What assumptions make it difficult or impossible for people to realize

that human beings shouldn't be living in certain places if they're not willing to accept the natural limitations of the environment there?

For example, what assumptions are behind the belief that people who choose to live in arid places like the southwestern deserts are entitled to have water supplied to them from the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, etc.?

If we weren't the "United" states, you wouldn't have to share. If you don't believe in the global community, you don't have to share. You won't get very far in the morning if you stop interdependence.

Yours is either non-serious or about a radian off the subject.

if we're the "united" states and all...:shrug:

people who want to share in the great lakes' water supply will have to move to where the water is.

assume that everyone both (1) sacrifices and contributes and (2) receives a benefit from doing so. Both are required for the exchange to be equitable so that someone is not taken advantage of.

It is a wonderful concept. But when applied to the real world it has a few practical problems. Resources are limited and people are often greedy and motivated by fear. Resources have value because they are limited and not freely available. The people who possess those respurces usually don't give them up without adequate compensation - if they are willing to give them up at all. And sometimes the folks who most need specific resources are the least able to acquire them.

In an ideal world folks would happily and voluntarily share their resources to maintain and improve the quality of life of their fellow man. I believe there are spiritual rewards for those who choose to do so. However, those choices often require sacrifice and are not defensible in financial and economic terms.

They won't be suitable long - they'll look like Calcutta.

Anyone - including Americans - who has more than two children cannot call themselves an environmentalist.

I think we must demand that people accept the natural limitations of wherever they choose to live. If that means we end up very crowded, that should be a wake-up call to sharply reduce our birthrate (which I think is what you're saying, too).

As to the number of kids, I think a caveat is needed. I have 3, but they're all in their 40s. Few non-specialists understood the problems in the early '60s, and I certainly wasn't one of them. Even Lovelock barely understood the unitary nature of the situation. So it wasn't hubris on my part, it was that I was both unwitting and unaware that I was unwitting. Were I of childbearing age today, I'd choose to adopt or remain childless.

I mean people NOW who have not yet reproduced, or who have recently had 6 kids while claiming to be "environmentalists".

I don't want kids for this reason, and because I can't fathom why, now that we don't have to, so many women choose to do that to their bodies. For me, it's just not worth it. If I somehow develop a late-onset maternal instinct, I would try to adopt. Failing that, I would remain without children and volunteer more with groups working on kids' issues.

I understand if some people have an overriding biological desire to have a child; I just don't "get" it.

It's totally obvious that some areas have more resources than others and industries along with the government create communities and people settle down. There's not one area in the United States that is 100% self-supporting. You could have shit loads of water but not an ounce of minerals and precious metals.

It is mankinds blessing and perhaps a curse that we, more than the other animals, craft our own environments.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I live in AZ, and I think the idea is completely rediculous. As far as I know there was never any real push to do this.

Until the Enclosures, all village land in Britain was held in common.

Interestingly, that's still the case in several pre-Columbian villages in New Mexico - they hold the land in common, and every year they divvy it up so that everyone gets a mix of good and bad. And every year everyone gets together under the leadership of the oldest person in the village and they clean out the irrigation channels. What's particularly interesting is that disabled members of the village have full rights and obligations - but their obligations are satisfied by the rest of the village acting as their proxy. Their system goes back to prehistoric times, and is exactly how it used to work in Britain and in Europe (perhaps elsewhere too, but I don't know about that).

They made people have to live within natural limits, at least to some extent. But as the living situations grew, so did the need to import resources.

"What assumptions make it difficult or impossible for people to realize that human beings shouldn't be living in certain places if they're not willing to accept the natural limitations of the environment there?

For example, what assumptions are behind the belief that people who choose to live in arid places like the southwestern deserts are entitled to have water supplied to them from the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, etc.?"

We now live in a global world. Every place has to be increasingly standardized, or else globalization doesn't work. Production becomes inefficient.

"and every year they divvy it up so that everyone gets a mix of good and bad"

"For example, what assumptions are behind the belief that people who choose to live in arid places like the southwestern deserts are entitled to have water supplied to them from the Great Lakes, Mississippi River, etc.?"

It sounds like you answered your question.

I presume you live outdoors, and subsist on twigs and berries.

before the next monsoon/famine/blight/whatever hits.

It'd be a lot cheaper just to move the entire country someplace else than keep sending relief supplies.

I'm afraid I reject your premise. I happen to believe that natural limitations of the environment may efficiently and effectively be overcome as long as no one person or entity believes themselves to more entitled than any other person or entity-- regarldess of location.

For example, I feel that northern Americans who need the natural gas the most are just as entitled to the Barnett Shale production capacity in TX as Texans themselves (ourselves).

Although I'm the first to admit that to me, utilities (water, electricity, etc.) should be and can be shared by all-- regardless of ability to pay, proximity to the source, etc.

The idea that "man has dominion over the earth", as it says in the Bible, has been taken to mean that mankind can go live wherever he wants without thought of consequences. However, true dominion means taking responsibility for the care and welfare of the area. Somehow that is always forgotten.

what was called bottom land...in short, it was near a river and flooded annually. Farmers complained about the flooding, but had no problem with the very rich soil deposited every time the river went over its banks. I would never build a house there...but then, I wasn't a farmer.

drink coffee, eat peanut butter....?