this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
507 points (92.7% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9756 readers
1584 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Late stage capitalism: where they decide someone owns the fucking rain.

[–] barfplanet@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Water rights are the opposite of late stage capitalism. It's silly to enforce when we're talking about a residential rain barrel, but when we're talking on much larger scales is critical. When creeks are drying up because landowners are building catchment ponds, water rights start to look pretty good.

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It's because Colorado water law is based on 'prior appropriations'.

Colorado was settled around mining and ranching, both of which can be water-intensive. It's also a fairly dry place. Water rights have been serious business for a long time.

So the rule was that the first person there had the right to start using river water for their mine. Then, if a second person starts a mine upstream, they had the right to use river water only inasmuch as it didn't impact the prior downstream mine. If there was a drought, the upstream mine had to use less water so the earlier mine wasn't impacted. Rain barrels were prohibited because that water "belonged" to some downstream rights holder, just as using the water from a stream might be prohibited because it belongs to a downstream rights holder.

This isn't really late-stage capitalism. The law in Colorado goes back to some court cases in the 1870s and 1880s.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's unfortunate that you have like four up votes for explaining the actual History behind it but the guy who just thinks it's an issue that popped up ten years ago has dozens.

[–] greywolf0x1@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure how upvotes are relevant here considering the time difference between both comments is about 11 hours.

Also, how much does the ratio of ups and downvotes on a post or comment influences your thought on the subject matter?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah, but Colorado isn't a desert where people struggle for clean water in the best of times...

And I'm pretty sure the only thing downstream of Gaza is the ocean

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Doesn't Gaza rain dump into th ocean? It's not like Israel is using the runoff.

I call gencide shenanigans.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It's kind of late-stage capitalism since Marx declared capitalism to be in its late stage back in 1860

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

But muh narrative

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, I mean, it isn't entirely illogical... If I lived somewhere that always got approximately the same amount of water year over year but then suddenly my neighbor started straight up "stealing it all" straight out of the sky I might would be pissed too.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sometimes you have to think about broad impact when developing policy. Sure, laws against rain collection seem draconian on the individual scale, but if a large percentage of the population collected rainwater, reservoirs and water tables can be seriously affected. Not saying this specific Israeli action is justified, but there are valid limitations on water collection put in place to ensure everyone has access.

It would be substantially worse if there were no such limitations in place, and whoever owned the land that drained into communal reservoirs could privately control the water supply of a region.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It would be substantially worse if there were no such limitations in place, and whoever owned the land that drained into communal reservoirs could privately control the water supply of a region.

It would be fucking Nestlé again

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Everything I dislike is late stage capitalism, and I dislike anything I don't understand"

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You better watch out what you use your allotted amount of air for or you may not be granted another ration next week.