His unsubstantiated claim was in reply to another unsubstantiated claim. And now your reply is an ad hominem, claiming people are getting paid for "shilling" on this thread.
Why are these discussions always so plagued with shallow fanboys?
So it's sustainable from the day you start doing it until the day you run out of water and the crops die. Then it becomes unsustainable until there's more water. You get more water by importing it or when the drought ends. When you get more water, it becomes sustainable again. If you develop the water supply infrastructure so there's always enough water, then it's always sustainable.
I'm not being obtuse. I object to the obviously these farmers are stupid thinking and the completely unthinking sustainable/unsustainable buzzword labeling.
Getting water from place to place is a straightforward engineering problem. You can get water anywhere. There's a cost/benefit analysis needed to determine whether or not to do it. Snarky know-it-all-ism and parroting buzzwords on internet message boards is not really a substitute for a cost/benefit analysis.
If farming in the desert was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about this drought issue.
If walking was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about people in wheelchairs. If taxing people was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about government budget problems. If putting murderers in prison was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about people getting murdered.
Except if you can get water. Then it becomes good. Why are you arguing against growing crops one place vs. another place? The tradeoffs are fairly clear. The guy who decides whether or not to plant crops can probably make the right choice without your help.
How do you know the right level of water in an aquifer? Also, what makes growing food "absurd" vs. leaving water unused in an aquifer?
Isn't the "inevitable conclusion" that people and/or agricultural activity will have to be exported or more water will have to be imported? Shouldn't the individuals directly impacted get to decide which one they prefer based on the benefits and costs? If it legitimately costs more to grow crops than the crops are worth, the farmer is going to give it up.
Why not find a way to supply the water people need? Why shouldn't everyone who is willing to pay the transportation costs be able to use as much water as they want?
If you have good land, but it lacks water, then you find a way to add water, and then you can grow food there. Useless land becomes valuable and people can eat. You are apparently against this. Why?
The other people -- puritans? -- on this thread were trying to deny the pleasant effect exists at all. Just because something pleasant can become addictive doesn't mean it was never pleasant.
Someone "logical" would weigh the benefits (pleasure) against the costs (addiction) rather than taking an extreme puritanical approach.
My grandmother is 95-years-old. If she wanted to start smoking or start taking drugs for the "undeniable initial high", should I tell her not to? Do you think she'll regret it 20 years from now?
If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.
"Probably" indicates more likely than not. Do you have any statistics to indicate that an average 82-year-old male without COPD is "more likely than not" to live to 90 or 95? I don't think you do.
People have been smoking tobacco for about 1000 years now. Why do you think they started doing that? How far up your own ass would you have to be to deny even the possibility of a pleasant neurochemical effect?
This chemical enters the blood and after about seven seconds, it enters the brain, affecting exactly the same dopamine receptors, giving the brain the message that a rewarding activity has just been performed. Smokers report a feeling of calmness and mild euphoria when they have a puff of a cigarette.
Leonard Nimoy is 82 and he probably has a few more years ahead of him. Was he planning on living to be 1000 years old?
Smoking has pluses and minuses. News flash: people like to smoke, just like they like drinking alcohol and using other substances. Ask a heroin user whether he likes heroin -- he loves it. So it's not illogical to take heroin, but it's a choice that can have a negative long-term effect.
If you're already 82, like Leonard Nimoy, you might want to try smoking. Or heroin. The benefits are immediate. And you probably won't live to experience the consequences.
Stop having any interaction at all with government school teachers. They aren't to blame for anything. There's nothing they can do. About anything. Ever. So they're of no particular use to you.
If you care about them, you'll teach your own children. Or find a school or a teacher who works for you, answers to you, and can be held responsible by you.
Slashdot Mirror
His unsubstantiated claim was in reply to another unsubstantiated claim. And now your reply is an ad hominem, claiming people are getting paid for "shilling" on this thread.
Why are these discussions always so plagued with shallow fanboys?
None. They didn't produce anything or work to earn their money at all. They inherited it.
How many of them predicted zero warming between 1998 and 2013?
The temperature data doesn't have a motive.
