reply to post by Xtraeme
Deserts have oasis's.
Likewise deserts are dynamic ecosystems that change.
True, on both counts.
My concern is this: untold multitudes of people are right now attempting to live in some of the most hostile locations on earth. Charities presently
just to ship needed supplies in to them. Would it not be easier to either move the people in need to a better location (and
there are better locations available) or to use technology to overcome the needs where they are in a permanent fashion?
Specifically, why has someone not helped them to drill a well closer to their homes? Why has there been little to no obvious attempts to make their
life better by introducing some sort of economy to the area? And if these things are impossible due to physical reasons, why not move them to a more
suitable environment? Any of these options would seem to be better and more economical in the long run than simply giving them bottled water or making
videos that in themselves do nothing to help their plight.
reply to post by Tinman67
Access to clean water is a human right. Not something to be bestowed based on a persons economic status. Corporations and governments have made
it a commodity to be bought and sold.
Not to flame you, but to state my opinion:
A commodity cannot be a right. for a commodity to be a right, it would have to be free to everyone who wanted it. Since someone has to build water
treatment plants, it is clearly impossible for their product ('cleaned' water) to be available freely to anyone who wanted it. Someone has to pay
for the labor and materials to construct said plant, or we have an instance of slavery.
Water, being a physical material, is most certainly a commodity and therefore cannot by definition be a right.
Some states have laws that prohibit denial of drinking water to individuals if it is available. I do agree with those. There's something just morally
wrong with denying a drink of water to a thirsty human being.
Right here in the U.S. access to clean water is restricted by your ability to pay for it, even though, the gov't, which is supposed to be us,
owns all the water rights, even the rain that falls on your roof.
Do you have some links or references to show that? As I understand it, the water that flows under my land is mine, with the singular exception that I
cannot prevent it from following its natural course in order to deny it to someone else.
In other words, I have the right to construct a well (not a right to have a well, mind you, but the right to construct one at my own expense) to
access the water that is underneath me. I do not have the right to dig up my property and pour a concrete water barrier that would prevent my neighbor
from doing the same. The stream behind my house can be dammed up by me and used for any reasonable purpose, i.e. a water source, a geothermal sink, or
a small hydroelectric production station. I cannot dam it up, however, if doing so denies the same basic rights to the person who owns the land just
I think you may be thinking abiout the ongoing battle in the western states where meltwater from one state is commonly used to provide water to
another state. It is typical to hear about the source state doing something that denies water rights to the state downstream. That is simply legal
wrangling used to get the water needed by the various communities and does not reflect individual law.
At least, as I stated, that is my understanding.