Hacker News Reader

Can't agree that the poppy farmers aren't thinking long term. Abusing the aquifer is the nash equilibrium. As soon as one person starts pumping everyone else has to too, because the water will be gone soon either way. This is a collaboration failure more than some sort of ignoring the long term for the short term.

Isn't that a clear example of the Tragedy of the Commons? I mean, if access to the aquifer required the replenishment of it as a barrier of entry wouldn't that in turn mitigate the issue? For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured, something Colorado only recently allowed, and pumped back into the aquifer? Enforceability becomes the real issue, but having lived most of my Life in CA and in CO in the US, Water wars are REAL and I only see them getting more serious unless we come up with better desalination techniques and processes in the immediate future.

My chemistry professor was saying in the mid 2000s that water had already become the new Gold.

>> For example, requiring that 1:1 rainwater be recaptured

Collection of rainwater is never an option in farming. The reason they are irrigating is because there isn't enough rain. To capture enough rain to facilitate irrigation requires devices as large or larger than the fields to be irrigated. Rain barrels aren't enough. Agriculture measures water in acre-feet.

So you turn field B into a pond to hold water for field A. How deep is that pond? If it is only a couple feet you will loose all your water to evaporation. You need deeper water. You need a dam. So you better be good at concrete retaining walls, or hope there is a convenient river valley on your plot.

Rainwater harvesting is not very efficient with a rain barrel. There are much better design patterns for harvesting rain:

1. To scale, you are really trying to capture water in the soil itself

2. This means taking advantage of terrain features to manage patterns of flow. The idea here is to slow down flow so that it cycles through the planting areas so that the water can infiltrate instead of running off.

3. Mosquitos is a problem if pooling remains for more than three days. The solution here is to add organic compounds (mulching) to cover the areas being pooled. It effectively makes the water go below the surface, and have the added benefit of carrying composting nutrients deeper into the soil.

4. Soil’s ability to hold water depends upon a number of factors. Among them is how much carbon material is there, which includes the remains of root systems. Living, healthy soil will act as a sponge and release water to the plant as needed.

5. So protecting soil erosion is a huge part of conserving water. If the rain is carrying off soil because it is running off too fast, there is never a build up of soil to act as a sponge.

6. You may need to plant more than a monocrop. At least plant ground cover to protect the farm’s soil fertility.

7. Certain soil amendments can have lasting effect on its ability to absorb water. Biochar — charcoal that have been prepared in a way to make it suitable for plants — have the property of absorbing water and releasing it as needed. They also form habitats for microbes and fungi, which can also enhance plant growth.

8. Heavy fertilizing may be contributing to soil loss. They don’t help accumulate the kind of properties that help soil absorb water.

Here is an example paper about it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biolog...

It is not as if this stuff is not well known

> Collection of rainwater is never an option in farming.

I used to be a Farm Manager, and did a 3 year apprenticeship in Biodyniamic Ag.

I know of very few crops that can remain fallow/non-irrigated and still do well come harvest, they exist but are hardly going to be widespread much less in AZ. And while there are practices that can be undertaken to conserve water (cover crops, large scale mulching, drip irrigation) all of which I have personal experience in utilizing, this was more about how to ensure the barrier of entry is excluded to those who would otherwise just deplete it in a tragedy of the commons manner.

Let me explain in more detail.

My idea was based on the following: to initially access the aquifer you must install another metered pump that must remain in operation and re-pump an equal amount that you pumped out of the table in earlier seasons throughout the year/season back into the source and failing to return it will not just incur costs/penalties but also deny you access to it.

When I was a Farm manager in Maui we had a similar issue with nearby dry land Taro growers, as a Biodynamic farm we have more active cultures with various water needs, so we had a large reservoir (20000 gallon capacity tank attached to a sand sand based filtration system) that ensured we could remain operational for extended periods of time of drought as we captured rain water as a ritual, but we could also replenish the source if need-be and often did to purge and clean the tanks. They can get moldy due to stagnation, and water is very important in Biodynamics, specifically that which if it is perturbed--its mainly just for water aeration.

