A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Water

Is it Wrong to Provide Water to Migrants?

by 9 Comments

While there are safe ways to enter the United States on the southern border, there are also areas of deadly desert. Crossing these areas is extremely dangerous and has resulted in the deaths of many migrants. As would be expected, some Americans have tried to aid those crossing these desolate areas by leaving water and other supplies. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson has organized No More Deaths to provide such support and, as the name states, reduce the number of deaths.

Image Credit

 This group seems to be on solid theological footing, following the guidance of Deuteronomy 10:18-19: “For the Lord your God…loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” However, rendering such aid has resulted in the arrest of some members. Four women from the group were sentenced for leaving water for migrants. They were not charged with providing humanitarian aid; rather they were charged with abandoning personal property and entering the area without a permit. While they got off with a fine and probation, Scott Warren was arrested and charged with a felony for harboring migrants—in this case, harboring was giving the migrants food and water.  While one cannot truly know what is in the hearts of others, No More Deaths seems to be dedicated to reducing the number of deaths among migrants trying to cross the border—as opposed to having some nefarious intent to smuggle in criminals. However, their actions are illegal—they are abandoning personal property (or littering) and rendering aid to people who are engaged in illegal attempts to cross the border. But what is illegal need not be immoral, so the question remains as to whether they are acting wrongly.

One interesting approach to this matter is to look at is a case of a religious group exercising their freedom of religion. Conservatives have been very supportive of companies that do not want to accept the birth control mandate of the Affordable Care Act and of business owners who do not want to provide goods and services for same sex couples getting married. If it is morally acceptable to grant exceptions to laws on religious grounds to allow for discrimination, then it would be odd to deny exceptions to laws on religious grounds to allow for rendering humanitarian aid—as commanded by God. However, there seems to be little conservative support for this religious liberty and what could be seen as religious persecution—people being arrested for trying to act upon their sincerely held beliefs.

The easy and obvious reply is to contend that religious exceptions are not granted in all cases and that while allowing people to refuse service to same sex couples is a matter of religious freedom, allowing people to aid those dying in the desert is not. In any case, my main concern as a philosopher is with the ethics of the matter rather than the religious aspects.

One approach to this issue is the utilitarian approach, that the ethics of an action depends on its consequences. On the face of it, providing water in the desert to people who are at risk of dying would seem to be morally right. After all, the water can prevent suffering and death, and this seems to be obviously good. One could also use the golden rule: if I was dying in the desert, I would want someone else to render me aid. As such, it would be immoral of me to deny aid to others. Another approach is to embrace deontological ethics, that there is an obligation to aid others who are in need. All of these approaches would indicate that providing water would be the right thing to do. They can, however, be countered.

The utilitarian approach in favor of providing water can be countered by contending that providing water does more harm than good. One possible argument would involve trying to show that providing water encourages migrants to try to cross the border in dangerous areas, thus increasing their chance of suffering and dying. Another approach would be to argue that providing such aid encourages migrants to cross the border illegally, perhaps because they think Americans are generous and welcoming. The obvious counter is that migrants obviously try to cross the border even without the hope that Americans will provide water and without being tricked into thinking Americans are generous and welcoming by water bottles in the desert. As such, targeting people providing water would not deter migration; it would simply result in more suffering and death. Some claim that this is the intended consequence.

In reply to the golden rule, it could be pointed out that if I was a criminal, I would want others to aid me in my criminal endeavors—but it would not be right to do so. A reasonable counter to this is to contend that the people providing water are not aiding in committing a crime but trying to prevent deaths. To use an analogy, a doctor who patches up a wounded criminal to save their life is not aiding in a crime.

Deontology does provide a counter: one could argue that there is a duty to obey the law. The problem is, of course, that there are and have been many wicked laws. One cannot have a moral duty to do evil. But it could be argued that the laws used to prevent aid to migrants are just laws and should be obeyed, even in the face of death. After all, the migrants are breaking the law willingly—they are not compelled to enter the desert.

My own view is that providing water in the desert is morally acceptable because doing so will reduce human suffering and death. Since migrants cross the desert even without such aid, arresting people for providing humanitarian aid would not impact migration—except to the degree that doing so would increase the number of deaths. While the United States does have the right to control its borders, it does not have the right to use the desert to kill migrants trying to enter the country and it does not have the right to use such a threat to deter migration. As the bible notes, there are  moral obligations binding us together across national borders.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Recycling Water

by 4 Comments

While most of the earth’s surface is covered in water and the amount of water on earth has remained roughly constant, there are ever increasing water shortages. One cause is obvious: the human population is increasing and hence the same amount of water is being spread among an increasing number of users. As such, there is less water per person with each person that joins the population.

Water is also being used in more ways than in the past and as countries industrialize they join in this increased use. For example, many forms of manufacturing and modern agriculture use massive amounts of water, often in places that are ill-suited to such activity. In some cases, the water can be reclaimed and re-used, in some cases it cannot—which leads to the next point.

What also matters is not just the amount of water, but the usable water. As humans contaminate the water supply, they decrease the usable water—it is sometimes transformed from a resource to a waste that must be sealed away for safety. The contamination can be with such things as industrial chemicals, fertilizers, and even radioactivity. Fracking, for example, contaminates water—even when it is done properly. While such contaminated water can sometimes be re-used, it is typically unfit for human consumption. While it can be argued that contamination is limited and the amount of water vast (“the solution to pollution is dilution”), the earth’s water is still finite. That means that as water is contaminated, the amount of usable water is reduced. If this goes on long enough and the water is not decontaminated, the effects will be significant. In theory, of course, all the earth’s water could be rendered unusable. While such worldwide contamination is the stuff of sci-fi disaster stories, local contamination is of considerable concern—what matters most to people is not the total available water, but the water available to them where they live. In addition to contamination, there is also the impact of climate on water.

