Do not, my friends, become addicted to water

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the question is and should always remain, how do we move from a state of general suffering to a state of general well-being?

20% child mortality rates are suffering. Famines are suffering- not just the ones engineered by evil state policy, but all famines. The subjugation of women is suffering. Falling prey to warlordism is suffering. The human condition has been riddled with suffering ever since humanity arose from among the other apes.

Capitalism seems to at least have the sheer bulk and force required to pull some of humanity out of the mud, but that isn't satisfactory if we can't get the rest; whether it's better than everyone being in the mud or worse is a matter for us to debate, I suppose.

Whether a better system could have started from square one is now a moot point; it behooves us to try and work to make a better system going forward that can finish the job.

[K. A. Pital]

Depersonalization, alienation, corrosion of all genuine non-monetary relationships like friendship, love, brotherhood are also present in the system. The system is so depersonalized, steered by a myriad of tiny decisions without a shred of responsibility, that it makes me wonder - haven't we lost something in the process? And I mean like, lost forever, something that you can't even get in the current system, which is priceless because it can't be bought by money.

By the time we "finish the job", what kind of human will it be? Will the humans on top be able to experience true love, true friendship, will they live out in the freedom of total communism while the ones below support them with everything? Or will nobody, not even those at the very top, be human.

And in the end, because the system is so total, if it collapses, it won't be like the Bronze Age collapse or the Roman Empire fall. There won't be other states, other ecosystems to flee to. There is only a totality; if you destroy the world's entire ecosystem, then ... well, I guess, you could go off-world

After all, the droughts and water level fall has a lot to do with human induced climate change. And so far there's little evidence that the snowball is stopping, or that someone could control this.

On a side note, it's not just Cape Town. Bangalore, India's IT supermegalopolis, is next on the line:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... table-2025

The illegal dumping of waste mixed with mass untreated sewage in India’s Silicon Valley is creating a water crisis which threatens residents’ health – and is causing the city’s famous lakes to catch fire

Deepa Bhasthi in Bangalore

Wed 1 Mar 2017 06.00 GMT
Last modified on Tue 7 Mar 2017 14.55 GMT

Bellandur lake on fire in Bangalore

On the evening of Thursday 16 February, residents in the south-east part of Bangalore noticed huge plumes of smoke rising into the sky. The smoke was coming from the middle of Bellandur Lake – the biggest lake in the city at a little over 890 acres. They realised the seemingly impossible had happened: the lake had caught fire. Even fire fighters wondered how a blaze in water could be put out.

The fire in the lake burned for 12 hours and left behind a sinister black patch in the centre, according to some eye-witness accounts.

This is the new story of Bangalore – state capital, India’s Silicon Valley, and once upon a time, the “city of lakes”. The reasons why these lakes are able to catch fire begin to explain why scientists at the influential Indian Institute of Science believe Bangalore will be “unliveable” in a few years’ time.

A lethal mix of factors create an environment that merely requires the slightest of triggers for lakes to go up in flames. Untreated effluents pour into the waters from the many industries and homes on its banks, illegal waste disposal takes place on a large scale – often including rubbish which is set on fire – and invasive weeds cover large swathes of the lake in a thick green canopy.

The latest incident is not the first time the lake has caught fire; it happened in May 2015. A few days later, it was in the news again for being covered in snow-like froth, which began to swirl up in the summer wind, engulfing passers-by. The froth was the result of chemical waste dumped in the lake, and was toxic enough to crack windshields, wear the paint off car hoods and exacerbate the severe respiratory issues that have plagued citizens in recent years.

Dr TV Ramachandra, coordinator of the Energy and Wetlands Research Group at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), has been studying the lakes in Bangalore, especially Bellandur and Varthur, for over two decades. He explains that an estimated 400-600 million litres of untreated sewage is let into the lake catchment every day, creating a toxic environment fertile for disasters like the fires and foam.

“The city overall generates between 1,400 and 1,600m litres per day of untreated sewage,” he says. “20-30m litres per day is generated from the apartments in the vicinity of Bellandur Lake. There are several invasive species like water hyacinths growing in the lake, thick enough to walk on. People dump solid waste on top of it. Because of the thickness, it creates an anaerobic environment in the water below, where methane is formed. It creates an ideal environment for catching fire.”
Bangalore's lake of toxic foam – in pictures

He believes there are too many agencies governing the lake, so they all blame each other for such incidents. “The Bangalore water supply and sewerage board should be held responsible for letting the untreated sewage into the water,” he says, adding that the onus should also be placed on the Karnataka state pollution control board for not regulating industries that have been draining their untreated sewage into the lake.

