Post: #51

(05-06-2015 10:53 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

that wont work for California here's why:

Post: #52

So I just saw this report that there's a phenomenon of shaming people wasting water for bullshit reasons like lawns. The media is praising it.

So therefore, shaming must work right? For this it works, but not fatties.

Post: #53

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)Soma Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:56 AM)Island Souljah Wrote:  Our entire planet will face incredible clean water shortages in this century, well not Canada but just about everybody else.

Only a matter of time before we start exporting it south in bulk.

That was one of the big deals under Nafta, trying to get fresh water exports ok'd. Even regionally in the US there is bitching about it.

I think, but I can't recall exactly that there was some sort of great lakes agreement that water couldn't be diverted from them...but I do look forward to the future water pipeline running along side the oil.

Post: #54

(05-06-2015 06:22 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)Soma Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:56 AM)Island Souljah Wrote:  Our entire planet will face incredible clean water shortages in this century, well not Canada but just about everybody else.

Only a matter of time before we start exporting it south in bulk.

That was one of the big deals under Nafta, trying to get fresh water exports ok'd. Even regionally in the US there is bitching about it.

I think, but I can't recall exactly that there was some sort of great lakes agreement that water couldn't be diverted from them...but I do look forward to the future water pipeline running along side the oil.

IIRC water was specifically excluded from the provisions of NAFTA at Canada's insistence. And the federal government is on record as opposing them.

But damned if Canada wouldn't be capable of making a metric fuck-ton of money if we were to export fresh water in bulk.

HSLD

Post: #55

(05-06-2015 06:14 PM)Libertas Wrote:  So I just saw this report that there's a phenomenon of shaming people wasting water for bullshit reasons like lawns. The media is praising it.

So therefore, shaming must work right? For this it works, but not fatties.

Oh yeah they're talking about it here in So-Cal, how ironic is that.

People are spying and recording videos of their neighbors, then reporting it.

Brown is a fucking retard, let's spend money on high speed rail, but not on water conservation.

Post: #56

(05-06-2015 03:46 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Again, what really concerns me -- and this, I feel, is a justifiable and actual concern, unlike the concerns of these serial fearmongers -- is the spread of a sinister ideology of hatred of the human being, dismissal of progress and its possibilities, and fear and hatred of the future. All the things that are best and sweetest about our lives we owe to the hard won achievements of men who have toiled for centuries, using all their wits and ingenuity, often against great odds, to make progress against the stubborn and hostile material world that surrounds us. Our achievements are superb and breathtaking, but we are not done; as a species, we are just getting started, our progress is in its very infancy. It would be tragic and beyond regrettable if it were to be allowed to be halted -- even temporarily -- by a failure of nerve and will that stems from a nihilistic ideology of fear and hatred that is like a sickness of the spirit.

That is what is really in the back of my mind when I address these matters; because I have a very strong sense that these repeated prophecies of doom are not made on some sort of rational case-by-case basis, but are animated by an overarching emotion that should be examined and brought out to light. It is really not a matter of optimism or pessimism, but a matter of whether we allow an ideology that is inimical to progress and to the human being itself to take ever deeper root in our midst. For my part, I intend to keep doing whatever I can to call it out for what it is wherever I see it.

I would say that it's this idea of "progress" that has gotten us to where we are today and what we on this forum speak of all the time.

The posters in this thread are right. Technology is in a race with depletion, and depletion is winning. We can't keep going on like this. The only reason why things seem stable at this point is because of the technology fig leaf and endless stimulus.

There's nothing sinister about it. I see it instead as an opportunity to end this degenerate state of affairs and build something more fulfilling to the human condition. Endless, wasteful consumerism ans debt-based "growth" will end, but that doesn't mean we can't live well and innovate where it matters.

Post: #57

(05-06-2015 06:00 PM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  I have to trust that gives me some ability to speak truths that run counter to conventional wisdom, and at least be accorded a chance to have my viewpoints considered.

Every single "truth" and every emotion that you recite in your post is the very embodiment of today's conventional wisdom. They are tightly and harshly dictated by the prevailing ideology of this time; it is this very consensus and agreement with the dominant ideology that gives these baseless assertions the air of self-evident "truths". They flow with the frictionless ease that is characteristic of received ideas.

