End of Atlanta?

They say Atlanta’s main source of water only has 120 days of water left.

Within two weeks, Carol Couch, director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, is expected to send Gov. Sonny Perdue recommendations on tightening water restrictions, which may include mandatory cutbacks on commercial and industrial users.

If that happens, experts at the National Drought Mitigation Center said, it would be the first time a major metropolitan area in the United States had been forced to take such drastic action to save its water supply.

“The situation is very dire,” Mr. Hayes said.

What does this mean, you think? Is this the next big news story in America?

i doubt it. which, to my mind, is unfortunate. that might be enough to shock a lot of people out of their stupor were it highly reported.

It’s getting a shitload of traction. I don’t think it has really dunk in, it sounds like one of those fixable problems. Someone on Ishthink commented that Phoenix already imports its water. BUt they built that infrastructure as they built the city.

I believe Atlanta could be hit worse than New Orleans. It’s certainly a big story to follow, regardless of what the national entities think.

yes, that is a good point, i was thinking of it purely from a press point of view, but, yeah, it’s a big story no matter what the press does with it

I remember hearing about a drought in California (I think Los Angeles?) in the mid-to-late 80s, when the city had to enforce a water-usage limit. I was a little kid at the time, but that news still reached me, so I’d guess it was pretty big news.

Does anyone else remember this? Was it a big story?

Then again, a lot about mainstream media’s inner workings can change in 20 years.

Another article on the drought.

Under threat of yet-to-be-determined fines, public water systems in 61 counties will have to make the reduction based on what they used from December 2006 through March 2007 — winter months when demand already was low. The forced reduction will continue indefinitely. Farms are excluded.
The governor also sent a letter requesting President Bush temporarily exempt the state from the Endangered Species Act to reduce the release of water from Georgia reservoirs.

Our farms appear more important than a diverse number of species… who would have thought!?!

Oh also, Atlanta ain’t the only place where drought be hittin, yo:

Australia:

and

I welcome drought when it threatens grain farms and so on, in fact I think that is just what Saskatchewan needs, massive drought to displace all the farmers (and some of my relatives are farmers in SK) and for the whole place to go back to natural grassland or semi-desert and for the Bison to return to the land. When drought hits the disappearance of water is a shame but the sooner the destructive wheatfields and industrial agriculture are gone, the better IMO. Places like Australia were never meant to have wheat fields anyways, the land there is always rebelling against the farmers and tossing them this way and that, it’s a desert place not suited for farming wheat. The place was fine and people lived there well enough when it was full of bush tomatoes and indigenous fruits and nuts. Let the kangaroos, dingoes, desert shrubs and grasses and the people adapted to live in relation with them move in to replace, reclaim and re-wild the fields of wheat and farmers.

Places like Saudi Arabia and the small countries of the Gulf will be really hit hard in the future as they have already wasted or are in the process of wasting their precious ground water acquifers (which are the only source of fresh water on the peninsula) to farm wheat and create artificial waterworks to expand the population of the peninsula. Once the wheat is gone and importing food and desalinating seawater is not practical and possible the population levels will inevitably drop and much of the place will be abandoned although maybe some of the land can return to a sort of balance, but with all that water gone it will be harder for even a small percentage of people to live there like they did prior to the discovery of oil in that area.

you should never welcome any harm to anything, regardless of whether or not it achieves your goals.

this is cynical.

if you are in disagreeance that the ends justify the means, when they are ends you do not wish upon yourself, why is it okay to agree with means that justify the ends when they are ends you DO wish for yourself? DO you pretend to know what is right, and what is wrong, like so many failed civilizations that came before us?

I personally, could not band with someone of such opportunistic morals.

Of course, these people are literally, reaping what they sow. But is your ‘O’ that fire must be fought with fire?

The most compassionate course of action is approaching these farmers and suggesting a new way to be.

Hoping for drought and famine and loss of any life, regardless of the price you have put on it’s head, is evil. You are like tribe A, withholding information that could help tribe B, so that you may “reclaim” and “rewild” their resources, when they have died, or moved on.

Killing people, and hoping for death, are one in the same if you have anything that could help people.

There are many ways the conditions of drought can be averted, many ways to reverse the effects human civilization has on Mother Earth.

Your displaced Saskatoons will only become someone elses burden. The burden isn’t being lifted, it’s being concentrated. Do you now see how it would benefit YOU, directly, to drop one attitude, and adopt another?

Tonyz,

If you read my post carefully, taking care not to misconstrue my words, I am not proposing death for anyone or that people should go out and kill farmers. I never said I wanted my own farmer relatives to die, I am simply saying that drought can be nature’s way of bringing the land back into balance and re-establishing native flora and fauna in it’s place. I welcome that just as I welcome the return of wildlands in place of industrial agriculture which I believe is hopelessly out of balance.

