6 ms·

Trucks become solar powered when you put biodiesel in them. But seriously, there comes a point when it's more efficient to build housing for people that is clo

Trucks become solar powered when you put biodiesel in them. But seriously, there comes a point when it's more efficient to build housing for people that is closer to sources of clean water. Whatever they are doing out there in the desert without water and infrastructure probably isn't very productive in the first place, and if they can't even do it sustainably, we should question what the point of it is. Not every environment is suitable for human occupation. How many billions of dollars would you spend shipping bottled water to the moon before you put your foot down and tell people to stop living there?

Ultimatt 7y ago
What if the entire of the USA was a desolate wasteland in 100 years, due to climate change, but Russia was a verdant paradise. Is your expectation everyone goes where its productive still?
- liability 7y ago
  Either they move, or die. That's presuming nuclear powered desalination on a massive scale never becomes viable. I don't think there are any realistic outcomes to such a scenario that don't involve immense loss of life.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Yes because even the russians have to move further north.
newnewpdro 7y ago
People living in the desert put in wells like everywhere else that's rural, at least those who can afford it do. In my experience the desert isn't particularly unsuitable for human occupation. Barren wasteland deserts of endless dunes from the movies like the Sahara are not the normal. Certainly not in the USA. What I find is the desert tends to be relatively undesirable land so it's very affordable and abundant. This has the effect of selecting for poor residents who want land of their own but can't afford anything better than desert property, and often can't afford to install a well once they've bought the land. What usually happens is their water gets hauled either by themselves or by a commercial service from the nearest city water supply, it's mostly an inconvenience. Having a system that can directly take atmospheric air and solar energy to produce drinking water on-site for substantially less cost than installing a well would be life-changing for many of these folks. At the very least it would improve their water security since relying on an automobile for your only source of potable water isn't exactly ideal. Presumably one doesn't even need a permit from the county to start extracting water from the air with a device the size of a microwave. This is a huge difference in barrier to entry, especially for the poor. I'm guessing you have no desert experience based on your comment. I live in the Mojave and it's actually quite nice for most of the year. There's such an abundant aquifer near me that Cadiz, Inc. is embroiled in controversy over plans to bottle and sell its water. [0] Here's some food for thought: It's often claimed that mosquitoes have killed more than half the people who have ever lived. Guess what isn't a problem in the desert? Mosquitoes. I recently visited northern MN and frankly find my desert land far more suitable to human occupation than that mosquito infested swamp. [0] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-trump-cadiz-20170404-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-trump-cadiz-201704...
- liability 7y ago
  If you have a well, or the infrastructure to ship in water, then you're not in the situation I was talking about, are you? I didn't say people shouldn't live in deserts. I said that people shouldn't live in deserts if they cannot acquire safe drinking water. Either you figure out a way to get water, or you move to someplace where you can (perhaps another location in that same desert, but closer to a road that water trucks can navigate?) Such is the tyranny of our basic biological needs.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    Except it's rather precarious to rely on hauling water with automobiles. If this contraption works and is reliable it effectively turns all desert land into land w/potable water. Why should we disregard this progress and what it enables?
    - liability 7y ago
      (Just so we're clear, it almost certainly won't work, just as it hasn't all the other times it's been proposed.) If it works for you and you're paying for it, then more power to you. If it works and the rest of society is paying for it, subsidizing your lifestyle, then it becomes reasonable to figure out what the most efficient method of ensuring you have access to water is. If funding the installation of these devices is more efficient than relocating you, then great. However if relocating your community makes more ecological and economic sense, then you should either find a way to support yourself, or accept relocation.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  > I recently visited northern MN and frankly find my desert land far more suitable to human occupation than that mosquito infested swamp. I suspect, though, that you're not trying to grow your own food. If you were, you might find the desert to be less suitable to human occupation than Minnesota.
  - cr0sh 7y ago
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Please read Walking with the Comrades by Arundhati Roy [1] to understand why sometimes it is not okay to ask people to move from where they are living. [1] Original link not working https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1rpmFietwKYJ:https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/walking-with-the-comrades/264738+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1rpmFi...
- liability 7y ago
  Well they can stay and die of thirst, or stay and figure out a way of getting water. But if the only way for them to get water is immensely inefficient, then it's perfectly reasonable and moral for whoever is footing the bill to spend a more reasonable sum of money relocating the community in question. I reject the notion that anybody is entitled to a ecologically unsustainable lifestyle. Consider Centralia PA. Was it reasonable for the government to buy out a community that could no longer reasonably exist due to local environmental factors, leaving a few stubborn people behind to fend for themselves? Yes. Because if you really want to live on top of a coal mine fire, that's on you. Relocating the community is more feasible than trying to salvage it.
  - abdullahkhalids 7y ago
    Statement 1: People living in the "wrong" place must be moved to the "right" place. Statement 2: I refuse to provide additional financial accommodations to people living in the "wrong" place compared to those living in the "right" place. The two are very different statements. Statement 1 is much less defensible position than statement 2, even though even 2 can be problematic. You seemed to hold statement 1 as your position in the first comment and sort of acknowledged statement 2 in your second. Please don't espouse statement 1, is all I am saying.
    - liability 7y ago
      > "You seemed to hold statement 1 as your position in the first comment" That may have been your read of it, but that was not my intention. If somebody wants to stay behind, as some in Centralia did, that's their perogative. Society has an obligation to help people meet their basic requirements, but the form that assistance comes in is another matter. The assistance may very well be in the form of "we can't afford to support your lifestyle in that location, so we'll pay you to move." If moon men figure out a way to pull water out of rocks, that's wonderful for them. But if they want me to give them water, I'll be glad to give them all they need as soon as they come back to earth. They're entitled to clean water, but not clean water on the moon.
dorusr 7y ago
Imagine the apes said it's foolish to invest in making hides from animals, that we shouldn't invest in the technology and just stay in Africa, as opposed to migrating to Europe, which is too cold for humans to live in.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  Having in mind that all ape species in Europe except one where extinct with most of the european megafauna, it seemed the right move in retrospective.

