27 ms·

I understand this is talking about water as a commodity, but I'd like to share another side of it. Just finished a week motorbiking in Laos. It's currently inc

I understand this is talking about water as a commodity, but I'd like to share another side of it. Just finished a week motorbiking in Laos. It's currently incredibly hot and dry. They are at the end of dry season, but having lived in many climates with hot/dry - it still caught me off guard. Many of the farms were bone dry - dust everywhere. Doesn't help that the regularly do 'slash & burn agriculture' where they're burning the forest, clearing it, planting their crops, and repeating after they exhaust the soil. We were constantly coming across areas on fire. But no - that's not the issue. The government is corrupt there and is constantly selling the rights to build dams. There's no environmental survey before doing so - they're just cropping these things up all over the place; even where the return is very minimal. If there's a profit opportunity - it's there. This is of course causing downstream rivers to run low, preventing water access to farms and villages that rely on it. And the kicker: Laos doesn't even get the electricity generated - 90% of it is exported to neighboring countries like Thailand. Just incredible to see.

lenova 4y ago
Hi there, I would love to hear more about your trip. I lived in Laos for a few months a decade ago, just outside of Vang Vieng. I think of the country often, and can only imagine just how much it has changed.
esturk 4y ago
Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world per capita (done by America during the Vietnam War)? [1] It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment. Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Just one thing to note, I'm sure among many: if I lived in a place they got bombed so much by outsiders, I'd probably become insular and hostile to outsiders. Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. I spent most my time around Paxe which is very rural, but also around the most intense American involvement as well. It may be different further north near the capital but there was a lot less bombing and special forces counter insurgency. I think, while not justifying anything, it’s really important to note that the Chinese and north Vietnamese had invaded Laos and were actively destabilizing the government and led to its collapse, as well as invited the American bombing campaigns that were focused on north Vietnamese captured territories. It’s easy to lay the blame on the US, but it’s not like China wasn’t directly responsible for drawing Laos into that position by force through the north Vietnamese proxy. The US tried to keep the central government of Laos from collapsing while China actively subverted it and installed the government they have today. Prior to French colonialism China pillaged Laos ransacking and razing their cities repeatedly to the point of causing a significant labor shortage in Laos. France tried to solve this through forced migrations from Vietnam to Laos to repopulate the country, leading to further instability. So - it’s not just the bombing, it’s a major confluence of really shitty behavior by a lot of people over Laos primarily because of its strategic importance, but if I were to lay blame on an outsider for their problems, I would place it entirely on China. Laos has been a pawn in chinas ambition for hundreds of years and it has it under complete control and subjugation at this point in time. Finally I would note almost all the bombing happened in very sparsely populated areas. It’s not like Europe or Japan where it was a wholesale bombing of major population centers. There were no dresdens, no nagasakis, fire bombings of Tokyo - all of which happened to countries that have embraced the world outside them.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.
  - iamerroragent 4y ago
    They were both administrated by the U.S./Western powers for quite some time were they not? I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive. Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn. The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful. (Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
      - morsch 4y ago
        Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining. Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact. The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm
- jahewson 4y ago
  Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.
  - esturk 4y ago
    Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2. You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments. Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
    - gedy 4y ago
      I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.
      - pr0zac 4y ago
        I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos. Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
readonthegoapp 4y ago
in fairness to Laos, the US is the worst global warmer on the planet, thus probably the worst contributor to harmful global warming-enhanced water events. we also crushed Laos 50 years ago in a way that was before unknown to mankind: Operation Barrel Roll was a covert U.S. Air Force 2nd Air Division and U.S. Navy Task Force 77, interdiction and close air support campaign conducted in the Kingdom of Laos between 14 December 1964 and 29 March 1973 concurrent with the Vietnam War. The operation resulted in 260 million bombs being dropped on Laos, making Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history".[1] and: In Laos, the legacy of U.S. bombs continues to wreak havoc. Since 1964, more than 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by U.S. bombs, 98 percent of them civilians. An estimated 30 percent of the bombs dropped on Laos failed to explode upon impact, and in the years since the bombing ended, 20,000 people have been killed or maimed by the estimated 80 million bombs left behind. In 2016, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos. He pledged an additional $90 million in aid to remove unexploded ordnance on top of the $100 million that had been spent previously. The work of cleaning out unexploded bombs from the soil continues.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - Jochim 4y ago
    The US has spent the last four decades moving as much of it's manufacturing to China as it can. That pollution might be occurring in China but it's a result of the production of US products, at the request of US companies, for export to the US. The only sanctimony is in Americans complaining about the behaviour of other countries when it's often in the service of their own countrymen.
j16sdiz 4y ago
For a bit of context, Laos had been complaining China doing the same in the upstream. Basically every nation in that area is acting in the most selfish way possible and distrusting each other.
- andromeduck 4y ago
  Wdym?! That's precisely why they're daming up - to create a buffer for water security. If they didn't then they'd be at risk of shortage if China were to dump and then let it refill.

