6 ms·

Can't agree that the poppy farmers aren't thinking long term. Abusing the aquifer is the nash equilibrium. As soon as one person starts pumping everyone else ha

Can't agree that the poppy farmers aren't thinking long term. Abusing the aquifer is the nash equilibrium. As soon as one person starts pumping everyone else has to too, because the water will be gone soon either way. This is a collaboration failure more than some sort of ignoring the long term for the short term.

Ericson2314 6y ago
The problem isn't farmer's, it's the breathless tone of the journalist who seems to know nothing about aquifer depletion. Classic capitalism-aggrandizing faux-environmentalism.
hosh 6y ago
I was describing alternative ways to get water rather than draining the aquifer, as well as long term effects of flooding the market with opium. I do not think the Nash equilibrium describes that.
- samatman 6y ago
  Unfortunately, it does. A farmer can convert now, and pay the extra price of doing so, while missing out on the easier aquifer water. Or, they can do what everyone else does: pump now, then convert when their hand is forced. Absent some group collaboration, this bad deal is the correct choice: anything else would be worse for an individual farmer. That's a Nash equilibrium. Not addressing the short vs long term thinking about opium, since it's unrelated, but I don't think your analysis is correct; the Pashtuns have been growing this crop for literally thousands of years.
  - hosh 6y ago
    That is a lot to think about. I did not know what a Nash equilibrium is. I don’t have an immediate answer to this. I only have some vague notions that the alternatives I am thinking of does not cost as much as it is perceived, and conversion strategies may not require a large investment with an immediate opportunity cost. In other words, not all viable strategies are known by the actors. I tried looking up information on the Pashtuns and pre-modern cultivation of opium. So far, I have only found articles and papers talking about significant cultivation since the 1950s. I have found articles describing this as a fairly complex issue. I am interested in understanding the traditional farming practices of the Pashtuns, and how and why it changed. Is there anything written about that you know off the top of your head?
    - raincom 6y ago
      You don't need to worry about the Nash equilibrium. What happens in many cases is that short-term rationality trumps the long-term rationality. When neighbors are making more money; when neighbors are sending their kids to good schools; when neighbors are doing better; it is irrational of one to harvest rain water to recharge groundwater.
      - hosh 6y ago
        Thank you for your view. I am trying to practice keeping an open mind, or at least, think through things from different perspectives. It also helps me to communicate better. I think another point that the Nash equilibrium brings up is that all actors are non-cooperative. I thought I was making a point that self-interest would make rainwater harvesting rational. I think rainwater harvesting is rational, having seen good designs, and what it can do. It may even cost less than the solar panels, pump, digging out a reservoir, and the drilling... but I don’t think I know the exact numbers to make that kind of comparison. There is also an assumption that you choose between one or the other, rather than a succession, where one method is employed in the small scale and gradually replaces the other. Another issue is whether it would scale. I had not even brought up how specific soil amendments and practices can greatly increase the water retention ability of the water —- which is also a part of rainwater harvesting. I don’t know how well rainwater harvesting scale to industrial agriculture. I _think_ it can be scalable. Looking at the harvesting practices, you are scarring the head and collecting the sap. So it probably does not require planting in a way to optimize for using a combine to harvest. Finally, I also recall the farmer’s mindset. I was watching this show about American farmers. One thing they say a lot is how they make gambles. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. (Which I can say a lot about with regenerative agriculture that is also resilient against a single point of failure). So introducing new practices is risky for the farmer, and they would probably rather build on what they know works. As such, they would narrow their perceived viable choices, and it gets to the conditions for the Nash equilibrium.
        raincom 6y ago
        Yes, it is non-cooperative. Cooperation works when there is cooperation in every other area, not just rainwater harvesting. Will the neighbor's child, who has become a multi-millionaire, help another neighbor, whose kids are not as fortunate as that kid? I ask this question, not to bring in some silly contrast. There is a deeper issue, since Arrow's impossibility theorem is shown to be equivalent to a special case of the Nash Equilibrium. As a consequence, Arrovian dictator (in social choice framework) is equivalent to shared compromise in Nash cooperative game. Unless there is a dictator to force cooperation, it is just a talk. In an extreme, where everyone is poor and struggling for drinking water, you can see some cooperation. As long as the gravy train runs, one just milks it.
raincom 6y ago
This is what happened in India. As aquifers have been depleted, people in many areas there are struggling to get drinking water. Once upon a time, people used to get drinking water from dug wells even in the summer. Now, there is no water even at 600 feet.
- hosh 6y ago
  I saw a promotional video about harvesting rainwater made by an Indian non-profit. Have you seen that one?
Melting_Harps 6y ago
Isn't that a clear example of the Tragedy of the Commons? I mean, if access to the aquifer required the replenishment of it as a barrier of entry wouldn't that in turn mitigate the issue? For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured, something Colorado only recently allowed, and pumped back into the aquifer? Enforceability becomes the real issue, but having lived most of my Life in CA and in CO in the US, Water wars are REAL and I only see them getting more serious unless we come up with better desalination techniques and processes in the immediate future. My chemistry professor was saying in the mid 2000s that water had already become the new Gold.
- Thorncorona 6y ago
  The simplest solution would be to charge a fair price for water since the vast majority of water is used for farming. But since most corporate farms have multi-decade long water contracts, this isn't possible (aka you must legislate, which would also benefit corporate farms).
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured Collection of rainwater is never an option in farming. The reason they are irrigating is because there isn't enough rain. To capture enough rain to facilitate irrigation requires devices as large or larger than the fields to be irrigated. Rain barrels aren't enough. Agriculture measures water in acre-feet. So you turn field B into a pond to hold water for field A. How deep is that pond? If it is only a couple feet you will loose all your water to evaporation. You need deeper water. You need a dam. So you better be good at concrete retaining walls, or hope there is a convenient river valley on your plot.
  - hosh 6y ago
    Rainwater harvesting is not very efficient with a rain barrel. There are much better design patterns for harvesting rain: 1. To scale, you are really trying to capture water in the soil itself 2. This means taking advantage of terrain features to manage patterns of flow. The idea here is to slow down flow so that it cycles through the planting areas so that the water can infiltrate instead of running off. 3. Mosquitos is a problem if pooling remains for more than three days. The solution here is to add organic compounds (mulching) to cover the areas being pooled. It effectively makes the water go below the surface, and have the added benefit of carrying composting nutrients deeper into the soil. 4. Soil’s ability to hold water depends upon a number of factors. Among them is how much carbon material is there, which includes the remains of root systems. Living, healthy soil will act as a sponge and release water to the plant as needed. 5. So protecting soil erosion is a huge part of conserving water. If the rain is carrying off soil because it is running off too fast, there is never a build up of soil to act as a sponge. 6. You may need to plant more than a monocrop. At least plant ground cover to protect the farm’s soil fertility. 7. Certain soil amendments can have lasting effect on its ability to absorb water. Biochar — charcoal that have been prepared in a way to make it suitable for plants — have the property of absorbing water and releasing it as needed. They also form habitats for microbes and fungi, which can also enhance plant growth. 8. Heavy fertilizing may be contributing to soil loss. They don’t help accumulate the kind of properties that help soil absorb water. Here is an example paper about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/soil-erosion https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biolog... It is not as if this stuff is not well known