Although the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act require action to be taken over such matters, the government has mostly remained silent, while its departments have been passing the buck around. The National Green Tribunal has issued notices to all the agencies involved.

Long before it began its slow and painful death, Bellandur Lake was part of a clever water and irrigation system devised by the founders of Bangalore in the 1600s, giving it the “city of lakes” moniker. The streams formed at the top of surrounding valleys were dammed into man-made lakes by constructing bunds. Each of these lakes would harvest rainwater from its catchments and the surplus would flow downstream, spilling into the next lake in the cascade via storm water drains or raja kaluves. The bodies of water would in turn serve the needs of the population.

In the 1970s, there were still 285 lakes in the city, making it self-sufficient in its water needs. Today, however, there are just 194 lakes, and the large majority of them are sewage-fed. The rest have been lost to encroachments – by the Bangalore Development Authority, private real estate developers and illegal builders – to cater to the booming housing needs of a city of 10 million.

Bangalore has been subject to unchecked urbanisation in the wake of the IT sector-fuelled economic boom of the late 1990s. The many software companies that sprung up during the dotcom boom attracted hundreds of thousands of skilled IT professionals from across the country, with thousands more people moving from villages and small towns to the city in search of work.

According to studies by the IISc, rapid urbanisation and expansion between 1973 and 2016 caused a 1005% increase in paved surfaces and decline of 88% in the city’s vegetation, while water bodies declined by 85% between 2000 and 2014.

The rise of the IT sector has also created the problem of e-waste in the city: a 2013 report estimated that Bangalore produces 20,000 tonnes of e-waste per year. Although a formal recycling system for e-waste was set up, 90% of it is dealt with through the informal sector, which is harder to monitor. Unaware of the necessary safety measures, some incinerate the e-waste, releasing lead, mercury and other toxins into the air – and dump the rest, allowing pollutants to infiltrate the groundwater.

If one lake habitually catches fire, then another throws up thousands of dead fish every other summer. Ulsoor Lake, which doubles up as a picnic spot with boat rides and snack vendors on its banks, saw dead fish floating on its waters last year owing to the pollution caused by untreated sewage and consequent depletion of dissolved oxygen.

The water pollution in Bangalore poses a serious threat to residents’ health and creates a chronic shortage of clean water for people to use. All in all, experts predict a severe water crisis which will make Bangalore uninhabitable by 2025, with residents potentially having to be evacuated.

In the aftermath of the latest fire, I spoke to Aaditya Sood, an IT professional who watched the flames from his 10th floor balcony. He said he had seen the lake being “choked” in the seven or eight years he has lived there. “I have two kids and respiratory issues are a problem,” he says. The toxins from the lake get into the air, according to Ramachandra, noting that the cases of lung-related medical conditions have increased drastically in the city recently.
Is India's 100 smart cities project a recipe for social apartheid?
Read more

Another resident, Vandana Sinha, who works for a consultancy firm, says the smoke from the fire almost immediately caused itchiness at the base of her throat. She had heard that seven to eight trucks worth of garbage was being dumped into the lake every night, adding to the lethal combination of pollutants in the waters.

Report after report by expert committees have recommended several short and long term measures for rescuing the city’s lakes. Stopping the dumping of garbage, treating sewage water before it is allowed into the lakes, checking encroachments and slowing the development agenda are top of the list.

In the next three years, if the same rate of development continues, the built up area in Bangalore is expected to increase from 77% to 93%, with a vegetation cover of a mere 3%. Ramachandra is determined to get the bureaucracy to act before it is too late. While the city may not fully cease to exist, without drastic improvement the other possibilities still sound impossibly grim.

Slumization continues. As I have eyewitness accounts from Bangalore, fairly recent, I don't think the Guardian is too far off in it's estimates. A supermegapolis has few years left before it turns into a multimillion sized SLUM.

Good video from BBC India
http://www.facebook.com/bbcindia/videos ... 602895564/

And it sure ain't looking like we're significantly improving the water problem. Number of people with sufficient water is projected to barely rise at all, both the absolute number and the world population share of people in water stress & scarcity is shooting up:

[MKSheppard]

Have you executed an "environmentalist" leftist yet today, Comrades?

They have doomed us to this with their bullshit.

