Discuss: Calamity on the Colorado

My bad…14 Million people. Human beings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10896849

We harness nature to prevent it from killing us. Have you seen people? They’re frail, no outer shell, poor sense of smell, limited vision, lizard brain…all we have is creative thought to protect us.

Bx - Interesting perspective.  I, too, love people(though I admit not in general, but specifically).  In general?  I really believe that people who are so greedy that they will develop settlements(for others) in lands where nature is hostile to such an invasive species should be held accountable.

Nature WILL seek balance; it’s….well, it’s one of the laws of nature! But people?  If we are so damned smart - then why do we still(as a whole) continue to bang our heads against the wall, trying to force dominion over a force which will not be dominated?

@ BXcapricorn
“It’s easier to have someone like Powell make unsubstantiated statements disguised as science.”
James Powell serves as Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush both appointed Powell to the National Science Board, where he served for twelve years.

This isn’t a scientific journal. Make fun of the messenger if you wish, but you don’t even use your real name for your blather. Thousands who die in floods and the inconvenience of a wild river will seem a worthwhile trade compared to what’s coming for Tucson, Phoenix, Vegas, LA et al. And for what? The unmitigated greed of a few of the wealthiest among us.

The irrigation systems of California and Washington are not the great boon they are made out to be, even without taking siltation into consideration. They contributed mightily to the destruction of small-scale agriculture in this country, and we will wish we had those farmers and those family farms (in places where it actually rains) back in production before very much more time passes.

And the dry southwest promises to become even drier.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-12-ucs-article-drought-tracker

I offer you merely links that prove that having an opinion, like the ones proposed by this organization:

http://www.internationalrivers.org/south-asia/pakistan

help impede the development of a series of Pakistani dams. We’re now well beyond the 100,000 displaced people this organization warned of when Tarbela Dam was built. Instead we have a country with 20M people displaced, the fear that 3.5M people will contract cholera, and International aid that cannot possible arrive fast enough. Will the well-meaning people that blocked the efforts of others, ever take responsibility for their actions? I support the cause of protecting this river’s ecosystem but you cannot cherry pick problems, and choose humanity last, each and every time. Sometimes taming a wild river makes the most sense. The dire predictions about SW cities may come true over time, if there is no agreed upon development moratorium, but Lake Powell will not fill with silt in your lifetime, nor your grandchildren’s lifetime. Better to concentrate your thinking in the reality facing Third World countries like Russia, Pakistan, etc.

Your faith in technology to solve all our problems is touching, if contrary to the historical record. While it may be comforting to ascribe our relative prosperity over the past century to our clever little monkey brains, in reality, it’s due to the bounty of cheap energy we’ve lucked into. And now, like the monkey in the parable, we seem to be refusing to open our fists and let go so we can extricate ourselves.  Words like hubris and overshoot are appropriate.

The American southwest is facing huge problems that will surface in our lifetime. How much death and destruction? Depends on how soon we let go of our failed paradigm and start working on real long-term solutions. Given the American public’s turn towards xenophobia and scapegoating, (for a view of where that’s headed you might read Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers,” 1951)  it’s unlikely the migrants out of Phoenix and LA will receive warmer welcomes than the Okies did in California.

Your concern for the people of Pakistan is also touching. But building dams will not help them, as they won’t work as advertised and will send them deeper into debt peonage. Much of their current predicament, which includes the destruction of economic systems that had existed for centuries, and a changed climate that is now drowning them,  is due to our past machinations. Supposedly to help them, but in fact all done so the rich could get richer at their expense.

Your (and Wise Use’s)  version of “putting people first,” will result in not much of anything surviving, especially people.

http://lakepowell.org/page_two/information/Myths/myths.html

Don’t get me wrong; I despise this dam. But this doesn’t make me want to invent tales about it.

I’m confused by this line: “All things being equal, to fill a Lake Powell of 2 million acre-feet with sediment will take not 700 years but about 55 years. And all things won’t be equal.”

OK, but that is at dead pool. I assume if the dam is at dead pool, and filled with sediment, all that water on top of the sediment will be higher then than dead pool level, no?

That said, I’m not sure I’d trust the “friends of lake powell” for their data.

I find the discussion here fascinating because it reveals something about the way we argue against things that harm the environment. We cannot ground our arguments in some view of nature that is essentially a “first principle” as it is called in philosophy, a principle that is transcendental, unarguable, an unquetionable given.

For example, nature does not “seek balance.” For one, balance is a concept we impose upon nature; for two, there are views of nature that challenge the assumption that it seeks balance. Is the process of evolution one of balance? Some would say it is one of repeated destruction, extinction and eradication of what exists. Is the predator prey relationship one of balance? We might think so, since wolves keep bunny populations in check, but does the bunny think of his death as a balancing act? I’d bet not.

One could easily argue that nature seeks nothing. It is indifferent. You can impose your spiritualities on nature, and pretend “she” is a “spirit” or “mother” or has some god-like force or will.

Which doesn’t mean that it’s not a shame that ecosystems are damaged and species sent to extinction by the actions of humans.

Frankly, I like the idea of nature as a force or pure destruction. Let it destroy that hideous dam!