[barnaby33]

and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation.”

Weirdly I agree with scaredy and phaster (mostly weird that I’m agreeing with scaredy)

AN specifically for you, I’m linking my favorite essay. I know it’s a bit of a read, maybe 30 minutes, but I re-read it every few years. This nails it!

Phaster, I make no sure and certain claim when fusion, or if fusion is our energy future. I just see no viable path forward without it. You and I seem to agree on water, it’s just that water is a subset of energy availability. Currently oil still has the best EROEI, but has nasty long tail costs. In fact all current energy sources except geothermal have those costs, especially nuclear. My biggest fear about nuclear power is that it dovetails so cleanly with human capacity for short term thinking at the cost of long term environmental health.

Back to water. My preference would be a combination of restrictions on usage, raising of prices and outright banning of growing certain crops. Almonds for export are the poster child, but in CA rice and cotton should never be grown either. Market forces by themselves will not stabilize or assure food availability or the survival of civilization in a desert.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Clearly more than you think. Poser. If you actually listened to it you’d never use it the way you are. Now put on your headdress and start whining about stolen Indian lands

Careful there deadzone. A none-to-subtle homage to Anthrax not-withstanding you’ll want to keep each online persona separate.
Josh

[barnaby33]

AN I suppose we can’t talk about water without talking about energy, but you’ve done a couple of 180s so I’m not even sure what we’re debating about. Fusion is code word for clean cheap energy, regardless of how many years out it is. Nuclear is neither clean nor cheap. I’d be all for Nuclear if the communities that consumed it were then responsible for it’s waste management in their own community. Yucca Mtn is geologically stable as far as we know, but it’s also I believe exporting the waste to poor brown people, also known as Indians. I’m totally not in favor of doing that anymore.

So back to the water. You advocate finding more sources, I advocate learning to live within our means, because as I see it technology cannot save us from this. It’s just techno narcist fantasy to believe we can grow forever and that is assuming we could even agree on what is growth. The drought is and has been here for a while, more funding won’t solve the problem, more sources for water will only temporarily alleviate it, whereas learning to live with what we can locally/regionally get actually is a solution.

Josh

[barnaby33]

BTW, I reject the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread doesn’t make sense as I look at the Pacific Ocean and the desalination plant in Carlsbad and the solar and wind farms popping up everywhere. Not to mention nuclear. So, no, we’re not running out of water, not now, not ever.

You are totally engaging in Sophistry and a weird form of mis/re-direction. If you’d started your first post with “I totally reject the premise,” then worked into details, basically descended the paradigm, I’d buy what you’re saying. I wouldn’t agree with it, but I’d buy it.

Infrastructure, whether it’s for water, oil, moving cars, what-have-you, takes time to build; even if funded now. What we have is western water law which is 150 years old and is basically setup to induce maximum consumption. It doesn’t take a genius to say that’s not a great idea long term in a desert. It’s just that where we appear to be today is in the grip of long term shortage state/region wide. Leaving the emotional histrionics out of it, there just isn’t enough to go around at a price people are willing to pay. Otherwise those magical desalination plants would already exist. Pumping water is insanely expensive, so is desalination. Maybe with fusion the cost will drop enough that you can have your acre green lawn and 20 minute showers along with fresh fruit and veg from half a state away. I am terrible at predicting the future. I have however studied water somewhat, having grown up on a failed apple farm in Valley Center.

What you want and what the universe can reasonably provide are often very different. Did you know AN that the majority of water consumed in the central valley for irrigation is pumped up from the ground? That’s not water income, that’s water inheritance and it is running out FAST! How hurt will your feelings be when the regional water authority tells you you only get to water your lawn 2 times a week or even a month? Will your wants be satisfied be imposed restrictions because it just isn’t there and we collectively didn’t take steps to stop what we reasonably see coming? How does that make you feel? Do you need a hug? I give great hugs!

Josh

[barnaby33]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Okie dokie.

We don’t need to do w/ less, and I don’t want to do with less, especially when we/I don’t have to.

