4 ms·

My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition. It's questionable if it can be done in a way that's not harmful to the Mississippi watershed and ogallala aq

My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition. It's questionable if it can be done in a way that's not harmful to the Mississippi watershed and ogallala aquifer. But you're right, the human good it could do would justify much. The advocacy group NRDC has a much better explanation of the general concept and specific Mississippi/Ogallala proposal: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-report.pdf https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/Water-Pipelines-rep... Two things become clear. The mississippi/ogallala project would have to be an aqueduct project and not a pipeline if it wants to move a helpful amount of water to justify itself and it would require an exorbitant amount of energy to pump water from, say, Omaha to Denver. It doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening before many smaller projects are attempted first local to the southwest.

richk449 4y ago
> My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition It is interesting that a project like this runs into visceral opposition from two different sides. Those on the left may object that we shouldn't be messing with the natural world in ways that will have consequences we won't understand. Those on the right may object that we shouldn't be attempting large expensive government projects that will intrude on individual liberty. Both objections have some validity. But neither are cost/benefit analyses, which is a much better way to evaluate whether we should be doing something than asking whether it perfectly aligns with my principles.
- bananarchist 4y ago
  The visceral reaction is little about left and right. Ask a west coaster: what if the shore and the mountains and dense forests went away? What if the dramatic canyons and sweeping dunes of the southwest were confiscated? Lush lakes and rivers are one of the primary geographical features of appeal in the Midwest. Taking them away is no different than taking away the geographical features that make people move to the west. The principle this is about is justice, not nature or small governance, and you can’t tell another their justice. It’s no surprise someone prioritizing cost benefit analyses is so blind to the feelings of real people.

richk449 4y ago

> My visceral reaction was also anger and opposition It is interesting that a project like this runs into visceral opposition from two different sides. Those on the left may object that we shouldn't be messing with the natural world in ways that will have consequences we won't understand. Those on the right may object that we shouldn't be attempting large expensive government projects that will intrude on individual liberty. Both objections have some validity. But neither are cost/benefit analyses, which is a much better way to evaluate whether we should be doing something than asking whether it perfectly aligns with my principles.

bananarchist 4y ago
The visceral reaction is little about left and right. Ask a west coaster: what if the shore and the mountains and dense forests went away? What if the dramatic canyons and sweeping dunes of the southwest were confiscated? Lush lakes and rivers are one of the primary geographical features of appeal in the Midwest. Taking them away is no different than taking away the geographical features that make people move to the west. The principle this is about is justice, not nature or small governance, and you can’t tell another their justice. It’s no surprise someone prioritizing cost benefit analyses is so blind to the feelings of real people.