[Marko Dash]

desalination plants with nuclear power.


there is no reason any country with a coastline should have any water issues, the only thing stopping it is costs and nimbys, for which you use shep's solution.

[Simon_Jester]

Bangalore is over a hundred miles inland, and it isn't the only major city a long distance from water. Also, nuclear power plants to run the desalinization plants aren't necessarily cheap on the kind of per capita GDP a nation like India runs at. It's a reasonably good solution for a developed nation, but very few people in developed nations have unstable or endangered water supplies to begin with. If you live in India or Africa, not so much.

Plus, desalinizing drinking water doesn't help with the real problem of a place like Bangalore, which is massive lack of environmental and sanitation controls, making Shep's stupid crack extra-stupid.

[Lonestar]

Bangalore is over a hundred miles inland, and it isn't the only major city a long distance from water.

I mean...there's a large nuclear power plant outside of Phoenix that that uses city wastewater for cooling.

Having been to Goa(which is considered a "nice" Indian city) I'm about 90% the reason why Banaglore is having problems is because the locals don't have sewer systems, or if they do they don't use them.

[Simon_Jester]

I've heard that from enough sources as a chronic problem in India (poor disposal of human waste) that I'm not going to deny it. On the other hand, my core point is simply that technological solutions that sound great for desert nations with a lot of money may not be viable for Third World nations that are still the semi-industrialized armpit of the world.

[Lonestar]

I've heard that from enough sources as a chronic problem in India (poor disposal of human waste) that I'm not going to deny it. On the other hand, my core point is simply that technological solutions that sound great for desert nations with a lot of money may not be viable for Third World nations that are still the semi-industrialized armpit of the world.

The commentary about India being poor and unable to afford basic services would be a lot more compelling if they weren't in the habit of dropping billions of dollars on aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

[Simon_Jester]

It's a question of scale; how many nuclear desalinization plants would they need, compared to the cost of, e.g., their navy? Depending on how much water they would need, the scale of the nuclear infrastructure required to achieve the goal could just be much more expensive than maintaining a green-water navy.

Also, yes, you can make this argument. On the other hand, you can also argue that we should be spending our money on dental care for hillbillies instead of nuclear submarines and carriers for our navy. It applies to basically every nation that tries to maintain power projection capabilities. "Guns versus butter" isn't a new debate.

[Lonestar]

t's a question of scale; how many nuclear desalinization plants would they need, compared to the cost of, e.g., their navy? Depending on how much water they would need, the scale of the nuclear infrastructure required to achieve the goal could just be much more expensive than maintaining a green-water navy.

Inkblot development. It sucks because that means there are a lot of have-nots, but the goal should be to get at least some urban areas up tot he mid 20th century in regards to services provided.

Also, yes, you can make this argument. On the other hand, you can also argue that we should be spending our money on dental care for hillbillies instead of nuclear submarines and carriers for our navy. It applies to basically every nation that tries to maintain power projection capabilities.

I'd say that India hasn't really used their greenwater ships in a manner that's consistent with their capabilities. The Indian Navy is essentially a national pride thing, and they've opt to spend resources on that rather than city services.

Meanwhile the US, at least, has a operations tempo that is running personnel and ships into the ground with fatigue. I guess at least we use our ships.

[Simon_Jester]

t's a question of scale; how many nuclear desalinization plants would they need, compared to the cost of, e.g., their navy? Depending on how much water they would need, the scale of the nuclear infrastructure required to achieve the goal could just be much more expensive than maintaining a green-water navy.

Inkblot development. It sucks because that means there are a lot of have-nots, but the goal should be to get at least some urban areas up tot he mid 20th century in regards to services provided.

My attempts to search "inkblot development" tripped over the existence of the Rorschach test. Could you expand on what you mean by that phrase?

Also, yes, you can make this argument. On the other hand, you can also argue that we should be spending our money on dental care for hillbillies instead of nuclear submarines and carriers for our navy. It applies to basically every nation that tries to maintain power projection capabilities.

I'd say that India hasn't really used their greenwater ships in a manner that's consistent with their capabilities. The Indian Navy is essentially a national pride thing, and they've opt to spend resources on that rather than city services.

Meanwhile the US, at least, has a operations tempo that is running personnel and ships into the ground with fatigue. I guess at least we use our ships.

It's fair to criticize a nation for spending billions on pride while untreated sewage runs through its streets. I think we can agree that India would be better off with better governance in that respect.