(05-06-2015 06:00 PM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  Say, Lizard of Oz, what you think? Are we all gonna die of rape culture / global warming or are we going to live forever as brains in robot bodies ?

What I think is that neither of these caricatured visions of "global warming" or "brains in robot bodies" has the least thing to do with an unknown and unknowable future which is guaranteed to be different from what anyone imagines.

The only things that are clear is that we will continue to invent new mathematics, and computing power will continue to increase. This leads inevitably to game-changing advances in our ability to control the materials that embody and surround us. There is no point in speculating beyond this.

Post: #58

On the bright side, we are fortunate enough to live in the US, where the government will have no problem going in debt another $20B if it really comes down to it to build those plants Enemy was talking about. I'm sure at some point someone will run for office with a talking point of how many jobs that project will create and how it will boost the economy. And some private company will profit immensly off of it.

That said, the unknown can be scary because a simple look into history shows us how many mass starvations have occurred in the last 100 years not due to lack of technology, but rather mismanagement. Fortunately none of these have occured in the US I don't think. But there is always the human element which drives alot of these "worst case" scenarios. In my opinion, anyway.

Post: #59

(05-06-2015 06:22 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)Soma Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:56 AM)Island Souljah Wrote:  Our entire planet will face incredible clean water shortages in this century, well not Canada but just about everybody else.

Only a matter of time before we start exporting it south in bulk.

That was one of the big deals under Nafta, trying to get fresh water exports ok'd. Even regionally in the US there is bitching about it.

I think, but I can't recall exactly that there was some sort of great lakes agreement that water couldn't be diverted from them...but I do look forward to the future water pipeline running along side the oil.

As long as Canadian exports of Vagina Snail Trail Geysers are allowed, I am good, its not potable liquid but its full of electrolytes and I love the way it feels when their sweet, their nasty, their gushy stuff busts like a Yellowstone Gyser and skeets all over my balls. Please send Sarah Mcleod, Canadian, amateur, MMA fighter Sarah Mcleod:

One of the finest pieces of Cuntnadians I have ever seen IML
http

Please just sign the damn NAFTA and drop this fine elf at my house with a Amazon drone and send me the bill vs my Amaazon Prime account. She is 5'7", 115 lbs and NOT fragile. This is doable yes?

Post: #60

(05-06-2015 06:33 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 03:46 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Again, what really concerns me -- and this, I feel, is a justifiable and actual concern, unlike the concerns of these serial fearmongers -- is the spread of a sinister ideology of hatred of the human being, dismissal of progress and its possibilities, and fear and hatred of the future. All the things that are best and sweetest about our lives we owe to the hard won achievements of men who have toiled for centuries, using all their wits and ingenuity, often against great odds, to make progress against the stubborn and hostile material world that surrounds us. Our achievements are superb and breathtaking, but we are not done; as a species, we are just getting started, our progress is in its very infancy. It would be tragic and beyond regrettable if it were to be allowed to be halted -- even temporarily -- by a failure of nerve and will that stems from a nihilistic ideology of fear and hatred that is like a sickness of the spirit.

That is what is really in the back of my mind when I address these matters; because I have a very strong sense that these repeated prophecies of doom are not made on some sort of rational case-by-case basis, but are animated by an overarching emotion that should be examined and brought out to light. It is really not a matter of optimism or pessimism, but a matter of whether we allow an ideology that is inimical to progress and to the human being itself to take ever deeper root in our midst. For my part, I intend to keep doing whatever I can to call it out for what it is wherever I see it.

I would say that it's this idea of "progress" that has gotten us to where we are today and what we on this forum speak of all the time.

The posters in this thread are right. Technology is in a race with depletion, and depletion is winning. We can't keep going on like this. The only reason why things seem stable at this point is because of the technology fig leaf and endless stimulus.

There's nothing sinister about it. I see it instead as an opportunity to end this degenerate state of affairs and build something more fulfilling to the human condition. Endless, wasteful consumerism ans debt-based "growth" will end, but that doesn't mean we can't live well and innovate where it matters.

