5 ms·

Reading about the Mead Reservoir the other day and now this, I'm thoroughly convinced the US needs some sort of large scale disaster for something to really cha

Reading about the Mead Reservoir the other day and now this, I'm thoroughly convinced the US needs some sort of large scale disaster for something to really change in this country. There's obviously various pockets in the country that suffer from shitty public infrastructure (e.g. Flint, Michigan), but for most of the country, it's been OK; they're still able to to go to Wal-Mart to get their feed and be content. There's always talk about potential future disasters, but it never seems to come. We've had an inept federal government for multiple decades that doesn't work for the people anymore. We need an episode of millions of people to get mad enough for something to happen.

jason2323 4y ago
One would have thought the COVID-19 Pandemic would have been such an event, but alas..
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Yep. My fear at this point is that even with large scale disaster, we won’t respond with sufficient scale to avoid large scale suffering. We’re not responding for climate change. We’re not responding for student debt. We’re quick to respond with $40B for war, but what can we do for the every day people? I’m just not seeing much.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I think the difference between your examples is timescale. People are generally good at responding to acute, existential threats. We don't seem nearly as good at managing abstract ones that occur over long timescales. I just don't think we're wired to think about risk accurately in that way and, let's face it, most decision are made at an emotional, visceral level.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      I would also say that defense contractors are some of the largest donors to the political class (not sure how they rank in media spending) and politicians have an incentive to solve near term crises and ignore long term crises. I would not say this is purely down to human “wiring” but the real world political structures we have today (which in theory can be changed). I should also note that, regardless of how one feels about him, two things about Bernie Sanders are that he didn’t accept any SuperPAC donations and he was very willing to put effort in to eliminating student debt and alleviating climate change. So such platforms are not unheard of.
      - bumby 4y ago
        I think this is part of the issue, but we may disagree about the magnitude. As a counterpoint, "Retirees" are the second largest political donors behind the financial system and yet the retirement system is perpetually in peril. My comment about our "wiring" is about how we are bad at estimating risks. We likely evolved to think causally rather than statistically and, when coupled with highly emotional risks, it tends to skew the accuracy of risk assessments. Climate change is not as emotionally charged as, say, terrorist attacks so it will tend to get lower priority in an individual's mind.
  - throwawayboise 4y ago
    You didn't see much response to COVID? We spent more on COVID relief and response than we spent on WWII. $40B is a rounding error in what we spent on COVID.
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      I think you’ve misread what I said. I said “My fear is… we won’t respond with sufficient scale to avoid large scale suffering.” With a million dead and millions more financially ruined, I think it’s fair to say we didn’t prevent large scale suffering. And to be clear my issue isn’t just with direct spending - a few more stimulus checks would have been nice but wouldn’t solve the larger problem - I think we needed better consistency from the government on risk profiles and the importance of masks, as well as more mask mandates and travel restrictions, and finally better testing infrastructure. Some of that is direct spending but much isn’t.
- mrfusion 4y ago
  We totally should have spent more trillions on that.
- beamatronic 4y ago
  Under a different US administration, it would have been completely different. What we just had was the worst possible administration in place, and they dealt with the disaster in the worst possible way.
nisegami 4y ago
Change happens at the rate of blood spilled.
- Victerius 4y ago
  Imagine the chaos if millions of Californians started getting saltwater in their faucets, in a matter of hours. Saltwater dehydrates the body. There would be pandemonium. Every store that sells water bottles would be cleaned in less than an hour. Hoarders would buy everything they can by the truckload. Online marketplaces would be flooded by desperate people looking for water. The price of a water bottle would quickly reach $40+. There would be a run on portable desalination machines. The governor would call the National Guard to restore order. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security would be mobilized. California being the breadbasket of the country, the President would declare a national emergency. Congress would pass emergency spending bills to build desalination plants and nuclear power plants in California. It would be WWII/Manhattan project levels of government mobilization.
  - criddell 4y ago
    > There would be pandemonium. In some places. In other places neighborhoods would come together to help each other out.
    - lijogdfljk 4y ago
      Sure if there's a mix of homes with and without salt water. However i think you're wishful if everyone is surviving on bottles. You can only help your neighbor if you went to the store and bought water. And that supply would go quickly.
      - cyberpunk 4y ago
        You can desalinate it with a solar still rather easily.. You only need a kids paddling pool, a bucket, a (clean!) tarp and a brick. :)
mtberatwork 4y ago
"Various pockets" seems to imply the problem is not that wide spread. But it is: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap-water-samples-forever-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap... [2] https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/uranium-detectable-two-thirds-us-community-water-system-monitoring-records https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

jason2323 4y ago

One would have thought the COVID-19 Pandemic would have been such an event, but alas..