If you disagree fine, but take note that I am not proposing anything here. I am not discussing morals or semantics or philosophy or any of that subject matter here nor am I talking about taking action against farmers or any of those things. I am talking about farmers being forced to leave the land and journey elsewhere because they can’t go crops there anymore, It’s happened before and will happen again, simply by nature taking “action”.

Just as weeds creep through the cracks in the concrete sidewalk in the city, nature is the best actionator and transformer. I am not advocating killing anyone by prefering wildlands to wheatfields, nor am I advocating killing anyone by welcoming the return of wildlands and weeds over wheat, soybeans, canola and other such monocrops.

I disagree with you so fundamentally, and so powerfully here, it challenges my ability to articulate.

I welcome what the world brings, whatever we may label - “harm”, or “evil”, or “wrong”, or “injustice”. I welcome it as I welcome the power of a life affirming universe. And when, due to circumstance, I find myself unable to welcome it, while feeling annoyed, or frustrated, or resistant, I fully expect the world to kick my ass.

this is cynical.

I call it beautiful, terrible, and unstoppable as my sister the hurricane. Or my grandmother the drought.

The most compassionate course of action is approaching these farmers and suggesting a new way to be.

This sentence, to me, illustrates why I don’t place much stock in the verb ‘to be’. I act compassionately, in the spirit of the moment. What does your judgement of my action (or Sandwalker’s) matter? What does the farmer’s paradigm matter? We all adhere to the laws of life, and the consequences follow.

Hoping for drought and famine and loss of any life, regardless of the price you have put on it's head, is [b]evil[/b].

The concept of ‘evil’ does come in really handy when you disagree with someone else, but perhaps more to maintain the disagreement, don’t you think? I don’t see it illuminating any understanding here.

nobody said there was anything ‘wrong’ with evil. hahaha! Is my Zen interrupting your Zen?

Why pray (“welcome”) for drought? Why affirm suffering?

You take things as they come, that’s a beautiful way to be.

But advocating suffering? Tell me how it’s not against the Law of Life?

Remember, it is the soft stem of a grass that survives the rigid winds.

We can bat back and forth and find deeper truths, but the knife is already plunged into the soil. It cannot be ‘unplunged’. The knife can only be removed.

My problem is that there are deeper issues, and perhaps this was the wrong time and place and process to discuss them.

But here’s my fundamental argument. We all are bodhisattvas in the making, locked up cultural heroes. Fundamentally we are burdened with a deep recognition of how this way of life isn’t working.

But to withhold judgment for everything BUT the Taker way of life, is to have never let it go.

Sandwalker, I had misplaced my ‘wrath’ and I thought a lot about what I said while taking my walk yesterday. So I came back and re-read what I wrote, and while I’m happy that I said what I said, I could have done a better job discussing the thing your comments made me think about, in general. However. there is one point I would like to make:

Places like Australia were never meant to have wheat fields anyways,

Life is meaningless. The only meaning it has is the meaning we bring to it. Ths is like saying Asia was never “meant” to have humans, or the Americas, for that matter. This is like saying Africa was never “meant” to have technology.

I realize, I’m a thorn in the side of many thought processes, and I do resolve to prick more exactly in the future, and learn to use the reason the gods gave me more rigidly.

Still, I stand by and say idleness is the devils playground. Doesn’t the devil already have enough greyspace?

You used the words ‘cynical’ and ‘evil’ to support your advocacy of action and feelings that Sandwalk (apparently) neither feels nor plans to do. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not your statement

you should never welcome any harm to anything

implies a sense of rightness or wrongness to welcoming harm. I don’t have an opinion on it. However, I do not equate ‘welcoming’ with ‘prayer’ in the sense you seem to mean it - visualizing into reality, working to make happen, etc. I imagine Sandwalker (and he can correct me if I got this wrong) will feel relief and a bit of joy when it happens. But praying for it?

Why pray ("welcome") for drought? Why affirm suffering?

Why does a drought equal suffering? Does a hurricane? Does a snowfall? Does a flu? I favor the saying, “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.” I will probably e-prime that sometime soon, I like it so much.

But advocating suffering? Tell me how it's [b]not[/b] against the Law of Life?

I don’t know. I didn’t see anybody here advocate that. Civilization obviously advocates it all the time.

But to withhold judgment for everything BUT the Taker way of life, is to have never let it go.

Judgement? Where does that enter it? Who judges? Sandwalker welcomed the drought. Civilization enrages me. I call it insane, mad, maniacally perverse. I know it does not work well for human people. But judge it? What, good or bad? Evil or a blessing? Right or wrong? Droughts, windstorms, earthquakes, bee-stings? Those powerful persons create and destroy life, as they have done since the beginning.