Great point. Everytime I hear a politician talk about "sustainable growth" of the economy I cringe. They know better, but they understand that they can't have an adult conversation with the public about the reality of things, namely the fact that our way of life in the west isn't sustainable in the long term. Maybe over 100 years this is possible, but not in the long term. If there was ever an issue where redpill-bluepill was obvious, the environmental/resource conservation issue is it. There are a lot of people with their head in the sand about reality, and it doesn't make one some doomsday quack because they recognize it. Think of the earth as a spacestation. A spacestation doesn't float around in space and sustain the crew perpetually, it needs external resupply, which we don't have. Aside from the sun and the energy it provides, we have all the resources we'll ever have, no amount of ingenuity will change that (short of asteroid harvesting or a visit from the ruler of Omicron Persei 8). It's not doom and gloom to say that, it's just the reality of the situation. It all boils down to the universal law of entropy when you get to the fundamentals of it.

Post: #61

Libertas, where progress has gotten us is to the most prosperous and interesting world that has yet existed.

There is absolutely no sphere of human activity in which "depletion is winning" except the ideological sphere in which an ideology of defeat and depletion is indeed winning over the human spirit. This ideology, with slightly different flavors, is shared by intelligent men on the left and the right alike; it is what leads intelligent men like yourself to use the "fig leaf" metaphor to describe something as relentlessly triumphant as human progress in mastering the world around us.

What can be confusing is that the people that now call themselves "progressives" subscribe to a dark Year Zero ideology that has nothing to do with the great tradition of liberty, progress and rationality that has been bestowed to us by the Enlightenment. In some of your own posts, you have written eloquently about the American Revolution, and its difference and distinction from the French Revolution. I would ask you to think about the best hearts and minds of the English (and Scottish) and later American Enlightenment, about Adam Smith and Ben Franklin and their beliefs and ideals. They have as little to do with today's "progressives" as they did with the Jacobins of their time -- less, in fact.

Today's "progressives" have turned against the human being, and against progress itself; one of the reasons they hate men and glorify women is because men are the avatars of progress, the inventors and creators, while women are always dully content with the status quo. Feminism is a profoundly anti-enlightenment ideology; it seeks to reduce all human beings to the darkness and hysteria in which women dwell.

**********************

You mention the forum, and just as I made a distinction between the American and French revolutions, and between the great figures of the Enlightenment and today's progressives, I'd like to make another distinction (perhaps on a slightly lesser scale ) between what I think of as the RVFers and the ROKkers. The RVFers -- some of the better regular posters on the forum -- speak accurately and trenchantly about some of the serious social problems we see in the West; but while noting these problems in a granular way, they are not prone to wholesale pronouncements of gloom and doom. But there is also a different tribe of posters that are best understood as ROK commenters, and these tend to be characters who in a kind of headlong ideological rush -- emotionally understandable, but still ill-judged -- are all too eager to throw out the precious and still growing baby of western Enlightenment and progress with the nasty bathwater of the Year Zero "progressive" ideology that they justly hate. They fail to make these all-important distinctions, and their view of the world is distorted as a result.

In short, the path of progress, the path of the English/Scottish Enlightenment and of America's Founding Fathers, is a path that we can and should stay on; it is the path that has enabled us to claim the taken-for-granted glories of the modern world -- glories which are as nothing compared to what we are capable of in the future. The peril to our society is not one of continuing on that path, but of straying from it -- and thereby giving unwitting support to the sinister and nihilistic Year Zero ideologies that have been taking ever deeper root in our midst for quite a while now. That is where the real dangers lie.

Post: #62

^^^^^^^

Post: #63

(05-06-2015 07:56 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Libertas, where progress has gotten us is to the most prosperous and interesting world that has yet existed.

There is absolutely no sphere of human activity in which "depletion is winning" except the ideological sphere in which an ideology of defeat and depletion is indeed winning over the human spirit.

This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with present resource availability and rates of consumption. Resources are being depleted fast. Even many of the metals we routinely take for granted will peak in production by the middle of the century, and that isn't even factoring in future consumption, which should naturally grow.

Quote:This ideology, with slightly different flavors, is shared by intelligent men on the left and the right alike; it is what leads intelligent men like yourself to use the "fig leaf" metaphor to describe something as relentlessly triumphant as human progress in mastering the world around us.

What I meant by the fig leaf is something I call the "technology flash." Where we have our iPhones and degenerate social media and endless "stuff" that maintains an illusion that everything is OK. It's not.

