Hacker News Reader

Comment by kp212 | Hacker News Reader

Yes it is my business. This is the same approach people took on gas and corn. Consume so much until the price impacts us. Except this time, I don't want to pay $5 a gallon on water in 2020, because a bunch of people wanted to run it all day on their lawn at 25 cents a gallon in 2008. People already are stuggling on fuel, we don't need the same approach on water.

View on HN

Water is entirely unlike oil, in that it's renewable. (You might have noticed that it falls out of the sky every now and then.)

Whatever water you use in 2008 will still be available for use in 2020. Dams are already built and are collecting water whether you use it or not, so unless the water levels in your local dam are getting low there's no point in conserving it.

While water is renewable, there is a limited supply of cheap water for crops, and some areas are using it at a higher rate than it is being replenished. Wikipedia mentions that the Ogallala Aquifer, which is used to irrigate a significant portion of Midwest farmland, may run dry in 25 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

For the people in that area, the aquifer is their "local dam" and it is getting low.

That's true. My comments don't apply if you're in an area which uses underground water.

As you mentioned in a later post underground water is not renewable, and about half the US uses underground water (pretty much all the western half of the US).

Only communities nears rivers use renewable water.

These problems are going to be solved by capitalistic means, not moral ones. When the economy and prices get people to do something, it will be done. But saying, oh please why don't you help the environment will not have a huge effect.

This is why I don't participate in environmental rallies or clubs or whatever other crap our school tries to get us to participate in. Because for change to occur, it has to occur forcefully, not willingly. Either there have to be climate change/environmental protection laws, or there have to be economic incentives.

Do not conflate capitalistic means with legal ones.

My main point was that eventually the problem will be solved due to economic incentives, not moral ones. Somehow the mention of laws (legal incentives, I suppose?) crept into my post after I started writing it.

Note that following, rather than ignoring, economic incentives is the more moral way of life (other things being equal).

Why? I don't really see the correlation... Unless it's of the basis that it is morally good to do things you find enjoyable?

Morality = how to live.

Other things being equal, following economic incentives makes you richer than if you didn't, which is pretty clearly a better life (everything else being equal). It means you can buy a better education for your kids, or for kids in africa, or a million other good things.

"These problems are going to be solved by capitalistic means, not moral ones."

What precisely is a 'moral means?' I can see the term 'moral means' in contrast to 'immoral means,' but not in contrast with 'capitalistic means.' Are you implying that capitalism is immoral? Or, do really mean 'emotive means?'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com