I realize, I'm a thorn in the side of many thought processes, and I do resolve to prick more exactly in the future, and learn to use the reason the gods gave me more rigidly.

haha. fair enough.

Still, I stand by and say idleness is the devils playground. Doesn't the devil already have enough greyspace?

But I don’t know what this means. I love idleness! You don’t?

I love your inqury and wisdom Willem, no matter how much I annoy you :wink:

I have been thinking about a better model, I mean, after all, aren’t we using a poor language model to try and describe something this language has fought against?

One thing that came to mind was not-enough, enough, and too much.

These are terms that are defined by the receiver, not by the labeler.

If one was not enough, then they should strive towards enough. If one has too much, then one should ease their own reigns, or give away until they have enough.

So in reference to above, originally when I was saying ‘evil’ or ‘idle’ or ‘cynical’ or ‘suffering’, I was referring to too much or not enough. (by the way, you do have a good axiom up there, how about, “always painful, hardly suffering” for english primitivity.

Cynical to me also means not enough optimism, it’s pointing to something out of balance. Unfortunately, I do recognize how it also sounds like 'you are THIS, and only THIS". Same thing with evil. It implies ‘not-good’, and neither good nor evil implies there is a balance of the two.

The joy is in farmers changing, I think. Not in the drought itself. If the farmers go and do the same thing, in another place, until they cause drought there, too, how is that net ‘joy’? (or, as I was saying above, how is that ‘enough’ rather than too much or too little?).

I think part of what doesn’t work within civilization is the constant striving to spending less time getting more things. What happens when you spend no time to get unlimited things? That is impossible. You have to spend at least some time to get many things. It’s obvious that civilization steals from every source in order to maximize this getting.

I also recognize the innateness of this striving, who would adopt the easy and let go of the difficult?

We have many behaviors, and I work on mine all the time, that relate to this ingrained thievery. As it relates to greyspace, I’m thinking of the literal greyspaces that appear when one brings up google maps. I’m thinking abut the spaces where no one takes a stand. I’m thinking about spaces where people don’t realize they don’t have ‘enough’.

I’m also thinking about myself, sitting at my mom’s house, waiting for my assignment to start in New Orleans. How I’m absorbing solar energy through coal-fired electric heat, rather than being outside. I’m thinking about how this appears ‘grey’, as opposed to red or blue, green or brown.

Grey is the color of indifference, of metal, of potentiality, even, but it is still only potential. I think we do a lot of bad things when we are idle, like say, myself, attack people on the basis of what they made me feel and think, rather than directly address my issues with specifically what they said. Of course, in verbal conversation, this all gets hashed out much more organically and compassionately…

I feel like I lose my ‘edge’ of clarity as an idle american. When I work and my body is not slouching, but reaching, I feel amazing, and am more clear, more blue, less grey. right now, I feel like I have have too much, I feel red, and grey, I feel my metal, my iron becoming overcharged, sparking at some pretty distant gaps.

I feel like many people, not handling their red or their blue very well, become grey, indifferent, and, although they reside in potentiality, even that potentiality begins to rust…

I feel like the daemons that plague our psyches are daemons that take away our red and our blue, our anger and our compassion, and instead, make everything grey.

We are a people of no energy at all. It’s all external, our life fire is in the middle of our grey machines, and not in our hearts. OUr blue, our compassion, is wrapped in grey metal pipes, rather than being help in our hands for a cool drink.

I am glad to have this opportunity to re-interpret and reflect on the nature and power of language. Thank you.

Pain comes inevitably, suffering comes optionally. (I love that saying, too. :))

Nice try. You just hid the “is” (to be) with ‘comes.’ I call that a hidden “to be.” I can still see the “is,” the “to be” in the calculation. Can you still make it sound 8) without hiding the “to be.” I find avoiding making hidden “to be” as one of my hardest exersices when trying to practice my e-prime. Feel free to correct me if I that doesn’t count as a hidden “to be” please anyone, I just started this stuff.

I didn’t hide it; I changed it by thinking about what pain actually does in this context. “To come” doesn’t mean the same thing as “to be”. Pain comes. It enters our lives whether we want it or not. We decide how to react to it. I kept the form of the b-english saying because I like it and because I don’t think you need to use 19 words when 6 will suffice.

Pain comes inevitably, suffering comes optionally.

I like this one too. Rephrasing that a bit, how about, “Pain comes inevitably, suffering does not need to accompany it.”

Ooh! I love it Starfish, Neighbor, Locke! I’d like to try too.

How about, “You feel Pain, but you choose suffering.”

Tonyz, thanks for the thoughtful and kind response, I’ll try to answer it soon here.

Today reminds me why I love rewild.info.

Yeayuh, and it seems to me that only when one feels the pain fully without trying to run from it or block it out that they don’t suffer because of it. Pain comes, accept it or suffer.