Ultimatt 7y ago

What if the entire of the USA was a desolate wasteland in 100 years, due to climate change, but Russia was a verdant paradise. Is your expectation everyone goes where its productive still?

liability 7y ago
Either they move, or die. That's presuming nuclear powered desalination on a massive scale never becomes viable. I don't think there are any realistic outcomes to such a scenario that don't involve immense loss of life.
imtringued 7y ago
Yes because even the russians have to move further north.

newnewpdro 7y ago

People living in the desert put in wells like everywhere else that's rural, at least those who can afford it do. In my experience the desert isn't particularly unsuitable for human occupation. Barren wasteland deserts of endless dunes from the movies like the Sahara are not the normal. Certainly not in the USA. What I find is the desert tends to be relatively undesirable land so it's very affordable and abundant. This has the effect of selecting for poor residents who want land of their own but can't afford anything better than desert property, and often can't afford to install a well once they've bought the land. What usually happens is their water gets hauled either by themselves or by a commercial service from the nearest city water supply, it's mostly an inconvenience. Having a system that can directly take atmospheric air and solar energy to produce drinking water on-site for substantially less cost than installing a well would be life-changing for many of these folks. At the very least it would improve their water security since relying on an automobile for your only source of potable water isn't exactly ideal. Presumably one doesn't even need a permit from the county to start extracting water from the air with a device the size of a microwave. This is a huge difference in barrier to entry, especially for the poor. I'm guessing you have no desert experience based on your comment. I live in the Mojave and it's actually quite nice for most of the year. There's such an abundant aquifer near me that Cadiz, Inc. is embroiled in controversy over plans to bottle and sell its water. [0] Here's some food for thought: It's often claimed that mosquitoes have killed more than half the people who have ever lived. Guess what isn't a problem in the desert? Mosquitoes. I recently visited northern MN and frankly find my desert land far more suitable to human occupation than that mosquito infested swamp. [0] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-trump-cadiz-20170404-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-trump-cadiz-201704...