Now you just sound like one of the scared old people in my HOA who don’t want change! We do need to do with less. The whole premise of this thread is that available sources of water are not running out in some distant unknowable future, they’re running out now. The investment and infrastructure necessary to rectify that for the present population is decades away, even if funded now.

[barnaby33]

CA have $100b surplus in just 1 year. Spend that $ to build infrastructure to increase our supplies on stuff that keep society running instead of trying to limit demand.

Woe to him who treats water as a market commodity. He shall reap what he sows. It takes decades to build the kind of infra you’re talking about. It won’t solve the problem. Humans are maximizers. All you are doing by playing the lets-expand-supply-game is heightening the fall. Water is the most fundamental human need. It almost doesn’t exist in Southern California. Market forces will not in any real sense lead us to a better place, or even a place where our society can survive. Think tragedy of the commons.

We will drill, drill, drill until the water runs out; or is too expensive to extract. That will presage a collapse. One where food will get much more expensive and millions around the world will starve. Lets just stop growing almonds and other stupid for profit, for export shit we don’t need and save the water for things we do.

Getting used to doing with less is the only way forward till fusion becomes a reality. Then all bets are off.
Josh

[barnaby33]

It’s not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

It is exactly a hard problem to solve because it is expensive to do so. Water is the foundation of our society, cheap water that is. It must be transported in bulk and is heavy. We consume more of it than our ecology can produce (at least the non-salt version.) Most importantly, people are not smart. Nobody cares as long as the taps still function.
Josh

[barnaby33]

I was actually pretty spot on but then again when wasn’t I?

At church, 2 weeks ago.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Though I have no hard evidence I feel like a lot of the labor shortage is really a skills mis-match. Anyone who says last years stimulus payments account for millions not wanting to work now is living in a different world. That money has long been spent. The jobs are mostly in the gateway cities and to a certain extent the increase in housing costs has ejected some folks from those places to other less costly places.

In the news today SD actually lost population this year! It didn’t help RE prices though. Probably because the vast majority of the emigrants couldn’t afford to buy houses and that’s why they left.
Josh

[barnaby33]

SALT limits?
Josh

[barnaby33]

This has been an issue in Clairemont for a while. If you’re near a canyon, insurance companies are very leery of insuring you. Wawanes2a wouldn’t cover my ex at all as she lived `within 1000 yards of a canyon.
Josh

[barnaby33]

Rates bottomed around 2.75% for a 30 year fixed? If so the move to 4% is massive in terms of % increase. Given how much greater our entire economy (not just housing) is levered to interest rates, I’ll be shocked if this doesn’t blunt to top appreciation.
Josh

[barnaby33]

I once had a long term girl friend that was allergic to chocolate cheese and wine. Other than sex with me, she had no joy in life.
Josh

[barnaby33]

ou tech guys have reading comprehension issues. I said the prima-donnas are the ones who threaten to quit if “forced” to work from the office a couple times a week. Think their skills are so unique, rare and irreplaceable that they can get any job they want. I see a lot of this attitude lately and it reminds me of the late 90s when engineers were hopping between multiple startups every few months chasing higher salary and stock options. Until the shit hit the fan.

Sure most employees would prefer to work at home in their pijamas all day, save gas, avoid rush hour traffic, jerk off during lunch break, etc. But the fact is corporate management is not in favor of that because they know it is not the most productive situation. That’s why they are calling their employees back to the office now that Covid is over. You guys can whine about it all you want, but it isn’t going to change the fact that fully remote work is going to be the exception, not the norm, going forward.

I guess I’m not cut out for tech, I seldom wait for lunch to jerk off and I wear sweats, not pajama’s. Mgmt tends to be conservative in that it fears that someone, somewhere is having more fun than them. If you’re following the actual trends in tech for the most part remote work is here to stay. At the beginning of the pandemic, most jobs said, “remote for now.” After a year most were, “occassional office time.” Now the solid majority are full remote or mostly remote. Once you build a culture that deals well with it, your company can hire and fire wherever it wants. It’s a competitive perk for both sides and that is why I seriously doubt it’s going away.
Primadonna

[barnaby33]

Stop being so Protestant! Wine isn’t just for dinner anymore!
Josh

[Author]

Posts