The water source we captured from was a creek that came from Haleakala and was gravity fed to our cultures so it was considered sacred, and we were Haoles so we always had to make an even greater effort to maintain good relations with our Native neighbors. Nothing was ever good enough, but we did it anyway.

That meant fixing their neglected or poorly built dams/jetty, and offsetting their water needs when Maui electric shut off the water sources for maintenance and went way longer then they projected (Welcome to Hawaii!).

I lost all of my greenhouse starters so that our neighbors could have water that season and have something to bring to Market and I emptied my tank several times to do so and had to get creative about how I'd water my other active cultures with rain water and had to make due to continue to bring product to Market in order to keep our 1:1 profit sharing model with our vendors/produce managers.

We would was always be seen as foreigners taking resources, despite having been the only Farm on the Islands to take in people with special needs as part of our Program (Camphill), who we built an Art Studio for and then bought a large Home for that took money from our Ag program I was supposed to be managing. And after many 70+ work weeks we finally made them profitable for the first time in their entire existence proving the model can work, but requires EXTENSIVE amounts of hard-work, dedication, and sacrifice.

We often gave away any excess food we couldn't sell or had on hand after we fed our staff to the local food bank. I lost money that year as I had to stop getting paid after my 7th month there, and I often had to fight the Department of Ag in audits so much that I just paid out of pocket to finish the irrigation system myself.

I also made an effort to hire local people, of all colours, rather than my initial desire to take on European applicants who were already trained and I could take them on as non-paid apprentices working the 40+ work weeks, as I had.

I realized it was a lost-cause and that racism/exclusion is prevalent and cannot work due to issues that extend far before my Time there, so I resigned and left on a high (despite massive burn-out) only to be given an affirmation of Pono as I left from Maui.

The point is that collaboration with your neighbors is far more important than any water conserving or well mentioned actions ever will be. And that is how this how sustainability should be approached.

Because the truth is, Nestle has been doing this for some time, some large Multi-national could just show up buy the source, deplete what was there and then walk away and use the losses as a tax write-off. Then come back and buy back all the surrounding area in distress for cheap and recover any costs and hold it in their portfolio as assets to leverage in some other capacity.

The simplest solution would be to charge a fair price for water since the vast majority of water is used for farming. But since most corporate farms have multi-decade long water contracts, this isn't possible (aka you must legislate, which would also benefit corporate farms).

This is what happened in India. As aquifers have been depleted, people in many areas there are struggling to get drinking water. Once upon a time, people used to get drinking water from dug wells even in the summer. Now, there is no water even at 600 feet.

I saw a promotional video about harvesting rainwater made by an Indian non-profit. Have you seen that one?

I was describing alternative ways to get water rather than draining the aquifer, as well as long term effects of flooding the market with opium. I do not think the Nash equilibrium describes that.

Unfortunately, it does.

A farmer can convert now, and pay the extra price of doing so, while missing out on the easier aquifer water.

Or, they can do what everyone else does: pump now, then convert when their hand is forced.

Absent some group collaboration, this bad deal is the correct choice: anything else would be worse for an individual farmer.

That's a Nash equilibrium.

Not addressing the short vs long term thinking about opium, since it's unrelated, but I don't think your analysis is correct; the Pashtuns have been growing this crop for literally thousands of years.

That is a lot to think about. I did not know what a Nash equilibrium is. I don’t have an immediate answer to this. I only have some vague notions that the alternatives I am thinking of does not cost as much as it is perceived, and conversion strategies may not require a large investment with an immediate opportunity cost. In other words, not all viable strategies are known by the actors.

I tried looking up information on the Pashtuns and pre-modern cultivation of opium. So far, I have only found articles and papers talking about significant cultivation since the 1950s. I have found articles describing this as a fairly complex issue.

I am interested in understanding the traditional farming practices of the Pashtuns, and how and why it changed. Is there anything written about that you know off the top of your head?