liability 7y ago
If you have a well, or the infrastructure to ship in water, then you're not in the situation I was talking about, are you? I didn't say people shouldn't live in deserts. I said that people shouldn't live in deserts if they cannot acquire safe drinking water. Either you figure out a way to get water, or you move to someplace where you can (perhaps another location in that same desert, but closer to a road that water trucks can navigate?) Such is the tyranny of our basic biological needs.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Except it's rather precarious to rely on hauling water with automobiles. If this contraption works and is reliable it effectively turns all desert land into land w/potable water. Why should we disregard this progress and what it enables?
  - liability 7y ago
    (Just so we're clear, it almost certainly won't work, just as it hasn't all the other times it's been proposed.) If it works for you and you're paying for it, then more power to you. If it works and the rest of society is paying for it, subsidizing your lifestyle, then it becomes reasonable to figure out what the most efficient method of ensuring you have access to water is. If funding the installation of these devices is more efficient than relocating you, then great. However if relocating your community makes more ecological and economic sense, then you should either find a way to support yourself, or accept relocation.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> I recently visited northern MN and frankly find my desert land far more suitable to human occupation than that mosquito infested swamp. I suspect, though, that you're not trying to grow your own food. If you were, you might find the desert to be less suitable to human occupation than Minnesota.
- cr0sh 7y ago

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Please read Walking with the Comrades by Arundhati Roy [1] to understand why sometimes it is not okay to ask people to move from where they are living. [1] Original link not working https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1rpmFietwKYJ:https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/walking-with-the-comrades/264738+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=pk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1rpmFi...

liability 7y ago
Well they can stay and die of thirst, or stay and figure out a way of getting water. But if the only way for them to get water is immensely inefficient, then it's perfectly reasonable and moral for whoever is footing the bill to spend a more reasonable sum of money relocating the community in question. I reject the notion that anybody is entitled to a ecologically unsustainable lifestyle. Consider Centralia PA. Was it reasonable for the government to buy out a community that could no longer reasonably exist due to local environmental factors, leaving a few stubborn people behind to fend for themselves? Yes. Because if you really want to live on top of a coal mine fire, that's on you. Relocating the community is more feasible than trying to salvage it.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Statement 1: People living in the "wrong" place must be moved to the "right" place. Statement 2: I refuse to provide additional financial accommodations to people living in the "wrong" place compared to those living in the "right" place. The two are very different statements. Statement 1 is much less defensible position than statement 2, even though even 2 can be problematic. You seemed to hold statement 1 as your position in the first comment and sort of acknowledged statement 2 in your second. Please don't espouse statement 1, is all I am saying.
  - liability 7y ago
    > "You seemed to hold statement 1 as your position in the first comment" That may have been your read of it, but that was not my intention. If somebody wants to stay behind, as some in Centralia did, that's their perogative. Society has an obligation to help people meet their basic requirements, but the form that assistance comes in is another matter. The assistance may very well be in the form of "we can't afford to support your lifestyle in that location, so we'll pay you to move." If moon men figure out a way to pull water out of rocks, that's wonderful for them. But if they want me to give them water, I'll be glad to give them all they need as soon as they come back to earth. They're entitled to clean water, but not clean water on the moon.

dorusr 7y ago

Imagine the apes said it's foolish to invest in making hides from animals, that we shouldn't invest in the technology and just stay in Africa, as opposed to migrating to Europe, which is too cold for humans to live in.

pvaldes 7y ago
Having in mind that all ape species in Europe except one where extinct with most of the european megafauna, it seemed the right move in retrospective.