable levels which may be a good or bad thing. But, winter really cuts down on many pests which is a major bonus and summers are tolerable even without AC most of the time.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Summers are definitely not tolerable without AC. The humidity in VA is brutal.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Seattle-Tacoma area, around Lake Washington, from east of I-5 out to the mountains, about to hwy 203. That's inland enough for when the big one hits again, great climate, good farming; its a good place to live. Just be sure to live at least 100 feet above sea level. The Piedmont area of Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Good climate, good farming, minimal natural disasters. The Hudson River Valley of New York is similar, although a bit colder. I've heard good things about the Portland, Oregon area, but I haven't been there. I suggest living east of I-5, again, though. The rest of the United States has interesting weather.
- pyromine 10y ago
  Don't ignore the majority of New England, there really is no significant threats to most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, the northern half of New England might be a bit cold but it's not bad. Similarly most of the eastern seaboard is fine, and the intermountain west is similarly inhabitable with minimal meteorological issues. I don't know where this trope that there are so many issues everywhere comes from.
  - jdminhbg 10y ago
    Most of the eastern seaboard is vulnerable to serious hurricanes and winter storms like Sandy.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Not unless your at sea level or would have flooding issues otherwise. Area I grew up in had regular flooding on the property with both a river and large stream on it, but the house was 200+ years old and never had water get anywhere near it. It's kind of a simple rule don't put your house within 20' of the water level in the highest flood anyone knows about. In terms of snow that's a simple trade-off do you want an actual winter Y/N. It kills off a lot of pests which IMO makes it worth a lot, plus you get out of the monotony of dry vs wet that most tropical areas fall into. Some people like going further north so rivers / ponds freeze ect but again trade-off.
maxlamb 10y ago
When you think about it, factoring in earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, forest / brush fires, landslides, avalanches, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp and, rightly or wrongly, once someone does set up camp, they're hesitant to move. That is true for a lot the U.S. but not everywhere. Take Germany, Austria or France, only a very small percentage of the land there is affected by earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, brush fires, landslides, or avalanches.
honua 10y ago
The point isn't of the danger but the available resources. Disasters aren't a problem if you don't even have the resources to live
coolgeek 10y ago
First off, it's simply not true in any practical sense that there are no areas of the US that are safe from environmental disasters. The entire northeast and mid-Atlantic down through Appalachia - at the very least - is reasonably safe from natural disaster. So justifying a decision to live somewhere that is highly prone to one or more types of disasters with a glib assertion that "there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp" is not even wrong. Second, I'm no historian, but I feel confident in asserting that for the entirety of history, a principal criteria for evaluating the suitability of an area for settlement is its proximity to fresh water. This criteria was intentionally, brazenly ignored in building Las Vegas - as well as much (most?) of the Sun Belt southwest. Third, your geoengineering "solutions" are not realistic. Are you suggesting that we're going to move flood waters from (to use your own example) the east coast to the west coast? Or even from the Mississippi River to Las Vegas? In a world where our existing infrastructure is drastically, if not catastrophically, underfunded? Where are these areas of surplus fresh water of which you speak? Lake Mead, Vegas's primary source of water, is 80 feet below historical levels. The rest of the Colorado River, serving seven states, is similarly depleted. Aquifers throughout California are near tapped out. The bottom line is that vast areas of arid land were foolishly (over)developed for the banal reason that somebody was able to make a buck on it. People with money were able to buy government that allowed them to do what they wanted to make that buck. I'm no doomsdayer, but the water wars have already begun, albeit at low intensity. One day, the demand is going to outstrip the supply and it's going to get very, very ugly, at least from a financial perspective, if not outright violence.
- themartorana 10y ago
  WRT the East Coast and environmental disasters, fracking and shale development along major water channels in upstate NY and along the Delaware River Basin (among others) have been very hot topics locally. There is great fear that fracking in NY could destroy major water access for millions of people from NY to DC. The states, governors, authority coalitions, corporations, and activist groups have been doing heavy battle. It looks like for now, fracking has been prevented, but potential environmental disaster on the East Coast isn't as far fetched as you think. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/what-new-yorks-fracking-ban-means-for-drilling-along-the-delaware-river/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/what-new... But hey, don't think it's over. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572876/propane-fracking-proposal-could-sidestep-state-ban http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572876...

ec109685 10y ago

They already reuse 40% of their indoor water and go to great lengths to limit outdoor water, and outside this drought, haven't needed to increase their allotment of water from the Colorado River. What do you suggest they do with their water supply instead of powering their economy? Use it for farming? Give it to Los Angeles? Keep it for a non rainy day?

spilk 10y ago
Nevada is only allocated 4% of the flow from the river. The other 96% is allocated downstream. I don't think Las Vegas is the problem here.
- djcapelis 10y ago
  It may seem unfair that California gets a larger percentage of water from the river than Nevada does, but remember that not only is California over a dozen times larger, California also grows much of the food Nevada (and the rest of the country) eats.

fsaneq2 10y ago

It was set up there precisely because there was a lot of water available... it used to be an oasis. Las Vegas is probably way better at water management than say the Bay Area, which most people don't criticize for this, even though we ship water from a billion miles away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy).

gonzo 10y ago
While Las Vegas translates as "The Meadows", it was never "an oasis". There were artesian springs which served as a watering stop for wagon trains, and later the railroad. But most of the valley is dry to the point of being parched.
djcapelis 10y ago
Uhm. 1) Hetch Hetchy brings water to San Francisco from 167 miles away. 2) The Colorado River supplies 90% of Las Vegas's water and brings it from up to a 1,000 miles away. 3) Per person water use in SF for residential customers is 45.7 gallons. 4) Per person water use in Las Vegas for residential customers is 74 gallons. So. No, Las Vegas isn't even close to being better at water use than the Bay Area.

mc32 10y ago

I think what matter is the "footprint" per person, rather than where people live. "In some ways people living in a desert might be preferred over their living in fertile land and basically wasting the fertility of the land. Now, it's entirely possible the per person footprint (all things considered) is higher in a desert like Las Vegas over a place like say the Santa Clara valley in CA.