3 ms·
To be frank the "water wars" seems suspiciously zeitgeist and "trope-driven" like Bloomberg's "backdoor chip" story. There is no need for them to add a separate
by Nasrudith 5y ago
To be frank the "water wars" seems suspiciously zeitgeist and "trope-driven" like Bloomberg's "backdoor chip" story. There is no need for them to add a separate chip when they are fabbing the damn thing. It seems far more "apocalyptic symbolism" than any remotely rational connection beyond "Step one: water instability. Step two: ??? Step Three: War!". It completely ignores all conflict resolution mechanisms, deals, and trades and just assumes foreordained war.
- jcranmer 5y agoI'd go a step further and also add that there seems to be a sentiment that everything needs to be explained as having water instability as the cause (or at least the predominant cause). Several entries in the list are basically "X happened for several reasons, including water." And worse, anything that involves water is included, even if it's not really about control of water for human use--the Fashoda incident is on the list, which is really about competing French and British colonial claims for their desire for a contiguous east/west or north/south (respectively) African empire.