5 ms·

> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land

> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water somehow the exception?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizure without asking residents’ permission; found all sorts of legal subterfuges for denying the value of their fields and homesteads as established by expert witnesses; lowballed every estimate; treated them with distant contempt. Since the politicians and commissioners were not running for office upstate, they felt no need to package their enterprise as a humanitarian mission; they spoke in numbers and legal precedents. Do you think this is acceptable conduct if it was in the service of procuring food for city people, or people in a country that was a net importer of food?
- iguy 6y ago
  I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity. But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built. Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.
octoberfranklin 6y ago
Water is a natural resource. Food hasn't been a natural resource since the invention of agriculture. You also seem to be unaware of the difference in scale. The average American uses between 500kg and 1000kg of water per day. The weight (and volume) of food they eat isn't even in the same ballpark. There is almost a 100x difference here.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I can imagine that’s the average household consumption of water, but seems a multiple of the individual consumption.
- sparrc 6y ago
  Growing and raising food requires a huge amount more water than it's literal weight once it sits on your dinner plate. As another commenter has already mentioned, most water goes to rural areas for farming, and within farming most of the water is being used for producing beef, dairy, and pork.
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    > Growing and raising food requires a huge amount more water than it's literal weight once it sits on your dinner plate. ... which is why the growing is done near the water source and fertile soil. If the soil and water aren't in the same place you move the water, because the soil is even more massive and volumous. I think you've missed the point of this thread. It isn't about what we do or don't do, but about where we do it.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? You can include China in there, which is partly why the CCP is always willing to sacrifice half their population - less mouths to feed. War is only one famine away for countries that can't grow their own food, or get embargoed. (The reason why Britain had the largest navy for centuries was to protect their sea lanes for trade to support their islands. Their doctrine was to have a navy as large as the next 2 navies, in case those 2 signed a treaty.)

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold. > The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizure without asking residents’ permission; found all sorts of legal subterfuges for denying the value of their fields and homesteads as established by expert witnesses; lowballed every estimate; treated them with distant contempt. Since the politicians and commissioners were not running for office upstate, they felt no need to package their enterprise as a humanitarian mission; they spoke in numbers and legal precedents. Do you think this is acceptable conduct if it was in the service of procuring food for city people, or people in a country that was a net importer of food?

iguy 6y ago
I'm sure it sucked to be the guy whose land was taken. And I'm unsurprised that it wasn't done with maximum tact and local sensitivity. But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. In fact, I think the legislation needed to do this was first designed for building canals. And it was controversial because it obviously clashed with property rights, which in the 18th C were pretty absolute. But if each guy who owns 5 acres right at a critical spot can hold the whole 100-mile project hostage, then it can never be built. Growing food just doesn't have the same demand. It is completely routine to farm two patches of land separated by someone else's house, no big deal.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > But our civilisation does require large-scale infrastructure. Dams, railways, airports, highways. I doubt any of these have ever been built without compulsory purchase of land. The point of the article is to question whether "our civilization" is worth treating people this way, or whether it would be better to craft a different civilization that treated people better.

octoberfranklin 6y ago

Water is a natural resource. Food hasn't been a natural resource since the invention of agriculture. You also seem to be unaware of the difference in scale. The average American uses between 500kg and 1000kg of water per day. The weight (and volume) of food they eat isn't even in the same ballpark. There is almost a 100x difference here.

sokoloff 6y ago
I can imagine that’s the average household consumption of water, but seems a multiple of the individual consumption.
sparrc 6y ago
Growing and raising food requires a huge amount more water than it's literal weight once it sits on your dinner plate. As another commenter has already mentioned, most water goes to rural areas for farming, and within farming most of the water is being used for producing beef, dairy, and pork.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  > Growing and raising food requires a huge amount more water than it's literal weight once it sits on your dinner plate. ... which is why the growing is done near the water source and fertile soil. If the soil and water aren't in the same place you move the water, because the soil is even more massive and volumous. I think you've missed the point of this thread. It isn't about what we do or don't do, but about where we do it.

redis_mlc 6y ago

> Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? You can include China in there, which is partly why the CCP is always willing to sacrifice half their population - less mouths to feed. War is only one famine away for countries that can't grow their own food, or get embargoed. (The reason why Britain had the largest navy for centuries was to protect their sea lanes for trade to support their islands. Their doctrine was to have a navy as large as the next 2 navies, in case those 2 signed a treaty.)