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Yep. My fear at this point is that even with large scale disaster, we won’t respond with sufficient scale to avoid large scale suffering. We’re not responding for climate change. We’re not responding for student debt. We’re quick to respond with $40B for war, but what can we do for the every day people? I’m just not seeing much.
- bumby 4y ago
  I think the difference between your examples is timescale. People are generally good at responding to acute, existential threats. We don't seem nearly as good at managing abstract ones that occur over long timescales. I just don't think we're wired to think about risk accurately in that way and, let's face it, most decision are made at an emotional, visceral level.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I would also say that defense contractors are some of the largest donors to the political class (not sure how they rank in media spending) and politicians have an incentive to solve near term crises and ignore long term crises. I would not say this is purely down to human “wiring” but the real world political structures we have today (which in theory can be changed). I should also note that, regardless of how one feels about him, two things about Bernie Sanders are that he didn’t accept any SuperPAC donations and he was very willing to put effort in to eliminating student debt and alleviating climate change. So such platforms are not unheard of.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I think this is part of the issue, but we may disagree about the magnitude. As a counterpoint, "Retirees" are the second largest political donors behind the financial system and yet the retirement system is perpetually in peril. My comment about our "wiring" is about how we are bad at estimating risks. We likely evolved to think causally rather than statistically and, when coupled with highly emotional risks, it tends to skew the accuracy of risk assessments. Climate change is not as emotionally charged as, say, terrorist attacks so it will tend to get lower priority in an individual's mind.
- throwawayboise 4y ago
  You didn't see much response to COVID? We spent more on COVID relief and response than we spent on WWII. $40B is a rounding error in what we spent on COVID.
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    I think you’ve misread what I said. I said “My fear is… we won’t respond with sufficient scale to avoid large scale suffering.” With a million dead and millions more financially ruined, I think it’s fair to say we didn’t prevent large scale suffering. And to be clear my issue isn’t just with direct spending - a few more stimulus checks would have been nice but wouldn’t solve the larger problem - I think we needed better consistency from the government on risk profiles and the importance of masks, as well as more mask mandates and travel restrictions, and finally better testing infrastructure. Some of that is direct spending but much isn’t.
mrfusion 4y ago
We totally should have spent more trillions on that.
beamatronic 4y ago
Under a different US administration, it would have been completely different. What we just had was the worst possible administration in place, and they dealt with the disaster in the worst possible way.

nisegami 4y ago

Change happens at the rate of blood spilled.

Victerius 4y ago
Imagine the chaos if millions of Californians started getting saltwater in their faucets, in a matter of hours. Saltwater dehydrates the body. There would be pandemonium. Every store that sells water bottles would be cleaned in less than an hour. Hoarders would buy everything they can by the truckload. Online marketplaces would be flooded by desperate people looking for water. The price of a water bottle would quickly reach $40+. There would be a run on portable desalination machines. The governor would call the National Guard to restore order. FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security would be mobilized. California being the breadbasket of the country, the President would declare a national emergency. Congress would pass emergency spending bills to build desalination plants and nuclear power plants in California. It would be WWII/Manhattan project levels of government mobilization.
- criddell 4y ago
  > There would be pandemonium. In some places. In other places neighborhoods would come together to help each other out.
  - lijogdfljk 4y ago
    Sure if there's a mix of homes with and without salt water. However i think you're wishful if everyone is surviving on bottles. You can only help your neighbor if you went to the store and bought water. And that supply would go quickly.
    - cyberpunk 4y ago
      You can desalinate it with a solar still rather easily.. You only need a kids paddling pool, a bucket, a (clean!) tarp and a brick. :)

mtberatwork 4y ago

"Various pockets" seems to imply the problem is not that wide spread. But it is: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap-water-samples-forever-chemicals https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/31/americas-tap... [2] https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/uranium-detectable-two-thirds-us-community-water-system-monitoring-records https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...