Originally posted by thedeadwalkk
This doesn't look good.
Why are they trying to control nature, all the will get is a swift kick to the face.
We have the same problem with the Mississippi. It's always a distortion with the Status Quo having the most influence. This is a HUMAN problem, and
not one that is merely a Chinese one; their's is just more obvious with more people and bigger rivers. The 5 Rivers Damn project is going to be
massive -- HUGE, and I don't think anyone knows what will happen in China as a result, nor if it can be managed safely.
>> But back in the USA, If the Mississippi were allowed to change it's path, there would be no need for all the Levees and "rescue" of New Orleans.
But the effort to keep it a River City, forces engineering to push rivers above rooftops. It does mean, however, that they'd have to create some
"artificial river" for New Orleans to enjoy, and that there would be New Winners and Losers based on the path of the river. But, we can solve that
by Government if we were civilized. Unfortunately, the culture in America is such that; "problems cannot be solved until Gawd pulls us all up into
the sky." We've gone to the society that could "Put a Man on the Moon" to a society that "cannot meet with the Kyoto protocols because that would
reduce business profits 10% for a dozen quarters." Not noticing, of course, that over a few hundred cities have already saved money by wasting less
and surpassing the Kyoto protocols -- takes a lot of work to spread BS in this country to convince everyone that we cannot solve problems, right?
The sediment from the Mississippi also, creates marsh and swamplands, used to be a protection for the coast -- now it's pushed further out in the
ocean and acts more as a pollutant, not benefitting the coast or habitats. I'm not the first to suggest these things -- but it seems to me the
OBVIOUS solution, and it's only controversial and difficult because it would cost people who advertise on our corporate media their status quo
positions. That seems to be what creates ALL CONTROVERSY. Anything in this world that seems like it is too difficult to solve - is almost always a
problem that makes some rotten bastard a lot of money. Apartheid? Cheap Labor. Starvation? Cheap, unoccupied land. Energy Crisis? ENRON-sized profits.
Budget Crisis? Tax breaks for billionaires. Pollution in water and air? Shifting the costs of industry to the lungs of the poor. Civil War? Weapons
dealers selling to both sides. The fight between Pakistan and India? Keep the population distracted by a "bad guy and forever war." Mexico or
Pakistan border problems? Cheap Labor.
>> Sorry, I got off the main topic -- but to me, it's ALWAYS connected to the fundamental problems this world has always faced; Psychopaths get into
power and then convince everyone we need to go on a Holy Crusade for King and Country. It's called "Castle Building." And if the peasants get upset
over how plush the Castle is, and how dour their lives are, call your cousin in Spain and have them attack you; they'll feel better once those Castle
walls protect them from arrows for a few months and then it's back to working the fields!
But it's easier and more "profitable" for some HAVES, to just grab more water, than to solve the more expensive problem of not polluting the water
and wasting what you already have. The Glaciers that feed a lot of the Yellow River, are also not getting replenished due to affects of "warming" in
that region. So they have to adapt. There is NOT more water in China next year than this year, there is only going to be re-routed water and those
that waste it, not truly paying the costs.
>> Like, if Clean Coal were actually CLEAN it would cost a power plant too much to use it. Therefore, you ignore that it's making people around the
plant die earlier than they would have, or all the holes in the ground you have to dig to get it.
>> What strangely, the solution is simple if not ironic, what REALLY needs to happen -- all over, is to DIG MORE HOLES. Stop trying to consolidate
water for the biggest wasters, and try and KEEP more of the rainfall that falls on your land; everywhere. I doubt that most homes actually use more
water from their aquifers than falls on their houses. So, instead of gutters, drains, trenches and roads that speed up the exit of water, we should
all have more tiny ponds, cisterns, and self-control over our rainwater. Put some fish in them so that mosquitos don't get out of control. Enjoy the
birds and frogs that hang our around them. Who doesn't like a pond or a cistern if they can afford it?
To do it yourself right currently is expensive -- but some sort of government-backed education and loan for the necessary equipment, could help homes
everywhere STORE MORE WATER! Every time it rains, we slough off most of the water that falls. If we all turned off the water pipe for a month, and
tried to recycle and use the water falling on our heads, we would have enough. We could start another "Public Works Project" and hire people to dig
lots of holes, and give tax breaks for people who buy the filters and pumps (and solar panels) to fill cisterns or make a pond. More jobs! But ignore
the people who talk about the costs -- those people don't understand economies anyway because they've been taught to think wrong. "COSTS" are
almost always someone getting paid or a resource being compensated to the public -- you know, like, if we actually CHARGED mining companies it would
COST MORE, but those rural cities would have MONEY for schools and JOBS. OK, done with the OBVIOUS economic lessons -- you either get it, or you've
been treating information that conflicts with your world view as if it were lies from the Devil -- or maybe even "Socialist!"
>> Farming, also, needs to be reformed, and we need to start charging them more so they recycle their own run-off and use that wasted fertilizer. Our
diets need to move from animals that take lots of energy and water to animals and plants that use less water. A vegetarian, for instance, uses
thousands of gallons less water by NOT consuming meat each month.
Our dependence on Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy, is also a huge user of water. Another cost that is hidden by the debate over the status quo versus
alternative energy. We will EVENTUALLY have to get all our power from alternative energy and the longer we wait to invest in this -- the more clean
water and air we spoil.
>> So the "solution", is actually one that benefits MOST PEOPLE anyway; a decentralization of water and energy production. Why is this NOT something
that is championed by so-called Libertarians and Conservatives? Why is it just a "Liberal" issue and not just one of common sense?
If we all had to drink our own waste-water, breathe the air that came out of our tailpipes, and support our own energy use by the amount that falls on
our roofs -- it would be impossible for most of us CURRENTLY. However -- if we cannot, then it must be obvious that OUR LIVESTYLES ARE NOT
SUSTAINABLE. Forget about the "Climate Change" debate, or this nonsense about "global economic competitiveness" -- there is no way that the planet
can survive every human acting like people in the USA.
>> As China industrializes more, so that their people can live like Americans --- if they do not have a better standard for efficiency than WE DO,
China will die, and they will be forced to grab resources from other countries at the barrel of a gun.
Of course, water scarcity, dependency, and big projects put control in a few hands -- that can turn off the spigot for those who don't comply.
SHORT-TERM, it's a big win for the wealthy and those who own the spigot -- LONG TERM, we all breathe the same air (with current technology) and
eventually, even if you live in a bubble, the starving and sick will be beating at your door.