Quote:What can be confusing is that the people that now call themselves "progressives" subscribe to a dark Year Zero ideology that has nothing to do with the great tradition of liberty, progress and rationality that has been bestowed to us by the Enlightenment. In some of your own posts, you have written eloquently about the American Revolution, and its difference and distinction from the French Revolution. I would ask you to think about the best hearts and minds of the English (and Scottish) and later American Enlightenment, about Adam Smith and Ben Franklin and their beliefs and ideals. They have as little to do with today's "progressives" as they did with the Jacobins of their time -- less, in fact.

I understand all of this. It's not particularly what I meant by "progress" on this topic.

Quote:In short, the path of progress, the path of the English/Scottish Enlightenment and of America's Founding Fathers, is a path that we can and should stay on; it is the path that has enabled us to claim the taken-for-granted glories of the modern world -- glories which are as nothing compared to what we are capable of in the future. The peril to our society is not one of continuing on that path, but of straying from it -- and thereby giving unwitting support to the sinister and nihilistic Year Zero ideologies that have been taking ever deeper root in our midst for quite a while now. That is where the real dangers lie.

This isn't really so much about ideology and what social values we should govern ourselves by as it is about material reality. Don't confuse the two.

Again, I view the coming restructuring as an opportunity to destroy this degenerate rot. It is not at all unusual that the cultural degeneration is coinciding with in some ways the peak of our present lifestyle.

Post: #64

Like most things in life, the environmental/resource issue and how to address it boils down to the old principle of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I have to confess, I too was (am still at heart) an environmental engineer (technical sales got me with that nice dollar sign). I started off college in a program that was directed at working in intelligence, but then I had a epiphany...why do people fight, as in large-scale human conflict? And I boiled it down to resources, be it food, oil, water, and even sex. So I got into environmental engineering at university. Now why I say all that is this...everytime I'd talk about these things with someone they would always end the discuss with something along this line..."well, they will think of something". By "they" they meant the scientific brain trust. Well, in university doing research, I worked with the "they" people, some of the brightest minds from Caltech, MIT, McGill, etc, and their opinion on the matter was exactly that which I stated earlier, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. To hitch on to EnemyCombatant's point, we can't invent or consume our way to sustainability (don't get me started on the whole hybrid car thing). I don't like this, and I'm sure EnemyCombatant and Libertas don't either, but it doesn't make it untrue. My emotion on the issue has no bearing on the logical reality. It's not simply about mindset. I can't use my mindset to get me out of dying, my body depletes regardless of my positivity about the matter. To cope, I use the George Carlin method, I've abandoned hope for humanity as a whole, but not for myself individually.

Post: #65

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  I'm an environmental engineer with research experience on water projects. Water issues, along with the general ecological situation, are what caused me to switch from pre-law to civil engineering at the beginning of college. I'd like to tell you that I found out a bunch of amazing technology that will fix this, but unfortunately that's not the case.

One of the central books you should read if you want to really grasp this issue is Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Dissappearing Water, by Marc Reisner.

Starting with the homesteading movement and Westward Expansion, there's been this image of the West that has been perpetuated through mythology, dirty money deals, and humongous government projects. This entire region is a desert, and the extravagantly-costly (in terms of money AND natural resources) cities, infrastructure, and industry we've built up have tapped out every major body of water in the area over the last 150 years with the help of dam-happy federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

News flash: there are no more huge sources of water. The Colorado River is tapped, Owens Valley is tapped, the Sacramento is already over-drawn (even barring a proposed pipeline to SoCal!). Groundwater is tapped bone-dry throughout the state. The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which supplies a large amount of our baseline water capacity in NorCal, has been hovering at around 10-20% of normal levels for a couple years, with no signs or anticipation of relief.

"No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Our real problem here is that we haven't invested in our infrastructure, or society generally, with any consideration to natural limits. In our economic systems, water is priced for its cost of extraction, not based on its true life cycle cost. For example: under our system we have valued water at pennies on the acre-feet to irrigate crops in the Central Valley. These crops create tens of billions in revenue under a quarterly system, but if they destroy any potential for agriculture or civilization in the area for a hundred years after, they should rightly be net-negative in ROI.

Our problems with environmental or energy issues in America stem from this: we ONLY think short-term and hope for the best, which works until it doesn't. And in fact that naive hope is what prevents any hope of sustainability, because it allows us to ignore the irresolvable issues that our civilization and individuals confront: that we can't keep going on like this, that technology won't save us from our hubristic need for endless material growth, but that we don't really have any "big ideas" that will save us.