lenova 4y ago

Hi there, I would love to hear more about your trip. I lived in Laos for a few months a decade ago, just outside of Vang Vieng. I think of the country often, and can only imagine just how much it has changed.

esturk 4y ago

Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world per capita (done by America during the Vietnam War)? [1] It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment. Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos

fnordpiglet 4y ago
That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Just one thing to note, I'm sure among many: if I lived in a place they got bombed so much by outsiders, I'd probably become insular and hostile to outsiders. Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. I spent most my time around Paxe which is very rural, but also around the most intense American involvement as well. It may be different further north near the capital but there was a lot less bombing and special forces counter insurgency. I think, while not justifying anything, it’s really important to note that the Chinese and north Vietnamese had invaded Laos and were actively destabilizing the government and led to its collapse, as well as invited the American bombing campaigns that were focused on north Vietnamese captured territories. It’s easy to lay the blame on the US, but it’s not like China wasn’t directly responsible for drawing Laos into that position by force through the north Vietnamese proxy. The US tried to keep the central government of Laos from collapsing while China actively subverted it and installed the government they have today. Prior to French colonialism China pillaged Laos ransacking and razing their cities repeatedly to the point of causing a significant labor shortage in Laos. France tried to solve this through forced migrations from Vietnam to Laos to repopulate the country, leading to further instability. So - it’s not just the bombing, it’s a major confluence of really shitty behavior by a lot of people over Laos primarily because of its strategic importance, but if I were to lay blame on an outsider for their problems, I would place it entirely on China. Laos has been a pawn in chinas ambition for hundreds of years and it has it under complete control and subjugation at this point in time. Finally I would note almost all the bombing happened in very sparsely populated areas. It’s not like Europe or Japan where it was a wholesale bombing of major population centers. There were no dresdens, no nagasakis, fire bombings of Tokyo - all of which happened to countries that have embraced the world outside them.
WalterBright 4y ago
Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.
- iamerroragent 4y ago
  They were both administrated by the U.S./Western powers for quite some time were they not? I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive. Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn. The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful. (Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
    - morsch 4y ago
      Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining. Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact. The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered. [1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm
jahewson 4y ago
Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.
rayiner 4y ago
> Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West. This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.
- esturk 4y ago
  Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2. You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments. Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
  - gedy 4y ago
    I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.
    - pr0zac 4y ago
      I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos. Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
    - wolverine876 4y ago

readonthegoapp 4y ago

in fairness to Laos, the US is the worst global warmer on the planet, thus probably the worst contributor to harmful global warming-enhanced water events. we also crushed Laos 50 years ago in a way that was before unknown to mankind: Operation Barrel Roll was a covert U.S. Air Force 2nd Air Division and U.S. Navy Task Force 77, interdiction and close air support campaign conducted in the Kingdom of Laos between 14 December 1964 and 29 March 1973 concurrent with the Vietnam War. The operation resulted in 260 million bombs being dropped on Laos, making Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history".[1] and: In Laos, the legacy of U.S. bombs continues to wreak havoc. Since 1964, more than 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by U.S. bombs, 98 percent of them civilians. An estimated 30 percent of the bombs dropped on Laos failed to explode upon impact, and in the years since the bombing ended, 20,000 people have been killed or maimed by the estimated 80 million bombs left behind. In 2016, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos. He pledged an additional $90 million in aid to remove unexploded ordnance on top of the $100 million that had been spent previously. The work of cleaning out unexploded bombs from the soil continues.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
[flagged]
- Jochim 4y ago
  The US has spent the last four decades moving as much of it's manufacturing to China as it can. That pollution might be occurring in China but it's a result of the production of US products, at the request of US companies, for export to the US. The only sanctimony is in Americans complaining about the behaviour of other countries when it's often in the service of their own countrymen.

j16sdiz 4y ago

For a bit of context, Laos had been complaining China doing the same in the upstream. Basically every nation in that area is acting in the most selfish way possible and distrusting each other.

andromeduck 4y ago
Wdym?! That's precisely why they're daming up - to create a buffer for water security. If they didn't then they'd be at risk of shortage if China were to dump and then let it refill.