In the spirit of generative dialog, I offer a few bits: Some feel that the Red Queen is winning, in spite of the paradox of that logic: Abundance <https://www.stevenkotler.com/book-pages/abundance> - Steven Kotler (former local associate of this group). His arc of point-making includes a lot of high-tech but *distributed* solutions, like getting a 5 gallon-per-day portable water filter system to every third world family at a "reasonable cost". He implies the tech/engineering is already in place, it is only the will of the first world and subsequent logistics that are lacking.
Until a few years ago Colorado (and other jurisdictions) disallowed rainwater collection, even at the level of roofs/rainbarrels. They relaxed that a few years ago but are still *very* clear about protecting traditional water rights, if you read the details of the new, more permissive rules: Rainwater Collection in Colorado <https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/natural-resources/rainwater-collection-colorado-6-707/>. I can speculate about what is really *intended* by this draconian approach, and notice in NM it is nearly the opposite, *requiring* new construction to manage runoff (to prevent causing erosion downstream) from one's own property. There was an interesting movie (Even the Rain <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_the_Rain>) describing Big Businesses' (e.g. Bechtel ) involvement in water wars in the third world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War> I am in the very eye of the storm of water warfare (of sorts). The Rio Grande river runs 1/4 mile from me and the watershed it represents is broken up into upper; middle; lower. The demarcation between upper and middle lands at the bridge 1/4 mile from my home, and there are myriad things which can be done above that point which become not (legally) possible a few feet south. In fact, the Buckman Well complex where Santa Fe proper gets a lot of their water is just a few miles downriver from me. The Aamodt water <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title_in_New_Mexico#The_1933_amendments> battle is now 45 years old and attempts to effect the terms of the settlements are underway all but literally in my back yard.https://losalamosreporter.com/2021/01/12/kay-matthews-aamodt-settlement-signed-and-sealed-but-not-delivered/ <https://losalamosreporter.com/2021/01/12/kay-matthews-aamodt-settlement-signed-and-sealed-but-not-delivered/> The project finally broke ground last year for a huge infiltration-well system to extract water *from* the Rio Grande to distribute to the Nambe/Tesuque/Pojoaque river valleys, with the goal of retiring as many groundwater wells from that region as possible. It is armatured around Pueblo water rights (see link above) which includes golf courses, etc. which many resent. On the other hand, one can imagine how the Pueblos resent the Spanish/Mexican/US land/water grabbing that has been going on for 500 years with the Manhattan Project (1943) and my own property (1960s) grabs continuing into the present. BTW much of the water being extracted from the river will come from a diversion from the Colorado basin by way of a tunnel under the Continental Divide near Chama. This watershed boundary disrespect might not mean much at all, or it might be a hugely bad precedent at many levels? For broader perspectives on this topic, I recommend this UNM Press collection: Thinking Like a Watershed. <https://unmpress.com/books/thinking-watershed/9780826352330> This phrase is a quote from John Wesley Powell who recognized the flawed way we were *already* thinking about resource management and governance back in the early days of the (Anglo) exploration of the West. I would claim that water desalinization (nanotech or otherwise) doesn't even address, much less solve most of these problems. Which is not to say that I think high-tech centralized (and distributed) water tech is patently a bad idea, just that depending on it to solve the more complex *systems* problems is misleading and could easily make things worse in some cases. - Steve On 4/19/21 9:49 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Corporations are collective intelligences -- people -- but they need someone > to sell to. No point in owning all the air or water unless you have > millions of people desperate to pay for it! But that said, horizons of five > years are a long time for most companies. CEOs incentivized to extract > every bit out of those short horizons to please their shareholders. And the > shareholders are too selfish to achieve something like Elysium or even large > private water desalination plants. Even if there is a small evil > population that kills off the rest, I don't see how capitalism is going to > lead to that. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:11 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] water, again (was murder offsets) > > I should have linked this: > > https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-ted-chiang-transcript.html > > "It’s capitalism that wants to reduce costs and reduce costs by laying people > off. It’s not that like all technology suddenly becomes benign in this world. > But it’s like, in a world where we have really strong social safety nets, > then you could maybe actually evaluate sort of the pros and cons of > technology as a technology, as opposed to seeing it through how capitalism is > going to use it against us. How are giant corporations going to use this to > increase their profits at our expense?" > > On 4/19/21 8:01 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >> Ha! Sure. ... it still looks like SteveS called it with the Red Queen's >> Race. Even if such tech solves more problems than it creates, it'll still be >> distributed according to the power structures in place (e.g. rich people) >> when the tech's ready to scale. >> >> On 4/19/21 7:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> Again technology to the rescue... Nanotechnology for desalinization. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? >>> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:45 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [FRIAM] water, again (was murder offsets) >>> >>> Copper? Natural gas? Pffft! Water's the interesting one. >>> >>> https://theconversation.com/interstate-water-wars-are-heating-up-alon >>> g-with-the-climate-159092 >>> >>> And another one: >>> https://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article250595449.html >>> >>> On 4/15/21 7:59 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: >>>> Another good example is water rights across states given watersheds, >>>> flood irrigation, etc. >>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/arizona-water-one-p >>>> er >>>> centers> >>>> >>>> So, the question you're asking (how might "storage" in BTC be less >>>> preferable to other assets?) isn't really answerable *without* first >>>> discussing what that reservoir is *for*, what end does it serve? > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
