view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Because the water would go where they want it to go. You just don't understand where they want it to go or why.
You think they want it to go to where the fires are. That's wrong.
They want it to go into the central valley to refill the giant lake and swamp ecosystem that used to be there.
They don't care about the short-term needs of people who need to drink or put out fires or grow crops. They are making decisions entirely from the perspective of longtermism. They see restoring the central valley's swamp ecosystem as the overwhelming long-term good, regardless of any short-term consequences.
Right idea, reckless implementation. It's also not clear that just dumping as much water as possible into the central valley is the best way to restore the swamp ecosystem. So much of the valley's hydrology and ability to retain water have been damaged since the cotton farmers drained the lake after the civil war. This is a restoration that needs to be done slowly and deliberately, both to not kill people who currently rely on that water and to manage the environmental impacts on the basin of suddenly reintroducing water that it's spent 150 years adapting to live without.
I have not seen any evidence of this plan, nor any long-term planning from the administration in general. Can you support this claim?
I make no claim of long-term planning.
Longtermism is a philosophy that Musk has been writing about for many years.
Elon isn't one for careful planning.
He is one for careless disregard of short-term consequences while seeking what he has determined to be a long-term good.
I have personally argued for restoring the central valley swamp ecosystem in California. Doing so should be a delicate task, because the valley is no longer hydrologically or morphologically tuned to swampland. The entire overland water transport hydrological system in the valley was redesigned by humans to support farmers in a dry basin decades after the cotton farmers drained it.
Just dumping water into what used to be the lakebed is reckless. It is an action taken with no long-term planning for rebuilding an ecosystem that emerged from the last ice age thanks to careful maintenance, gardening, and stewardship by indigenous peoples; building this ecosystem required human ingenuity and careful planning; so will rebuilding it. It is an action taken without even short-term planning for what happens to the water next as it refills a basin now adapted to dry conditions; it is one of our nation's agricultural powerhousen.
I believe that he thinks that just putting the water in the right place without anyone helping develop the new swamp ecosystem is enough to restore California's wetlands. Maybe he's right, on a long enough timescale. I think we should prefer to be careful and to work with the various relevant communities in that area to ensure that any further changes we make to this ecosystem are done responsibly.
I'm confused. Wasn't Trumps mission to drain the swap? Why is he now trying to fill it back up? Is he that old and senile he doesn't know what the plan is anymore?