Stranger things

[Taomeow]

14 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

Those dams were removed or demolished to give the water more space at places were that water has space to spread out without hurting human buildings. Same process is going on here in the Netherlands.

 

Without deliberate interventions/ water management the damage would have been worse

 

They told a different story in Spain though.  Supposedly the goal was to restore the fish migration routes.

 

A noble enterprise of putting the toothpaste back into the tube after it has been squeezed out.  

 

There's always a sensible, humane, kind and compassionate narrative accompanying every destructive intervention and every austerity.  I almost wish someone hired me to write such stories -- I can pump out as many as they need, as could anyone who's been trying her hand at sci-fi.  

Edited Monday at 09:59 PM by Taomeow

[Gerard]

In this case, we can apply the following principle put down by Rousseau:

 

"There are always four sides to a story: your side, their side, the truth and what really happened."

 

[Nungali]

Dams need to be in the 'right' place . Ask your beavers .

 

Here, that whole idea took a turn some time back . A farmer , like all the others in the  area had  some season watercourses  that in the dry season  didnt flow much , in the dry season , a flooded in the wet season  and that caused bank erosion  down stream floods.  In the dry and partially in the wet  the whole  small valley systems and the farms where dry  and  not too productive .

 

Of course , this being farmland , the whole area is 'unnatural '  ( especially considering the type of agriculture being practiced .) .

 

He stopped clearing out the streams and stopped animals entering . Then he started , not just repairing the riparian zones ( a common practice now ) but  dumping stuff in the streams on his property ; logs , old wood , organic detritus ... he totally 'clogged ' the waterways up .  Locals thought he was nuts and going overboard with it .  It slowed the water down and allowed it to seep out  underground through the whole valley . Some places pooled and made little wetlands . Birds and wild life came and diverse vegetation , more bees , etc .  After a few years his whole farm was green and lush even in the dry , healthy lush green pastures , while the other properties looked yellowed and brown and dry .

 

Yes, he lost a bit of 'usable ' land , but what he retained improved immensely and so did the health and condition of his environment and herd .

 

Many huge river systems get regulated naturally this way ; the Amazon , its a huge sponge in some places upstream  and the same dynamic in the headwaters  that feed the Nile do the same thing , supplying a constant flow during the dry season .

 

 

^ the greener parts

 

 

I am assuming large dams are, in part, for their water supply , especially those in areas of dense populations . Knock them out and what replaces the water source  "bank ' ?  Also . many dams exist and have incorporated designs to allow up and down stream fish migrations .    Why knock out a huge water supply  to allow the fish to go up and down , when, supposedly , both can be done ?

[Taomeow]

Scorched earth policies?  

[Nungali]

What to do when the head moderator starts doing 'stranger things'  ?   Not here , but on my history forum , which also covers many subjects .  I have noticed a developing 'unbalance' and now  he interjects into  topics, even with a sensitive nature   (like land dispossession of the indigenous ) and in the middle of sensible discussion ,  with silly one line comments, and irrelevant 'jokes' . OR he goes on some weird misunderstood rampage against peoples .   One person , who I know is NOT a racist  or anything like that  recently got a perma ban  for being racist .  Head MOD  even got modded by another mod recently , who I guess had had enough .of him. of course he laughed it off with a sarcastic comment .

 

I am tempted to start an 'historical ' thread there on the development of   despotism ... how if one person gets too much power , even if at first they seem good and fair , they will gradually, without any checks or balances ,   eventually become a despot .

 

In both cases , it seems , the rotation of  different people through the same  position helps to defend against this .

[Taomeow]

4 minutes ago, Nungali said:

What to do when the head moderator starts doing 'stranger things'  ?   Not here , but on my history forum , which also covers many subjects .  I have noticed a developing 'unbalance' and now  he interjects into  topics, even with a sensitive nature   (like land dispossession of the indigenous ) and in the middle of sensible discussion ,  with silly one line comments, and irrelevant 'jokes' . OR he goes on some weird misunderstood rampage against peoples .   One person , who I know is NOT a racist  or anything like that  recently got a perma ban  for being racist .  Head MOD  even got modded by another mod recently , who I guess had had enough .of him. of course he laughed it off with a sarcastic comment .

 

I am tempted to start an 'historical ' thread there on the development of   despotism ... how if one person gets too much power , even if at first they seem good and fair , they will gradually, without any checks or balances ,   eventually become a despot .

 

In both cases , it seems , the rotation of  different people through the same  position helps to defend against this .

 

A lousy head mod or any kind of lousy boss does screw things up more often than not -- but if the paradigm whereby they are selected/appointed/hired/voted in etc. doesn't change, rotation often makes only marginal difference.  What despotically rules us in most situations is a set of rules itself, and whoever is in charge of administering them can bend them only so far -- even with the best of intentions, which people who've sniffed the slightest whiff of power seldom maintain even if they had them before.  

[Taomeow]

I am anprim and I believe criticism of this particular paradigm always boils down to ad hominem -- people are criticized either for not already living that lifestyle, or else on the assumption they could never live up to their beliefs.  I find both arguments weak (like any and all ad hominem) -- and a strong one against this stance is something I'm yet to encounter.  

 

Pre-civilized societies -- synonymous with matriarchal -- were not unruly by any stretch of imagination, it's just that the rulers were natural.  When my kids were babies, I was their ruler.  Matriarch.  Supreme deity in charge of their every need.  Fading away from this position is also natural -- you don't rule over anyone whose needs you can no longer meet -- except to the extent they owe you a debt of gratitude for having met those needs in the past at personal sacrifice, back when they were weak and dependent on you and you were strong and not dependent on them.  Any other arrangement is unnatural. 

 

And the greatest number of people whose needs anyone can meet without skimping on love and devotion is seven, which is a fact of human psychology.  So any and all fathers/mothers/Big Brothers of the Nation, of the People, of the expandable/collapsible cage containing thousands, millions, billions of creatures is an usurper and a despot, no matter how nice they may seem in comparison to other despots in that position.       

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

I am anprim …

Me too.