You don't need to worry about the Nash equilibrium. What happens in many cases is that short-term rationality trumps the long-term rationality. When neighbors are making more money; when neighbors are sending their kids to good schools; when neighbors are doing better; it is irrational of one to harvest rain water to recharge groundwater.

Thank you for your view. I am trying to practice keeping an open mind, or at least, think through things from different perspectives. It also helps me to communicate better.

I think another point that the Nash equilibrium brings up is that all actors are non-cooperative. I thought I was making a point that self-interest would make rainwater harvesting rational.

I think rainwater harvesting is rational, having seen good designs, and what it can do. It may even cost less than the solar panels, pump, digging out a reservoir, and the drilling... but I don’t think I know the exact numbers to make that kind of comparison.

There is also an assumption that you choose between one or the other, rather than a succession, where one method is employed in the small scale and gradually replaces the other.

Another issue is whether it would scale.

I had not even brought up how specific soil amendments and practices can greatly increase the water retention ability of the water —- which is also a part of rainwater harvesting.

I don’t know how well rainwater harvesting scale to industrial agriculture. I _think_ it can be scalable. Looking at the harvesting practices, you are scarring the head and collecting the sap. So it probably does not require planting in a way to optimize for using a combine to harvest.

Finally, I also recall the farmer’s mindset. I was watching this show about American farmers. One thing they say a lot is how they make gambles. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. (Which I can say a lot about with regenerative agriculture that is also resilient against a single point of failure). So introducing new practices is risky for the farmer, and they would probably rather build on what they know works. As such, they would narrow their perceived viable choices, and it gets to the conditions for the Nash equilibrium.

Yes, it is non-cooperative. Cooperation works when there is cooperation in every other area, not just rainwater harvesting.

Will the neighbor's child, who has become a multi-millionaire, help another neighbor, whose kids are not as fortunate as that kid? I ask this question, not to bring in some silly contrast.

There is a deeper issue, since Arrow's impossibility theorem is shown to be equivalent to a special case of the Nash Equilibrium. As a consequence, Arrovian dictator (in social choice framework) is equivalent to shared compromise in Nash cooperative game. Unless there is a dictator to force cooperation, it is just a talk.

In an extreme, where everyone is poor and struggling for drinking water, you can see some cooperation. As long as the gravy train runs, one just milks it.

I think that depends on the mindset on what wealth is, and that the current, prevailing mindset has been conditioned. It isn’t as if such conditioning can cannot change.

I think there will always be some people who are going to be ruthless, but by and large, I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people.

> I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people.

It's interesting that you think this, as there really isn't a large body of strong examples of this behaviour. The person you were responding to came pretty close to something optimistic (there are solutions) but still realistic (most people are not nice to strangers).

The problem isn't farmer's, it's the breathless tone of the journalist who seems to know nothing about aquifer depletion.

Classic capitalism-aggrandizing faux-environmentalism.

You have a good argument about the aquifer.

That growing poppies is dumb because it will kill off all your customers is a bad argument for two reasons.

1. The heroin market has proven sustainable for generations.

2. Even if suddenly no one wants heroin anymore, the farmer can plant a different crop the next season.

1. That does not mean that heroine is a positive influence in the world that helps nourish people’s physical and emotional health.

2. It isn’t about whether you can adapt and find a different crop to grow. It is that you are growing something that helps things go into a degenerative, rather than a regenerative feedback loop.

You're making ethical arguments. That's good for discussing what people should do.

However, we live in a world where entities often do not make ethical decisions. They make practical decisions: should I grow coca or coffee beans? The gang with guns wants me to grow coca, and they are willing to kill people who don't work for them... so I guess I grow coca. You can wish for them to be dead heroes, but that's not how you should bet.

At a larger scale, ethics don't win over profits. There are for-profit prison corporations. I bet they have very well thought-out corporate mission statements.

If you want to talk about why people make the decisions they do, you need to think about psychology and economics. If you want to talk about how people can be supported to make better decisions, you need to talk about politics and economics.

