Comment on Construction Begins on High-Speed Rail Line Between SoCal and Las Vegas

• Num10ck@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Los Angeles could get all the water it needs from the Pacific Ocean with existing technology, whenever the politics requires it.

  source

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Didn’t the voters approve a desalinization plant like 20 years ago, and nothing has happened?

    source

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      www.carlsbaddesal.com

      source
  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    True, especially with some of the recent advancements, but of course politicians doing anything smart is where the impossiblity lies.

    source
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Our population is simply too much for the planet

  That’s just not true. Every time I hear this, it’s assuming current technology and waste. And the estimates I’ve seen are all over the map:

  Debate about the actual human carrying capacity of Earth dates back hundreds of years. The range of estimates is enormous, fluctuating from 500 million people to more than one trillion. Scientists disagree not only on the final number, but more importantly about the best and most accurate way of determining that number—hence the huge variability.

  Every time we’ve run into issues, we’ve innovated our way out of it. We build dams, improve irrigation, seed clouds, desalinate water, etc. I see no reason for this to stop.

  There’s probably a theoretical limit, but population growth is slowing, so I doubt we’ll actually hit it. Likewise, space tech is improving, so we’ll probably expand outside the planet as well, which will also result in more innovation for supporting populations on limited resources.

  For Vegas, the main concern is water. Energy is cheap and can be much cheaper, so air conditioning shouldn’t be a major concern. In fact, it’s probably better for people to live in deserts because that’s (likely) less of a strain on wildlife vs living in forests or swamps.

  source

  • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Every time we’ve run into issues, we’ve innovated our way out of it.

    Is that right?

    We’re currently wiping out the Amazon, causing the 6th great extinction, unsustainably using fossil fuels. Billions of people are dependent on very complex supply chains that require massive polluting and ocean life harming ships to get them to you. You can’t even talk about your favorite camping spot without it getting overrun and damaging the ecosystem. Many people can’t afford to see their favorite artists because with a massive population and popular artists that supply and demand is way out of whack. Same with Disneyland etc. We don’t have enough housing, and if we build more we’re going to wipe out even more ecosystems and use even more resources.

    Las Vegas? Those solar panels and air conditioners are produced using fossil fuels. Also, the desert is not wasteland, just because desert species may not be your favorite doesn’t mean it’s ok to wipe them out to build more housing tracts.

    There are so many aspects of overpopulation, producing enough food, water, and housing are just the tiny tip of the iceberg. These things I brought up are what came to my mind in 2 minutes before I had my coffee.

    source

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The way you get innovation is by adjusting the incentives and disincentives to match actual, long-term costs. Tax negative externalities and the market will respond. It’s the whole idea behind Piguovian taxes, which I’d like to see more of.

      I think this approach would help solve issues like the Amazon, fossil fuel over-reliance, etc.

      We don’t have enough housing, and if we build more we’re going to wipe out even more ecosystems and use even more resources.

      Sure, if we continue the same way we have. If we instead increase density, it won’t be as much of an issue.

      If we increase costs of living in suburbs and reduce the costs of living in cities, we’d see a lot less sprawl and more affordable housing. Specific proposals:

      • move sales taxes to property taxes - roughly follow the Land-Value Tax idea
      • higher gas taxes and vehicle registration fees, especially for large trucks (e.g. delivery trucks)
      • cheap/free transit
      • cycle/walking paths separate from cars

      In other words, nudge people toward living in cities, and reward them with fantastic infrastructure. That sets proper incentives so the market can innovate solutions.

      Those solar panels and air conditioners are produced using fossil fuels

      Currently, yes. But they don’t need to be. If we jack up fossil fuel taxes, we’ll see a more rapid shift toward renewables. I work in a mining-adjacent industry, and I can tell you that they’d absolutely switch if it made business sense, but fossil fuels are just cheaper.

      the desert is not wasteland

      Agreed, I actually live in a desert climate and appreciate the natural beauty of the desert.

      That said, Nevada is very large, and a lot of it is protected, federal land (like 80%), so moving people to the populated areas in Nevada won’t significantly impact current wildlife. It’s already suburban sprawl, and more people could live there without increasing that sprawl, if the proper incentives are in place.

      rich vs poor gap

      I also disagree with this notion as well.

      Yes, there’s an income gap, but the poor are still better off year over year. The real concern, imo, is that shrinking middle class and immigration limitations. Immigrants start way more businesses than non-immigrants (i.e. innovation), yet at least in the US, there’s a push to limit immigration.

      I think there is a problem, but it’s not a “replace the whole system” problem, but more of a “let’s give David more chances to fight Goliath.” That means:

      • more regulatory exemptions for small companies
      • reforms for patent system
      • large penalties for nonsense litigation for large orgs
      • more liability for execs for crimes committed by their org

      And so on. Pair that with carefully thought-out Piguovian taxes and we should see an acceleration of improvements to the climate, income distribution, traffic, etc. The trouble is getting something like this made into law and properly enforced.

      source

      • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        These are great ideas and should be implemented, but at best the push the issue of population down the road. These are temporary band-aids to a worsening problem.

        A species that grows beyond it’s bounds and kills itself is not intelligent, it’s merely a clever tool user. Let’s prove our real intelligence by being the first species on our planet conscious of the physical bounds, with understanding we have the capacity to to go beyond them to our own demise, and wisdom to actively choose sustainability. Let’s be smarter than bacteria on a Petri dish.

        The goal of our species shouldn’t be to fit as many humans as possible on the planet and make everyone sacrifice for it.

        But I want to clarify, I’m not in favor of authoritarian limits on reproduction (I’m an anarchist). I suspect, looking at the timing of the human population explosion on the scale of thousands of years, that exploitative economic systems and the ability to cheat the natural energy balance by using prehistoric sunlight energy (fossil fuels) are the drivers of this explosion and if we can eliminate or control those things the population would naturally contract.

        source

        • -> View More Comments