Ericson2314 6y ago

The problem isn't farmer's, it's the breathless tone of the journalist who seems to know nothing about aquifer depletion. Classic capitalism-aggrandizing faux-environmentalism.

hosh 6y ago

I was describing alternative ways to get water rather than draining the aquifer, as well as long term effects of flooding the market with opium. I do not think the Nash equilibrium describes that.

samatman 6y ago
Unfortunately, it does. A farmer can convert now, and pay the extra price of doing so, while missing out on the easier aquifer water. Or, they can do what everyone else does: pump now, then convert when their hand is forced. Absent some group collaboration, this bad deal is the correct choice: anything else would be worse for an individual farmer. That's a Nash equilibrium. Not addressing the short vs long term thinking about opium, since it's unrelated, but I don't think your analysis is correct; the Pashtuns have been growing this crop for literally thousands of years.
- hosh 6y ago
  That is a lot to think about. I did not know what a Nash equilibrium is. I don’t have an immediate answer to this. I only have some vague notions that the alternatives I am thinking of does not cost as much as it is perceived, and conversion strategies may not require a large investment with an immediate opportunity cost. In other words, not all viable strategies are known by the actors. I tried looking up information on the Pashtuns and pre-modern cultivation of opium. So far, I have only found articles and papers talking about significant cultivation since the 1950s. I have found articles describing this as a fairly complex issue. I am interested in understanding the traditional farming practices of the Pashtuns, and how and why it changed. Is there anything written about that you know off the top of your head?
  - raincom 6y ago
    You don't need to worry about the Nash equilibrium. What happens in many cases is that short-term rationality trumps the long-term rationality. When neighbors are making more money; when neighbors are sending their kids to good schools; when neighbors are doing better; it is irrational of one to harvest rain water to recharge groundwater.
    - hosh 6y ago
      Thank you for your view. I am trying to practice keeping an open mind, or at least, think through things from different perspectives. It also helps me to communicate better. I think another point that the Nash equilibrium brings up is that all actors are non-cooperative. I thought I was making a point that self-interest would make rainwater harvesting rational. I think rainwater harvesting is rational, having seen good designs, and what it can do. It may even cost less than the solar panels, pump, digging out a reservoir, and the drilling... but I don’t think I know the exact numbers to make that kind of comparison. There is also an assumption that you choose between one or the other, rather than a succession, where one method is employed in the small scale and gradually replaces the other. Another issue is whether it would scale. I had not even brought up how specific soil amendments and practices can greatly increase the water retention ability of the water —- which is also a part of rainwater harvesting. I don’t know how well rainwater harvesting scale to industrial agriculture. I _think_ it can be scalable. Looking at the harvesting practices, you are scarring the head and collecting the sap. So it probably does not require planting in a way to optimize for using a combine to harvest. Finally, I also recall the farmer’s mindset. I was watching this show about American farmers. One thing they say a lot is how they make gambles. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. (Which I can say a lot about with regenerative agriculture that is also resilient against a single point of failure). So introducing new practices is risky for the farmer, and they would probably rather build on what they know works. As such, they would narrow their perceived viable choices, and it gets to the conditions for the Nash equilibrium.
      - raincom 6y ago
        Yes, it is non-cooperative. Cooperation works when there is cooperation in every other area, not just rainwater harvesting. Will the neighbor's child, who has become a multi-millionaire, help another neighbor, whose kids are not as fortunate as that kid? I ask this question, not to bring in some silly contrast. There is a deeper issue, since Arrow's impossibility theorem is shown to be equivalent to a special case of the Nash Equilibrium. As a consequence, Arrovian dictator (in social choice framework) is equivalent to shared compromise in Nash cooperative game. Unless there is a dictator to force cooperation, it is just a talk. In an extreme, where everyone is poor and struggling for drinking water, you can see some cooperation. As long as the gravy train runs, one just milks it.

