4 ms·

Almost any significant technological innovation was expensive to provide to the public in its infancy but as the time went on, it became more accessible to the

Almost any significant technological innovation was expensive to provide to the public in its infancy but as the time went on, it became more accessible to the public. Right off the bat, i could name airplane transportation as a fine example.

woodruffw 4y ago
The flaw in this reasoning is that it requires corresponding demand among the non-wealthy. It was true for airlines (everybody likes to go on vacation); is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert, particularly as the resource limitations become more obvious?
- caramelcustard 4y ago
  Perhaps it was true for airlines, but mind you that airlines were a substantial upgrade over railways in terms of travel speed, so it's not just about vacations. "...is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert..." yes and no. With the rise of "alternative lifestyles", i wouldn't be surprised if people would begin exploring the cheaper to purchase lands for development. And while, obviously, most people aren't going to live in the desert, the technology that would be developed and used could benefit in areas other than "supplying those desert weirdos with water". Alternative ways to obtain quality water to me are just like what airplane travel was in comparison to railways.
- throwaway193948 4y ago
  take a look at arizona real estate prices over the past couple years people want to live where it’s sunny and warm
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I'm not denying that there are people who want to live there. It's obvious there are (and that there are growth trends, particularly as snowbirds seem to be discarding Florida as their first choice). The dispute is about scale: a couple of million retirees equal a lot of speculative housing value, but they don't justify a megaproject to deliver water to the middle of the desert. That would require population migration on a scale not seen in over a century in the US.
eesmith 4y ago
Only some airplane transportation. Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago. Inter-city rail travel is much less accessible now than 80 years ago. More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation. But knowing that it would be a significant technological innovation doesn't make it happen. We don't have many flying cars, even though the technology has been around for decades. Yet cheap flying cars would be a significant technological innovation, yes? We already have the ability to transport Pacific water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in San Diego to Arizona, via the road system. If your argument has merit, then we should be seeing the existing price getting lower, right? What isn't the price going down fast enough to meet the obvious demand?
- caramelcustard 4y ago
  "Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"? "We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options. I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.) To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta. Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money. Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.
imtringued 4y ago
The problem isn't a lack of technology. Even if there was a magic technology it is unlikely to be adopted.

woodruffw 4y ago

The flaw in this reasoning is that it requires corresponding demand among the non-wealthy. It was true for airlines (everybody likes to go on vacation); is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert, particularly as the resource limitations become more obvious?

caramelcustard 4y ago
Perhaps it was true for airlines, but mind you that airlines were a substantial upgrade over railways in terms of travel speed, so it's not just about vacations. "...is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert..." yes and no. With the rise of "alternative lifestyles", i wouldn't be surprised if people would begin exploring the cheaper to purchase lands for development. And while, obviously, most people aren't going to live in the desert, the technology that would be developed and used could benefit in areas other than "supplying those desert weirdos with water". Alternative ways to obtain quality water to me are just like what airplane travel was in comparison to railways.
throwaway193948 4y ago
take a look at arizona real estate prices over the past couple years people want to live where it’s sunny and warm
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I'm not denying that there are people who want to live there. It's obvious there are (and that there are growth trends, particularly as snowbirds seem to be discarding Florida as their first choice). The dispute is about scale: a couple of million retirees equal a lot of speculative housing value, but they don't justify a megaproject to deliver water to the middle of the desert. That would require population migration on a scale not seen in over a century in the US.

eesmith 4y ago

Only some airplane transportation. Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago. Inter-city rail travel is much less accessible now than 80 years ago. More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation. But knowing that it would be a significant technological innovation doesn't make it happen. We don't have many flying cars, even though the technology has been around for decades. Yet cheap flying cars would be a significant technological innovation, yes? We already have the ability to transport Pacific water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in San Diego to Arizona, via the road system. If your argument has merit, then we should be seeing the existing price getting lower, right? What isn't the price going down fast enough to meet the obvious demand?

caramelcustard 4y ago
"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"? "We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options. I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?
- eesmith 4y ago
  I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.) To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta. Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money. Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.

imtringued 4y ago

The problem isn't a lack of technology. Even if there was a magic technology it is unlikely to be adopted.