The number one thing that would save water in CA is to do conservation (through changing user habits AND infrastructure investment to cure leaky pipelines, plumbing, etc.). However, with water prices so low, this has no shot of getting off the ground on the scale it's needed, because end-users have little cost incentive to save on infrastructure, and on a personal level people don't feel enlisted in some grand water-saving strategy (understandable).

People have no idea of what their comfortable lives actually depend on, because they don't want to know and because they're lied to all the time by the agents of progress. In this situation, of course water can be undervalued, even if it causes disastrous long-term effects, because the issue is far-away and complicated. This math won't change until resource limits start hitting us hard, when the rule of quarterly profits gives way to the brutal calculus of necessity and survival.

I don't really see us attempting substantial and necessary reforms until it's too late, unfortunately. The issue's too abstract for the general public, regulatory frameworks are totally outdated, and special interests are too entrenched and can get any ordinary scientist like me shouted down.

tl;dr: I'm a water research engineer. This drought is only going to perpetuate and intensify. If you live in the American West, and intend to stay long-term, you should look at the current drought situation, projected rainfall patterns in your area for coming decades, consider how secure your place is - and make serious considerations of bugging out to wetter climates. If you have to stay in the West, stay away from large, urban centers in deserts - all of Southern California, Las Vegas, Phoenix / Tucson metros for AZ are all particularly fucked.

And I almost forgot...

Post: #66

(05-06-2015 08:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with present resource availability and rates of consumption. Resources are being depleted fast. Even many of the metals we routinely take for granted will peak in production by the middle of the century, and that isn't even factoring in future consumption, which should naturally grow.

This idea that "resources are depleting fast" has been around forever (since Malthus if not earlier) and it's always wrong. It's been proven wrong again and again and again and yet it keeps coming back like a bad penny.

Wasn't it just 7-8 years ago that "peak oil" was all the rage? Now you never hear about "peak oil", wonder why? Because in less than a decade new discovery and extraction technologies have rendered that idea obsolete. Even the experts now (unwillingly) acknowledge that there is apparently more oil (and gas) out there that we will ever know what to do with, and ever better technologies to exploit vast reservoirs that were previously considered "depleted". Oops.

People talk about the "hubris" of the human being, but what strikes me as the very definition of hubris is the bizarre idea that we can project the future 50 years ahead (let alone 100 years as another poster was saying) and make confident predictions about what "resources" will look like then. The world as it is now is utterly unrecognizable from a mere 20 years ago; no one could have possibly predicted the changes that have occurred, and the technological breakthroughs that were made. Yet we still cling to these dire Malthusian predictions, and it's worth asking why.

(05-06-2015 08:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  This isn't really so much about ideology and what social values we should govern ourselves by as it is about material reality. Don't confuse the two.

Again, I view the coming restructuring as an opportunity to destroy this degenerate rot. It is not at all unusual that the cultural degeneration is coinciding with in some ways the peak of our present lifestyle.

Yes, that's what the "climate change" freaks always say -- it's not about ideology, just the facts, ma'am; just science. Yet their "science" has not made a single accurate prediction; the models they use fail again and again and again.

When the exact same predictions about ostensible "material reality" keep being made time and again, despite the fact that they have in fact no basis in reality, one has to wonder whether ideology might have something to do with it after all.

The real confusion comes when someone imagines they can predict very specific facts about the future, i.e "resources will be depleted, metals will peak in production"; such predictions are ridiculous, one cannot possibly know such things. It's just chatter.

A further confusion is to imagine that we await some kind of mystical "restructuring," similar, indeed, to the Christian "rapture" in its supposedly great portent and even greater vagueness; and then you speak about "material reality" as if this is something apart from human beings -- when it isn't, of course. Our minds, our mathematics and our machines change this "material reality" every day and will continue to do so.

Finally, your use of the phrase "degenerate rot" gives you away: this "restructuring rapture" is something you want to see, because you have a hatred of the world as it is, for whatever reasons; but you have to understand that your feelings about reality, your taste in culture, as it were, has no bearing on how the future will unfold.

Post: #67

(05-06-2015 09:04 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Finally, your use of the phrase "degenerate rot" gives you away: this "restructuring rapture" is something you want to see, because you have a hatred of the world as it is, for whatever reasons; but you have to understand that your feelings about reality, your taste in culture, as it were, has no bearing on how the future will unfold.