raincom 6y ago

This is what happened in India. As aquifers have been depleted, people in many areas there are struggling to get drinking water. Once upon a time, people used to get drinking water from dug wells even in the summer. Now, there is no water even at 600 feet.

hosh 6y ago
I saw a promotional video about harvesting rainwater made by an Indian non-profit. Have you seen that one?

Melting_Harps 6y ago

Isn't that a clear example of the Tragedy of the Commons? I mean, if access to the aquifer required the replenishment of it as a barrier of entry wouldn't that in turn mitigate the issue? For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured, something Colorado only recently allowed, and pumped back into the aquifer? Enforceability becomes the real issue, but having lived most of my Life in CA and in CO in the US, Water wars are REAL and I only see them getting more serious unless we come up with better desalination techniques and processes in the immediate future. My chemistry professor was saying in the mid 2000s that water had already become the new Gold.

Thorncorona 6y ago
The simplest solution would be to charge a fair price for water since the vast majority of water is used for farming. But since most corporate farms have multi-decade long water contracts, this isn't possible (aka you must legislate, which would also benefit corporate farms).
sandworm101 6y ago
>> For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured Collection of rainwater is never an option in farming. The reason they are irrigating is because there isn't enough rain. To capture enough rain to facilitate irrigation requires devices as large or larger than the fields to be irrigated. Rain barrels aren't enough. Agriculture measures water in acre-feet. So you turn field B into a pond to hold water for field A. How deep is that pond? If it is only a couple feet you will loose all your water to evaporation. You need deeper water. You need a dam. So you better be good at concrete retaining walls, or hope there is a convenient river valley on your plot.
- hosh 6y ago
  Rainwater harvesting is not very efficient with a rain barrel. There are much better design patterns for harvesting rain: 1. To scale, you are really trying to capture water in the soil itself 2. This means taking advantage of terrain features to manage patterns of flow. The idea here is to slow down flow so that it cycles through the planting areas so that the water can infiltrate instead of running off. 3. Mosquitos is a problem if pooling remains for more than three days. The solution here is to add organic compounds (mulching) to cover the areas being pooled. It effectively makes the water go below the surface, and have the added benefit of carrying composting nutrients deeper into the soil. 4. Soil’s ability to hold water depends upon a number of factors. Among them is how much carbon material is there, which includes the remains of root systems. Living, healthy soil will act as a sponge and release water to the plant as needed. 5. So protecting soil erosion is a huge part of conserving water. If the rain is carrying off soil because it is running off too fast, there is never a build up of soil to act as a sponge. 6. You may need to plant more than a monocrop. At least plant ground cover to protect the farm’s soil fertility. 7. Certain soil amendments can have lasting effect on its ability to absorb water. Biochar — charcoal that have been prepared in a way to make it suitable for plants — have the property of absorbing water and releasing it as needed. They also form habitats for microbes and fungi, which can also enhance plant growth. 8. Heavy fertilizing may be contributing to soil loss. They don’t help accumulate the kind of properties that help soil absorb water. Here is an example paper about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/soil-erosion https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biolog... It is not as if this stuff is not well known