My point is that if you took that nation and made it literally thirty times richer (the ratio of American per capita GDP to India's), what would be the equivalent? What would they be blowing thirty times as much money on, and what would they be neglecting to spend their wealth on, when it would be more profitably and worthily spent in that way?

[K. A. Pital]

Development of a nation into what? Part wasteland, part slums, part glittering skyscrapers? The US has this goal covered, if that's the "end goal" then I'm afraid the bar isn't set too high.

[Zinegata]

Command economies often manage to do neither.

The USSR did not supply its population with a cola analogue, but it did have soft drinks. If they'd had the recipe for something as tasty as cola and access to the ingredients, they would very likely have created the stuff.

It might not have let an aquifer run dry to supply a cola bottling plant, but it did let a lake run dry to sustain vast amounts of relatively inefficient agriculture on marginal land.

I think I agree that the 'problem' here is industrialization itself, not capitalism. The possibility of consuming the entirety of a land's resources to fuel the achievement of human goals, be those goals wise or foolish, causes this consumption to occur.

That's because command economies fail not because the structure is inherently incorrect, but rather it is limited in that the leadership of the states that had them did not have an omniscient and objective view of actual human needs.

Capitalism claims to be the solution to determining human needs by citing market forces - except that it's actually just a lot of greed and mumbo-jumbo (the "invisible hand" of the free market? Really? Why isn't this called out as a joke like "Stalin guiding my tank shells in World of Tanks"?) that's actually driving said market forces. It may have resulted in societies like the United States which are literally drowning under consumer products, but it has not created happier people. Indeed, many of the products created implicitly prey on the unhappiness of people and foster addiction to continue consuming said products.

We're approaching the point in human knowledge wherein we actually have a pretty good amount of data to determine what keeps people well-fed and happy, and that it does not require feeding people with sugared drinks and creating an obese population. The problem - especially in the United States - is that ideas about capitalism and consumerism are so deep-rooted that people simply refuse to even debate the possibility of alternative systems and pretend that it's already some universal law of the universe. It isn't, and it's one of the prime contributors to America's global rot.

[Zinegata]

Antiglobalization must happen, and predatory relations must be changed or stopped.

Actually, while I tend to be more receptive of your anti-capitalist ideas, I still generally disagree with this stance.

The issue here is that I'm increasingly convinced that governments or institutions capable of solving complex problems can only ultimately arise out of multi-cultural issues. If the government/institution is just working with a single culture that's already largely at peace with itself; then it acquires very little expertise to actually solve big problems.

Indeed, I draw very different conclusions from your general skepticism about the EU. While I gather you generally believe such unity is impossible, I see the present state to be an extended learning curve that can lead to stronger governments or institutions. Of course it could all blow up before it gets there, but you don't end up with a mega-state overnight.

The issue with globalization, rather, is that the institutions which have first really acquired experience and expertise with regards to operating with multicultural polities are the corporations; which is why they have become so powerful in extracting profits and they are often able to run roughshod over governments and exploiting people. What can defeat them is not protectionism - indeed it's more likely to just leave said countries and communities even more vulnerable to corporate tactics - but stronger international institutions, wily of corporate tricks and capable of promoting the common good of human beings rather than simply being sources of profit.

None of the international organizations are even remotely close to that point yet however, in large part because they are too dependent on national governments operating with national mindsets.

[Lonestar]

]My attempts to search "inkblot development" tripped over the existence of the Rorschach test. Could you expand on what you mean by that phrase?

Concentrate on some areas for development and ignore the rest. Eventually the developed portions will start to spread organically.

[K. A. Pital]

None of the international organizations are even remotely close to that point yet however, in large part because they are too dependent on national governments operating with national mindsets.

World Bank, IMF, etc. are just corporate tools to enact opression. Nothing good will come out of strengthening these institutions.

[Simon_Jester]

Capitalism claims to be the solution to determining human needs by citing market forces - except that it's actually just a lot of greed and mumbo-jumbo (the "invisible hand" of the free market? Really? Why isn't this called out as a joke like "Stalin guiding my tank shells in World of Tanks"?) that's actually driving said market forces.

Because the invisible hand is a metaphor, crafted in the 18th century by someone who was only dimly groping towards our modern understanding.

To such a one, living in such a time, in the darkness before the dawn, the only plausible analogy that even remotely described what a market does would be "an invisible hand." Because it is as if some invisible hand were there adjusting things to keep them more or less functional, when naively we would expect nothing but total dysfunction and chaos.