With all due respect, isn't your use of the word "freaks" pertaining to the climate change people a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

Post: #68

(05-06-2015 09:17 PM)nek Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:04 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Finally, your use of the phrase "degenerate rot" gives you away: this "restructuring rapture" is something you want to see, because you have a hatred of the world as it is, for whatever reasons; but you have to understand that your feelings about reality, your taste in culture, as it were, has no bearing on how the future will unfold.

With all due respect, isn't your use of the word "freaks" pertaining to the climate change people a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

No.

Post: #69

(05-06-2015 09:04 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with present resource availability and rates of consumption. Resources are being depleted fast. Even many of the metals we routinely take for granted will peak in production by the middle of the century, and that isn't even factoring in future consumption, which should naturally grow.

This idea that "resources are depleting fast" has been around forever (since Malthus if not earlier) and it's always wrong. It's been proven wrong again and again and again and yet it keeps coming back like a bad penny.

Wasn't it just 7-8 years ago that "peak oil" was all the rage? Now you never hear about "peak oil", wonder why? Because in less than a decade new discovery and extraction technologies have rendered that idea obsolete. Even the experts now (unwillingly) acknowledge that there is apparently more oil (and gas) out there that we will ever know what to do with, and ever better technologies to exploit vast reservoirs that were previously considered "depleted". Oops.

This isn't exactly true. It's more to do with measurement than oil reserves per se. The peak oil people were never saying that oil would be depleted, only that it's functional usefulness would.

And they weren't in fact wrong. Because when you measure oil by net energy extracted (ie: how useful it is), oil is depleting. Fast.

Quote:The world as it is now is utterly unrecognizable from a mere 20 years ago; no one could have possibly predicted the changes that have occurred, and the technological breakthroughs that were made. Yet we still cling to these dire Malthusian predictions, and it's worth asking why.

Not really. Most of our functional infrastructure is actually quite old. The only thing that's really improved by leaps and bounds is computer and communications technology. If you took someone from 20 years ago and put them in the present day, they'd get used to it quite fast excepting maybe some degenerate social woes, but I don't think that's the topic here.

Quote:Yes, that's what the "climate change" freaks always say -- it's not about ideology, just the facts, ma'am; just science. Yet their "science" has not made a single accurate prediction; the models they use fail again and again and again.

When the exact same predictions about ostensible "material reality" keep being made time and again, despite the fact that they have in fact no basis in reality, one has to wonder whether ideology might have something to do with it after all.

The real confusion comes when someone imagines they can predict very specific facts about the future, i.e "resources will be depleted, metals will peak in production"; such predictions are ridiculous, one cannot possibly know such things. It's just chatter.

A further confusion is to imagine that we await some kind of mystical "restructuring," similar, indeed, to the Christian "rapture" in its supposedly great portent and even greater vagueness; and then you speak about "material reality" as if this is something apart from human beings -- when it isn't, of course. Our minds, our mathematics and our machines change this "material reality" every day and will continue to do so.

Finally, your use of the phrase "degenerate rot" gives you away: this "restructuring rapture" is something you want to see, because you have a hatred of the world as it is, for whatever reasons; but you have to understand that your feelings about reality, your taste in culture, as it were, has no bearing on how the future will unfold.

With all due respect, most of this sounds extremely emotional and unproductive to getting much done.

Post: #70

(05-06-2015 02:45 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 01:48 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I don't know if I agree with lawns being idiotic though...sure a lawn in a desert is crazy but in my temperate climate but I like having a laws as a buffer greenscape between myself and wildlife that likes tall plants like snakes. Also, its hard to play soccer with your kids on a bed or rocks.

PS, before you flip out, I don't water or fertilize my lawn. Its not a golf course and dandelions never hurt anyone.

Where I currently live, it's like this:



Personally, I prefer this aesthetic:



I mean, just look at that Joshua Tree. Beautiful.

On a lighter note, man I love Tities. Who's with me?

Post: #71

Lizard, your posts on this topic encapsulate, far more eloquently, my take on this.

One thing you can be sure of...if we in the West continue this ant-progress, anti-technology rhetoric, it will be us buying new technologies from China or some other country that isn't deep in the throes of self hate, not the other way around.

