Comment

The u.s abstained from voting YES on whether water is a human right, and even spoke in opposition to that idea. That tells you who runs the country.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sj_zero ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Particularly if I lived in the us, I could see where making the claim that drinking water is a human right could be problematic.

If you decide that you want to live in the middle of the mojave, that's really a you problem. You can go to one of the many places that actually have water in the country. Whereas the western side of the continent has a problem with the droughts and lack of water, the East Coast has maybe too much water, all the water you could ever possibly drink.

The idea that someone owes it to you to get drinking water because you've decided to live somewhere that there is no water, it's a bit silly.

Now of course that fully changes in a global context. If instead of the United States you're in africa, with some countries having a lot of water and other countries having lack of water, and people can't just pick up and move from Egypt to ethiopia, then damming off the Nile as Ethiopia is doing is kinda a big deal.
- funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I see your point but also, unless you founded the city you might not have a choice if you were born there.
  
  We have so much money in the USA, so much the human mind cannot conceive how much there is. It constantly moves, back and forth, and it constantly, constantly grows.
  
  There is no dispassionate reason why, with so, SO much money practically lying around doing nothing — it can’t be used to make sure everyone is fed, watered, homed, clothed, and has Healthcare.
  
  The resources to do so are just sitting there doing nothing.
  
  The target isn’t someone who was born in a city 20 generations after it was founded, the target is someone saying that they shouldn’t have water because it would decrease their excess money they don’t need and will never touch by 0.00000001%
  
  source
- acockworkorange@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I take your argument and turn it on its head to argue the opposite point. Because our theoretical individual lives in the US, they have the agency to move to a place with access to drinking water.
  
  Having access to drinking water doesn’t mean it must be brought to you or even that it must be free. It just means it can’t be denied, there must be a reasonable path to achieve it, I.e. access.
  
  So when a hypothetical company called NoPont poisons an entire watershed, they’re violating that right to access. When Nestlé just bottles water and sells, they’re not. When Nestlé buys corrupt politicians to privatize / curtail rainwater collection so poor farmers in Bolivia have to buy water, they’re very much infringing that right.
  
  source
  - sj_zero ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I'd be much more amenable to your interpretation, tbh.