Leaderboard

As far as 'all instrumental' goes, this has always been a favorite of mine.

The other, much more common, form of self harm is the one where management give too much money to themselves and the shareholders. This obviously undermines the company. For the good of the companies, the workers have to prevent this. They do so via unions and, if needs be, strikes. It is sometimes necessary to remind managers that, without the workforce, nothing happens. That's a fine argument, right up until you realise that the people profiteering from work are generally wealthy enough to avoid paying taxes. Do you understand that the majority of the public actually support better pay for public sector workers? https://www.rcn.org.uk/news-and-events/news/uk-public-support-for-nursing-staff-going-on-strike-builds-210722 You say that as if it's somehow a problem. Many people are not good negotiators and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. Do you see this; Many people are not good negotiators doctors and so they pay someone else to do it on their behalf. in the same light? A union will do well if the people they represent do well. Bankrupting an employer will not meet that goal. The idea that unions are unaware of that is absurd. They are- as you point out, seeking to maximise commercial advantage.

It's incredibly clever, especially played from memory. But I'm afraid emotionally it left me a bit cold. Here are two of my all time instrumental favourites, that really stir me up inside too :

I did not say ALL water diversions are doomed to fail - I was basing the comment on the many catastrophic failures (especially riparian containment) in the US, where specs were overly optimistic about nature's good behavior. My opinion is mainly informed by observation and living, myself, through two floods. America has had an intense obsession with progress and rapid development that often leads to political machinery that ignores warnings from cooler heads. Many water experts here are currently making the case for moving some communities to higher ground as the less costly option.

"a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster" (from whatever dictionary Google uses; emphasis added)

Boaz Sharon gives one of the best renditions of Gershwin's symphonic masterpiece. Somehow, on a piano, he captures and clarifies every instrumental voice in the piece. How have only 30K viewed this??

I suspect the most viable solutions will involve conservation of water and evaporative loss reduction. Xeriscaping, drip irrigation, cover materials on reservoirs, etc. I doubt "shipping" water up grades will ever be economic, unless it's Perrier. Similarly, floodwater has a way of defeating large-scale engineering. Discouraging development of lowlands and subsidizing the move of populations to higher ground will probably be more economic than endless levee and seawall building. Too many people, through no fault of their own, live on lowlands that should have stayed as marsh and wetlands purifying water naturally and dampening storm surges. Good posts, very thought provoking, sorry to be late to the party.

I don't see how my logic leads to everyone moving to Antarctica and Greenland. Using that line of reasoning, we could say that your proposal means that we are going to distribute water equally throughout all the world's deserts, which I'm sure is not what you were suggesting. My proposal was simply a counter to your proposal that engineering is the way we should be addressing areas of the world where there is not enough water to sustain human activity. It is a lot easier to create zoning codes to disallow fountains, farms, and golf courses in the desert than it is to engineer shipping a finite water supply across the desert just because it is asked for.

I do get the picture. 1) If there is a significant onshore wind, it is already humid and will cause rain inland. There is no problem to address. 2) You cannot significantly increase the humidity of this wind without increasing its temperature. 3) The evaporation of brine requires even more heat input. 4) I've not even mentioned the astronomical pumping costs. This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namib gives an idea of the practical realities you are trying to reverse: ie The 'significant onshore wind' and 'rising thermals' simply don't happen. If they did, it wouldn't be a desert.

Both low lying areas subject to offshore cold water currents/upwellings and predominantly dry trade winds? They are deserts for a reason. Could add the Atacama to this list. (Ekman transport can be an important mechanism in these cases) The lower few hundred feet of steady onshore winds are typically in approximate thermal equilibrium with the ocean, aren't they? So where is the energy to come from to evaporate the water? Even if the air is at lower relative humidity (such as a descending Hadley cell), evaporation is going to chill it further. This doesn't sound like a good recipe for creating a rising thermal. More a recipe for fog. If it worked, nature would already be doing it, I think. As it does here in southern Nigeria during the rainy season. But come november the rainbelt will have moved south to Angola, the Hadley cells will shift what little air movement there is to a north-easterly flow, and it will be both cool (for us) and bone dry. Trying to 'make' it rain here at the turn of the year would be an exercise in futility. Everything would be working against you.

If the Republicans are not permitted to kill the EPA, there is hope. https://www.epa.gov/water-research/drought-resilience-and-water-conservation https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/who-we-are/how-we-work/policy/water-management/ States have different levels of awareness, preparedness and resources to deploy. There is a lot going on that's never reported in the news, because it's just not sensational enough. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/oklahoma-texas-water-science-center/science/floods-and-droughts

Why do you want to increase the extent to which essential workers are exploited? To address the fundamental inequality of the "employer/ employee" relationship. If you think there are no consequences then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it. No; it's common sense. In what ways?

By and large, animals are parasites to plants and the food chain proves that. There is little feedback loop from animals to plants. The implication is that we need to make sure plants are first colonized on mars. No animal is needed from self-sustaining standpoint. In my opinion, music is not as essential as air or water.

Why do you want to increase the extent to which the public are exploited ? Oh right ! That's the relationship where an employee can quit any time he likes, but can't get fired any time the employer likes? When the employer has to pay you for doing nothing, if you choose to have a baby? Or when the company is losing money, rather than making it, the employee still gets the same wages? Or when the employee gets sick, the employer still has to pay them, even though he's getting nothing for his money. Etc etc etc. You're right, the relationship IS fundamentally unequal. If you don't know what ways, then you do not know enough about the issue to have a meaningful viewpoint on it.

Maybe thats why they all came to Manchester.

I don't find your responses particularly informed or useful. Others have posted cogent posts, but yours are becoming rude, and certainly not worth reading. Byeeee.