This water problem will be solved. Of course it bloody well will.


Somewhere in the Gulf Sheik Makhtoum looks over his shiny city in the desert whilst reading RVF and thinks:





Before going back to doing this:

Post: #72

(05-06-2015 09:57 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  One thing you can be sure of...if we in the West continue this ant-progress, anti-technology rhetoric, it will be us buying new technologies from China or some other country that isn't deep in the throes of self hate, not the other way around.

This water problem will be solved. Of course it bloody well will.

I'm all for progress, but at the present moment it seems that all water officials have up their sleeve is calls for conservation. Not exactly cutting edge wisdom or technology there.

Lizard I understand your stance on being an anti-harbinger of doom, but I believe you and CrashBangWallop are blindly optimistic.

I've been to Hoover Dam several times and it's truly an awe-inspiring place. An example of American ingenuity at its best, with all of the sacrifice and brilliance that Lizard mentioned above. It would be a shame for the dam to become a relic of the past because we couldn't manage our resources better.

What makes this drought precarious is the fact that Lake Mead already operates at a deficit of 1.2 million acre-feet per year, about 12' per year, and there is no long-term plan beyond this. The plan put forth by water districts is to simply cut consumption by a set number of acre feet per year, and if the water level at Lake Mead drops to 1,000 feet, there is no plan except drain Lake Powell to keep Lake Mead at 1,000 feet. Once Lake Mead drops below 1,000' and Powell is functionally depleted, by 2026 on the current trajectory, there are two options which both lead to the same outcome, more or less, which is the only water that can leave Lake Mead is the volume of water that the lake uptakes from rivers. In other words, not very much.

It's easy to say, "We'll think of something" but that hasn't always worked out so well in the past. What historical event can we compare this to? The only thing I can think of are the droughts that lead to the dust bowl. I'm not suggesting another dust bowl would occur, as drought was not the only factor there. What is so precarious though is the population density. The droughts and dust bowl displaced hundreds of thousands of people in the 1930s. Today we're dealing with tens of millions. Did humans prevail and flourish after the Dust Bowl? Of course, just like they would if the southwest endured 20 more years of drought. It might get ugly though.

I don't know shit about constructing a pipeline but to me that sounds like a great idea at this point. They better start building now, and if any environmentalists have a problem with it, put a bullet in their head.

Edit: and for the record, I don't believe this has the least bit to do with climate change. There's a high pressure trend that's sitting right over the southwest that won't budge and is deflecting weather systems down to Baja and also to the east. I'm sure climate change diehards will be happy to draw some conclusion to high pressure systems and higher temperatures, but this has been happening since long before the industrial revolution.

Post: #73

(05-06-2015 06:10 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:53 AM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:06 AM)EnemyCombatant Wrote:  "No problem, we'll go to desalination!"
No, numb nuts, you can't just break the older system, order a new water cycle and get it in the mail. I can't pull the exact numbers but there's no chance in hell that desal's going to cover up our shortfall - it's orders of magnitude more expensive, uses a ton of energy, and creates toxic brine that fucks up coastal ecosystems.

Actually Desalination could easily solve the problem.

Check out the Sorek plant in Israel and the amount of water it desalinates per day.

that wont work for California here's why:

Did you actually watch the video?

Nothing in that video say's why desalination won't work. It just said that they would need more desalination plants than the 4 Israel has.

If you build enough desalination plants you will eventually get enough water.

Post: #74

(05-06-2015 09:25 PM)Libertas Wrote:  This isn't exactly true. It's more to do with measurement than oil reserves per se. The peak oil people were never saying that oil would be depleted, only that it's functional usefulness would.

And they weren't in fact wrong. Because when you measure oil by net energy extracted (ie: how useful it is), oil is depleting. Fast.

This is actually is false.

First off all the conventional oil wells still have most of the reserves in them.

Also new technologies have brought huge unconventional plays into the equation.

The US briefly became the leading oil producer for about a year before Saudi Arabia ramped up production.

The US could currently produce more oil than it ever has. The only thing capping production right now is the price of oil and the fact that production has outstripped supply.

That's just oil.

We have enough Natural gas to last us for 1000 years at current rates of consumption.

So to conclude we are nowhere near out of fossil fuels. In fact we are far from it. We are swimming in hydrocarbons.

Post: #75

You missed my point entirely.