<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>In the spirit of generative dialog, I offer a few bits:</p>
<p>Some feel that the Red Queen is winning, in spite of the paradox
of that logic: <a
href="https://www.stevenkotler.com/book-pages/abundance">Abundance </a>
- 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.<br>
</p>
<p>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: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/natural-resources/rainwater-collection-colorado-6-707/">Rainwater
Collection in Colorado</a><span> . 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 (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Even_the_Rain">Even the
Rain</a>) describing Big Businesses' (e.g. Bechtel )
involvement in water wars in the third world: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War.</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span>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 <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title_in_New_Mexico#The_1933_amendments">Aamodt
water</a> battle is now 45 years old and attempts to effect
the terms of the settlements are underway all but literally in
my back yard.<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="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/
</a><br>
</span></p>
<p><span>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?<br>
</span></p>
<p><span>For broader perspectives on this topic, I recommend this
UNM Press collection: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://unmpress.com/books/thinking-watershed/9780826352330">Thinking
Like a Watershed.</a> 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.</span></p>
<p><span>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.</span></p>
<p><span>- Steve<br>
</span></p>
<p><span><br>
</span></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/19/21 9:49 AM, Marcus Daniels
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BYAPR11MB3830846BCF125DDC26FC47A7C5499@BYAPR11MB3830.namprd11.prod.outlook.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:11 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] water, again (was murder offsets)
I should have linked this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-ted-chiang-transcript.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/podcasts/ezra-klein-podcast-ted-chiang-transcript.html</a>
"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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Again technology to the rescue... Nanotechnology for desalinization.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:45 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com">friam@redfish.com</a>
Subject: [FRIAM] water, again (was murder offsets)
Copper? Natural gas? Pffft! Water's the interesting one.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theconversation.com/interstate-water-wars-are-heating-up-alon">https://theconversation.com/interstate-water-wars-are-heating-up-alon</a>
g-with-the-climate-159092
And another one:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article250595449.html">https://www.theolympian.com/news/business/article250595449.html</a>
On 4/15/21 7:59 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Another good example is water rights across states given watersheds,
flood irrigation, etc.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/arizona-water-one-percenters"><https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/arizona-water-one-p
er
centers></a>
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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>