I think if I were talking about small groups of people where much of the food production is done onsite, and there is a higher cooperation locally, this can be done. It has been done, even in just a regular neighborhood. I am not necessarily talking about changing large agricorps or policy changes.

Growing poppies has been consistently profitable for decades and is likely to remain profitable for the foreseeable future as the demand has yet to decrease.

It is true, however, that as the supply increases the likelihood that some consumers (namely addicts) won't be able to purchase any future batches increases as well (due to overdose, loss of income, etc). The market will likely reach an equilibrium eventually. Increases in supply have been met with increases in sales so the equilibrium hasn't been reached. This hasn't been a relevant consideration so far and there is no indication that it is now relevant. As such, it is hardly irrational or dumb to grow poppies at the moment.

The morality of the practice is another concern entirely. It is notable, however, that they do have legitimate medicinal applications.

As the article says

  So much water is now being used that ground water levels in Helmand are estimated to be falling by 3m a year.
  The fear is that pretty soon the water will simply run out.
  "Maybe this boom will not last longer than 10 years," says Orzala Nemat, who runs the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, the country's biggest think tank.
  That won't just affect the people who have moved into the desert areas, she says. It will affect the entire region.

Yes eventually. Pima and Cochise counties are also similarly in trouble. Many rain collection techniques are really just starting to take off in Arizona. But they are also short sighted. You can tell when you listen to the radio there, news daily about the Colorado river problems and rural farmers. They literally don't know what to do.

In any case I do think as wells run dry in Afghanistan, they will migrate to these techniques too. However if they are just now pumping, it may be that they are many years behind AZ's farming culture and they probably have a good 20 years of pumping. Drugs, unfortunately is a long term crop. Even if that eventually goes away there are many crops that can make money. They'll adapt as US farmers do each year.

I do not mean to be snarky, but do you think they really care about long term. Even with education and healthcare slowly coming along around the world, the Afghanistan fertility rate is still above 5 kids per woman or something. It is a society still rooted in tradition. People from the West try to create a halo around traditional ways of living and tribals and other such things for different reasons (some genuine, some not). The truth is they are competing in their own Darwinian way to maximize their own benefit with whatever resources they can land their hand on. The farmers generally are relatively richer land owners and will alway strife for output maximization and regulation of output is not easy for the state in a place like this.

> It is a society still rooted in tradition.

Societies change. Do you know anything about Afghanistan of the 70's? Look it up if you don't. It was fairly westernized. I suspect there's a large portion of the population that would like to return to that, but they either don't have the control, or even if there are a majority of them, they don't have to the will to go against fundamentalists willing to die (or, more importantly, kill) to prevent it.

In any case, painting the entire country with such a broad brush seems unwarranted.

I think it would be more accurate to say that a small urban class was fairly westernised.

Sometimes, such a class starts a trend, and everyone follows. IMO it helps a lot if there's real economic growth, I mean from useful jobs not from oil etc, so that country bumpkins can live out the dream of moving to the city & having nicer things. But it's not a sure thing, sadly.

Sure, but I don't think it's a stretch to say it could have gone a route that left it significantly more modern and with much more of what we would consider western values, as portions of the country were already like that as recently as 50 years ago.

I think any narrative along the lines of "Afghanistan is traditional and tribal and you can't change that" which doesn't address that at all is at best poorly communicated, but more likely working from poor assumptions.

> and you can't change that

I didn't get this sense from anything anyone was saying.

Pashtuns make up the majority of the population of Afghanistan but the government and power has largely been controlled by the Tajiks. Pashtun culture is tribalistic and isolated. It's not wrong to say that it is a society rooted in tradition. It very much is. The westernization of Afghanistan was very much isolated to large cities like Kabul and Kandahar. Most of the country at the time (and still is to this day) smaller tribes of Pashtuns that remain largely isolated from even the happenings of their own government.

My point is mainly that I think a statement that "it's a society rooted in tradition" that doesn't cover the not-so-distant past where a significant portion of the population, even if not a majority, was much less traditional in views needs to either account for that. Kabul (and the metro area around it) looks to have had over 6% of the total population of Afghanistan in 1978, and that's just one city.

