A recent
NYTimes article informs us about the Chinese plan to redirect massive amounts of water to their dry north from their wet south. Here are two reader comments that show how stories can be points of contact or rather insulators between individuals, their experiences, values, and beliefs:
Sandy Lewis
Lewis Family Farm, Essex, New York (20 votes)
Edward Wong's account of China's Army Corps equivalent offers many lessons. LA is one. There are hundreds of others.
When man seeks to conquer his environment, duck. Mother Nature wins, sooner or later.
No dam will last forever. No canal will last. Nothing man builds will outlast Mother Nature.
When we oppose the forces of nature, we defy logic. It is so much easier to work with nature - and allow the natural order of things.
Many feel organic farming is a passing fad, a joke, simply silly. Well, it's cheaper, it's better, it's more tasty, and it's healthy for the soils, rivers, estuaries, oceans and atmosphere. And it's smarter by far.
The chemical giants have their need, the children have theirs.
Similarly, drought in China is but the message.
Hubris is expensive stuff. Always fails, sooner or later.
China is old, China is young, China is a despotic dictatorship, corrupt top down.
The Chinese people do not vote. The Chinese people are cannon fodder for the ruling class.
This is totalitarianism. The scale of things in China dwarfs all others.
The scale of the failure in China will dwarf all others.
There is no question where this stuff will end.
There is only the question of when.
End it will - in disaster.
Mankind needs to learn, again and again. It's almost as if there is no memory, no inherent logic.
Animals know more that we.
Anonymous
Seattle, WA (6 votes)
Your facile and percussive claims about mother nature don't change the way the world works. Your little paragraphs remind me of the things a child might throw around because he can't have more candy: they're not only futile, but embarrassing. Let me explain how the world works. I'll use the nice, simple sentences of which you and your ilk are fond:
We use science to make plants grow better. Science lets us grow more food on the same amount of land.
Without science, we would have less food. The remaining food would be a lot more expensive. We would use a lot more land to grow food. Land that is used for growing food can't be forests or parks or wetlands for migrating songbirds.
Organic farming makes farmers till the soil to get rid of weeds. Tilling makes the topsoil easier to wash away. The topsoil can't be replaced. Half of Iowa is already gone. Plants need topsoil to grow. Without topsoil, there is no food. Starvation is not good for children and other living things.
We need water. We know how to bring water from places with more than enough to places that do not have enough. That is a good thing. When water goes from a high place to a low place, we get free electricity by building a dam. Dams need to be fixed once a while. They work fine if we take care of them. If people like you let us.
You believe that mother nature a nice old lady would provide for us if we just talk to her. But actually, she's fierce. It's taken thousands of years to tame her. You don't appreciate that because you live in an age when we've thoroughly subdued nature. Hubris is substituting your confidence for evidence. Nature worship qualifies.
I hope the Chinese water project is a success. We should pay attention to what they're doing. We're going to need to build projects like theirs ourselves soon. Our cities don't run on antibiotic-free heirloom free-range chickens. The water mains don't need massages and soft world music. They need water.
Science is the only thing that stands between chatting with friends in warm houses and shivering in the dark while wondering what we did to make an angry god punish us with lightning. Using reason to make our lives better is not evil. It's not bad. Technology is wonderful.
What's the Solomonic way out of this conundrum? I'm afraid it's one own's experience, for we rarely exhibit signs of learning. Nothing wrong with experience in itself, except that it's costly.