When you're an 18th century proto-economist, that's pretty strange. Hard to explain it in pragmatic, realistic terms.

It's easier to explain to us, and no mysticism or mumbo-jumbo is required. But that's because we understand game theory and we've heard of the theory of evolution. We know what it means to say that an incentive structure drives people towards or away from certain equilibria. That a price point shifts in response to stimuli. We have this entire basket of concepts that describe how a complicated impersonal system can maintain equilibrium and react to changing conditions, despite the absence of any one person actively calling all the shots.

Adam Smith didn't. Half-jokingly positing an 'invisible hand' as a metaphorical term for "whatever it is that causes all these market corrections so the system doesn't insta-crash" is a better reaction than many, in that context.

It may have resulted in societies like the United States which are literally drowning under consumer products, but it has not created happier people. Indeed, many of the products created implicitly prey on the unhappiness of people and foster addiction to continue consuming said products.

We're approaching the point in human knowledge wherein we actually have a pretty good amount of data to determine what keeps people well-fed and happy, and that it does not require feeding people with sugared drinks and creating an obese population. The problem - especially in the United States - is that ideas about capitalism and consumerism are so deep-rooted that people simply refuse to even debate the possibility of alternative systems and pretend that it's already some universal law of the universe. It isn't, and it's one of the prime contributors to America's global rot.

Of course, understanding the system SHOULD mean we're MORE aware of all the ways it can be dysfunctional, inefficient, or actively destructive under the wrong circumstances. Sadly... not so reliably.

[Zinegata]

Because the invisible hand is a metaphor, crafted in the 18th century by someone who was only dimly groping towards our modern understanding.

And yet why are we still using it to this day?

The harsher reality is that the majority of capitalism "supporters" do so based on a mumbo-jumbo understanding, not because they've actually done the data analysis. Indeed, if they do look at the chains of production there are so many ways that capitalism just plain does not work.

Of course, understanding the system SHOULD mean we're MORE aware of all the ways it can be dysfunctional, inefficient, or actively destructive under the wrong circumstances. Sadly... not so reliably.

As noted above, most people are actually not aware and are simply content to parrot blind faith in a system. That's why capitalism is failing along with the societies that blindly subscribe to it.

[Zinegata]

None of the international organizations are even remotely close to that point yet however, in large part because they are too dependent on national governments operating with national mindsets.

World Bank, IMF, etc. are just corporate tools to enact opression. Nothing good will come out of strengthening these institutions.

That's because those are primarily institutions that are harnessed by the one truly international organization that understands how to utilize globalism: Which is the multi-national corporation.

Moreover even if we live in a world without capitalism and there's a single world communist government there would still be a World Bank, as the ability to transfer resources to whichever portion of the world that needs it is simply too important and convenient for a worldwide institution to give up. Essentially, to steal a line from Legend of Galactic Heroes, your logic also suggests that we should abandon the use of fire simply because it could be used for arson.

The problem again is that it's the nation-states that have fallen away behind in terms of worldwide integration; and the fact that international humanitarian organizations that are supposed to safeguard people are too reliant on these nation-states that has also caused them to fall behind too.

The answer therefore is not a retreat from globalization; as that just leads to isolation and eventual defeat in the face of new corporate empires that can draw upon resources worldwide. The answer is that nation-states must stop making a virtue of their isolationism and embrace real and greater integration with other nation-states. The Westphalian rules of international relationships - which are frankly three centuries out of date - need to be re-examined and in many ways discarded. Because they effectively form artificial boundaries that allow international corporations to divide and conquer nation-state attempts to curb their power.

That's why the capitalist corporations are actually paradoxically making even more money and profits in places where populist anti-international movements take root. Their isolation makes them even easier pickings, not harder ones.

[K. A. Pital]

No, I disagree.

The problem is not that the nation-states have fallen behind in terms of worldwide integration, but rather that they abandoned their citizens and do not care for them anymore. Welfare systems are being dismantled, an "every man for himself" mentality fostered upon the entire world.

If capitalist corporations were making a lot of money and a lot of profit with populists, they woudn't have ran away so easily from Catalonia at the first hint of secession.

There are no global transnational organizations to challenge corporate power - everyone admits that, and so it is a given that by aiding globalism, one aids corporations.

Even unions, which used to be fairly efficient at the national and subnational, community level, are almost a distant memory for many by now.