The median age in Afghanistan is ninteen.[1]

When the Soviet-Afghan War started in 1979, the population of Afghanistan was 13.41 million. Current population is 38.93 million.[2] Afghans who were 14 or older when that war started make up less than 7% of the population.[1]

While I don't doubt that many Afghans would like a more stable country, I'm skeptical that a large portion of them have any real idea of what their country was once like. (Nor do I know how accurate and the Westernized portrayals I've seen really were.)

1 https://www.indexmundi.com/afghanistan/demographics_profile....

2 https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/afghanistan-popu...

I was thinking less of people with specific memories, and more of the people those people raised and or interacted with. This can actually have even more of an impact than actually being in the period, as what's related may be selective, and based on what people want to remember.

There's a reason why the 50's in America were portrayed so often as a golden age and a time where things were simpler, and part of that is just people that wanted to remember a time before the 60's and 70's where there was lots of upheaval and unrest. Were the 50's as simple and wholesome as depicted? Surely not, there was plenty of intolerance for those that didn't fit into the mold ("beatniks"), and that's before we even broach the rampant racism, segregation, etc. Yet, if you're of a certain age in America, you were raised on the idea that the 50's were wonderful, everyone lived the nuclear family dream, and everyone's mom was like June Cleaver.

How much this applies to current Afghanistan? I have no idea. But I don't think it's impossible there's quite a bit of rose tinted longing for that age among certain segments of the population, even if they aren't old enough to remember it.

It seems like Arizona is not a very optimal place to grow crops not already suited to the environment. And the usage of water by residential customers has got to be extreme for the region. I have only flown into and out of Phoenix but the amount of backyard pools and golf courses visible during the approaches and departures was not something I could wrap my head around.

Phoenix is in many ways not an optimal place to see huge population growth, but with most of California, Portland, and Seattle choking off developing through zoning controls, and the same in NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia, the US population is filtering to where housing can be (relatively) easily built. If California, Portland, and Seattle removed height limits on housing, as well as parking minimums, a lot of the growth in Phoenix would taper off. They haven't, so it doesn't.

You can't build the kinds of housing in LA that you can build in Phoenix. The land is already filled up.

Ignoring the sizable demand for different types of housing is gonna give you an incomplete picture of things. Heck, a lot of the reason it's hard to build denser housing in many parts of LA is exactly that demand for a certain qualitative type of environment instead of density and growth above all else.

I've tried driving through Seattle (during non-pandemic) Its hell to drive because of all the cars. I don't understand people that want to increase populations in areas where there's literally no infrastructure for it.

I have a similar observation about Austin, TX. And there's every incentive not to live in a dense urban core due to absurd rents and not many folks are going to bike in a TX summer.

Brad Landcaster is growing a neighborhood of edible perennials using a fraction of the street runoff, out in Tucson. So we also end up with large structures for flood control.

Phoenix and Tuscon does get seasonal monsoons, but the infrastructure is largely designed to get rid of the water instead of letting it infiltrate the soil near where it lands.

And yes, the pools, golf courses, and lawns bug me too. Phoenix also has the worst tap water in the nation. Many residents, including me, get their drinking water from water and ice stores and water dispensing vending machines.

> capturing the rain that does come to the region to irrigate crops or landscape

Not sure they could if they wanted to. The downstream/aquifer water rights of the run off are already spoken for in a lot of the south-western US because there's just not enough water falling anywhere really.

It doesn't matter in Arizona as long as the water is caught before it hits the ground, it's OK.

Huh ok. I know some other states like Colorado have limits on the total amount you can capture at any one time. Kind of surprised Arizona doesn't have similar laws, guess it doesn't have too many rivers with downstream requirements.

If you've not read Cadillac Desert, I highly recommend it. One key learning - water always flows downhill towards money and by extension political power. Phoenix won't run dry, nor will LA - smaller communities and farmers will get hit first.

They should be showing videos like this at town hall meetings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8nqnOcoLqE

(warning: the intro is very loud)