Most people will admit that, even though we are doing nothing about them, the atrocities in Darfur, Burundi and the Congo are problems that should be dealt with. The difference between them and Iraq is that we actually DID something productive (you know, taking down Saddam). If we moved into Darfur to try and restore some concept of civilized living to them we would suddenly have a problem.
It seems to me like a bunch of big talk. "We should save Darfur!", everyone agrees. But no one is willing to stand up and do it, and if they do, everyone reverses their stand and says "It's not our business."
Iraq under Saddam and Darfur are similar. Not the same, no, but both have/had their reprehensible atrocities.
Really, a philosophy is what you make of it. Just because a well known "philosopher" takes issue with Ayn Rand, it doesn't mean she didn't have something to say. I don't really agree with her views, but, like most "philosophy", she has a few good points, and many that are totally off-base. However, if someone is devoted enough to read her material (particularly Atlas Shrugged, that takes serious devotion!) and agrees with her, that is their decision. They found something they feel works for them, so, more power to 'em.
Let's be honest, most philosophers are excellent at writing a lot, but saying nothing. And when they so say something, like Sartre does, you have to wade through the muck and circular reasoning to find out what is actually being said. Ayn Rand is no Kant, Heidegger, or Sartre, but at least she puts down her ideas in a way that is interpretable by the many. It's no surprise that so many people are drawn to it.
I thought the same thing myself. But, and again, I'm no environmental scientist, I considered the surface area compared to volume of the lake. If a lake rises a few feet, I would assume the surface area does not increase proportionately. Therefore, for water increased, the evaporation rate, which I assume is tied somewhat to surface area, would not increase in a proportionate manner. We would have more evaporation, yet it would still be an overall gain. Also, I considered the idea that with an increase in volume, the water temperature would decrease, even if only a little, due to having more water to heat. A lower temperature would inhibit, at least a little, evaporation.
As I am keen to state, I am only stating what seems logical to my uneducated (at least on this subject) mind. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Another problem I can speculate on is the issue the water providing companies may take. Just like the oild companies took issue with advances in alternative fuels, their could be a "Water Lobby" that takes issue with this. If people can supply themselves then they will no longer be needed. It is a bit far-fetched, but we've seen it before. Anyone who lives in an area which has de-regulated energy delivery knows that the big energy companies fought long and hard to prevent customers gaining some freedom for their needs.
Again, I used the word speculate. This isn't some set in stone prediction of mine. It just seems to be the way of the world. Whenever one group stands to lose money, they fight back.
I only post what appears logical to me, and then hope someone can correct me.
I would hope that it does not have adverse effects. This could be one of those things that with minor adoption, could have negligible impact. I can see how, with widespread use, it could possibly have an effect. I am, however, not an environmental scientist, so I can't work out the figures.
However, and this is all conjecture, could it be self-balancing? For example, if everyone used these to provide water to their home, wouldn't our current sources of water be used less? If we stop taking, say, a million gallons of water out of a lake a year, and instead take it from the air, the lakes would have more. The lake water may stay constant and assist the surrounding ecosystem.
Again, I'm not a scientist who can make accurate determinations. I can only throw out what seems logical, and hope someone corrects me.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be new here. . .
Let me be the first to welcome you to America.
Most people will admit that, even though we are doing nothing about them, the atrocities in Darfur, Burundi and the Congo are problems that should be dealt with. The difference between them and Iraq is that we actually DID something productive (you know, taking down Saddam). If we moved into Darfur to try and restore some concept of civilized living to them we would suddenly have a problem.
It seems to me like a bunch of big talk. "We should save Darfur!", everyone agrees. But no one is willing to stand up and do it, and if they do, everyone reverses their stand and says "It's not our business."
Iraq under Saddam and Darfur are similar. Not the same, no, but both have/had their reprehensible atrocities.
Really, a philosophy is what you make of it. Just because a well known "philosopher" takes issue with Ayn Rand, it doesn't mean she didn't have something to say. I don't really agree with her views, but, like most "philosophy", she has a few good points, and many that are totally off-base. However, if someone is devoted enough to read her material (particularly Atlas Shrugged, that takes serious devotion!) and agrees with her, that is their decision. They found something they feel works for them, so, more power to 'em.
Let's be honest, most philosophers are excellent at writing a lot, but saying nothing. And when they so say something, like Sartre does, you have to wade through the muck and circular reasoning to find out what is actually being said. Ayn Rand is no Kant, Heidegger, or Sartre, but at least she puts down her ideas in a way that is interpretable by the many. It's no surprise that so many people are drawn to it.
I thought the same thing myself. But, and again, I'm no environmental scientist, I considered the surface area compared to volume of the lake. If a lake rises a few feet, I would assume the surface area does not increase proportionately. Therefore, for water increased, the evaporation rate, which I assume is tied somewhat to surface area, would not increase in a proportionate manner. We would have more evaporation, yet it would still be an overall gain. Also, I considered the idea that with an increase in volume, the water temperature would decrease, even if only a little, due to having more water to heat. A lower temperature would inhibit, at least a little, evaporation.
As I am keen to state, I am only stating what seems logical to my uneducated (at least on this subject) mind. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Another problem I can speculate on is the issue the water providing companies may take. Just like the oild companies took issue with advances in alternative fuels, their could be a "Water Lobby" that takes issue with this. If people can supply themselves then they will no longer be needed. It is a bit far-fetched, but we've seen it before. Anyone who lives in an area which has de-regulated energy delivery knows that the big energy companies fought long and hard to prevent customers gaining some freedom for their needs.
Again, I used the word speculate. This isn't some set in stone prediction of mine. It just seems to be the way of the world. Whenever one group stands to lose money, they fight back.
I only post what appears logical to me, and then hope someone can correct me.
I would hope that it does not have adverse effects. This could be one of those things that with minor adoption, could have negligible impact. I can see how, with widespread use, it could possibly have an effect. I am, however, not an environmental scientist, so I can't work out the figures.
However, and this is all conjecture, could it be self-balancing? For example, if everyone used these to provide water to their home, wouldn't our current sources of water be used less? If we stop taking, say, a million gallons of water out of a lake a year, and instead take it from the air, the lakes would have more. The lake water may stay constant and assist the surrounding ecosystem.
Again, I'm not a scientist who can make accurate determinations. I can only throw out what seems logical, and hope someone corrects me.