3 ms·
I'm wondering if we somehow read different articles. "1. They wanted free stuff (water), and didn't get it." Um... their water system failed, and Prospera hoo
by bovermyer 5y ago
I'm wondering if we somehow read different articles.
"1. They wanted free stuff (water), and didn't get it."
Um... their water system failed, and Prospera hooked them up to their own water system, without informing them that they would be charged for this. Further, the entity doing the charging was calling itself a philanthropic foundation.
"This is why it might be easier to develop advanced human communities on Mars - no locals to worry about!"
I'm not going to make sweeping assumptions about you based on a single comment. However, this kind of phrasing makes it sound as if you believe peoples' wellbeing and autonomy are secondary to - or perhaps at odds with - profit.
- unanswered 5y agoThen Prospera stopped charging for the water, and the only condition they placed on completely free use of all the infrastructure that went into it was for the village to acknowledge that they were receiving the water.
- zozbot234 5y agoThe article says that they temporarily stopped charging for the water due to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, they asked that the community enter into a formal contract as a condition for supplying water. This does not seem like they acted very transparently at all, and it's unsurprising that they would now be facing heavy pushback.
- unanswered 5y agoThe article never said they started charging again, which means that "temporarily" was an editorialization. Having a written agreement—I don't think it sounded like "formal contract" to me—is more transparent than the pre-existing situation where they were informally providing water. Your complaints are internally inconsistent and it seems you just want to kvetch.