It's pretty easy to "predict" temperature trends in years that have already gone by.
So it's sustainable from the day you start doing it until the day you run out of water and the crops die. Then it becomes unsustainable until there's more water. You get more water by importing it or when the drought ends. When you get more water, it becomes sustainable again. If you develop the water supply infrastructure so there's always enough water, then it's always sustainable.
I'm not being obtuse. I object to the obviously these farmers are stupid thinking and the completely unthinking sustainable/unsustainable buzzword labeling.
Getting water from place to place is a straightforward engineering problem. You can get water anywhere. There's a cost/benefit analysis needed to determine whether or not to do it. Snarky know-it-all-ism and parroting buzzwords on internet message boards is not really a substitute for a cost/benefit analysis.
And droughts are almost always temporary.
I'm sure they'll stop as soon as President Bush is finally out of office.
If farming in the desert was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about this drought issue.
If walking was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about people in wheelchairs. If taxing people was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about government budget problems. If putting murderers in prison was viable, we wouldn't be running articles about people getting murdered.
Except if you can get water. Then it becomes good. Why are you arguing against growing crops one place vs. another place? The tradeoffs are fairly clear. The guy who decides whether or not to plant crops can probably make the right choice without your help.
What are the inputs and outputs that must be sustained for something to be judged "sustainable"? At what levels? For how long? Why?
"Sustainable" is just a buzzword. Try thinking about things instead of parroting buzzwords.
How do you know the right level of water in an aquifer? Also, what makes growing food "absurd" vs. leaving water unused in an aquifer?
Isn't the "inevitable conclusion" that people and/or agricultural activity will have to be exported or more water will have to be imported? Shouldn't the individuals directly impacted get to decide which one they prefer based on the benefits and costs? If it legitimately costs more to grow crops than the crops are worth, the farmer is going to give it up.
Please define "unsustainable" in this context.
Lots of people want lots of things. So what?
Please define "sustainable" in this context.
There's no need to pretend. It's a farm when you water crops. It's not a farm when you don't.
Are you against planting crops too?
Why not find a way to supply the water people need? Why shouldn't everyone who is willing to pay the transportation costs be able to use as much water as they want?
So you're against watering crops then?
If you have good land, but it lacks water, then you find a way to add water, and then you can grow food there. Useless land becomes valuable and people can eat. You are apparently against this. Why?
The other people -- puritans? -- on this thread were trying to deny the pleasant effect exists at all. Just because something pleasant can become addictive doesn't mean it was never pleasant.
Someone "logical" would weigh the benefits (pleasure) against the costs (addiction) rather than taking an extreme puritanical approach.
My grandmother is 95-years-old. If she wanted to start smoking or start taking drugs for the "undeniable initial high", should I tell her not to? Do you think she'll regret it 20 years from now?
If he didn't have COPD, he'd probably live another 5 or 10 years longer than whatever he's got.
"Probably" indicates more likely than not. Do you have any statistics to indicate that an average 82-year-old male without COPD is "more likely than not" to live to 90 or 95? I don't think you do.
People have been smoking tobacco for about 1000 years now. Why do you think they started doing that? How far up your own ass would you have to be to deny even the possibility of a pleasant neurochemical effect?
Here's a quote an article:
Leonard Nimoy is 82 and he probably has a few more years ahead of him. Was he planning on living to be 1000 years old?
Smoking has pluses and minuses. News flash: people like to smoke, just like they like drinking alcohol and using other substances. Ask a heroin user whether he likes heroin -- he loves it. So it's not illogical to take heroin, but it's a choice that can have a negative long-term effect.
If you're already 82, like Leonard Nimoy, you might want to try smoking. Or heroin. The benefits are immediate. And you probably won't live to experience the consequences.
Then they would have to stop fund-raising and find productive jobs.
Stop blaming the teachers...
Stop having any interaction at all with government school teachers. They aren't to blame for anything. There's nothing they can do. About anything. Ever. So they're of no particular use to you.
If you care about them, you'll teach your own children. Or find a school or a teacher who works for you, answers to you, and can be held responsible by you.