While some deny climate change or the role of humans in the process, it is well-established historical fact that the climate does change—the ruins of ancient cities attest to this. In this case, it is the location of the water that matters and shifts in climate (whatever the cause) can create zones of shortage. This is happening today, just as it happened in the past. While the total water on the earth is not really impacted by climate change, the location and quality of the water is affected. For example, while drought in one area does not mean that the earth has less water, it does mean that the people living there have less water. Climate change can also cause contamination. For example, my adopted state of Florida is plagued by blooms of toxic algae which might be impacted by the changing climate. While some might taunt those concerned with this for being lake huggers, these outbreaks impact what matters most to the “practical folk”, namely money. Florida, after all, generates a great deal of revenue from tourism and few people want to go look at green slime. There is also the concern with the water supply—green slime is not safe to drink. While it is possible to continue the litany of water worries, the above should suffice to show that water shortages are a concern. This raises the question of how to deal with the problem.

Environmentalists have, of course, been arguing for years that one solution is to reduce pollution and address climate change. While a reduction of pollution has been a general trend in the United States (thanks in part to Richard Nixon creating the EPA), the current political environment favors an increase in pollution from a decrease in regulation. This moral value behind this view is that environmental costs should be shifted from those who profit from environmental damage to those impacted by the damage. For example, rolling back regulations on what companies can dump into the water reduces their costs, but imposes health costs on those who drink the contaminated water downstream. The principle of fairness would seem to require that those who make the profit also pay the cost, but politicians are very selective in their concerns about fairness. Because of the current political climate, this approach is now less viable.

One interesting solution is to recycle waste water, especially sewage, so that it can be used as potable water in homes and businesses. While recycling always involves some loss, this would allow cities to address water shortages by effectively reusing the water they already have. It would also have environmental benefits, if the waste was dealt with properly (and, interestingly, sewerage can provide valuable raw materials).

One major obstacle to this process is cost—recycling water for human consumption requires the appropriate infrastructure. However, this cost can be well worth it in the face of water shortages—it is, after all, generally cheaper and more convenient to recycle water than to transport in clean water (and that water must obviously come from somewhere).

Another major obstacle is psychological. Many people find the idea of drinking water that was recycled from sewage to be distasteful, even if the water were cleaner than the water they currently consume. To be fair, there are real concerns about ensuring that the water is properly treated—improperly recycled sewage could contain harmful microbes or chemicals. But these are problems that can (and have) been addressed so that recycled sewage is no riskier than a conventional water supply (and probably less so in many places).

Even when people accept that such treated water is safe, the distaste problem remains: some think that drinking water that was recently sewage to be gross, even though it is pure water and safe. As such, simply proving that the water is safe will not solve this psychological problem—a person can accept that the water is safe and clean, yet still refuse to drink it because they think it is disgusting.

Embed from Getty Images

This is analogous in some ways to proposals to use processed insects as a food source. Even if the food is indistinguishable from “normal” food, clean, healthy and nutritious, many people think this is gross. This includes people who regularly consume animal corpses (people who are not vegans or vegetarians).

Since this is a problem of feeling rather than reason, the solution would need to focus on changing how people feel about recycled water so that they can reason about it. One possible approach is by telling the story of water in general. With a little reflection, people get that the water that comes out of their tap has been recycled countless times. Any water you recently drank was most likely filtered through the kidneys of many creatures over the millennia and probably passed through many humans. It might have even passed through you at one point. As such, all the water we consume is recycled already and was almost certainly disgusting (vulture vomit, for example) at one point. However, the process of cleaning it, well, cleans it—the water is then fine to drink. As such, if a person is willing to drink any water, then they should also be willing to drink properly recycled water. Water that was just recycled properly from sewage is no more disgusting than water that was once part of vulture vomit and is now in your bottle water or tap water.

People can, of course, still say that it is the proximity that maters—recycled water was just recently sewage, but their bottled water has (probably) not been vulture vomit for a long time. From a rational standpoint this difference should be irrelevant: clean water is clean water, regardless of how long it has been clean. Unless one believes in some sort of mystical or metaphysical contamination that is undetectable by empirical means, then the rejection of safe recycled water would be unfounded. However, unfounded and irrational beliefs drive much of politics, so the practical challenge is to influence people to not be disgusted by recycled water. Some might be won over by other feelings, such as positive feelings about the environment or the survival instinct (recycled water is preferable to no water). Such psychological manipulation goes beyond the scope of philosophy, so I will leave this matter to the experts in that field.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Flint’s Water

by Leave a Comment

Like all too many American cities and towns, the Michigan city of Flint faces dire financial woes. To address these woes, the state stepped in and bypassed local officials with the goal of cutting the budget of the city. One aspect of the solution was to switch Flint’s water supply to a cheaper source, specifically a polluted river. Another aspect seems to have been to decline to pay the $100 per day cost of treating the water in accord with federal regulations. The result was that the corrosive water started dissolving the pipes. Since many of the pipes in the city are made of lead, this resulted in citizens getting lead poisoning. This includes children, who are especially vulnerable to the damage caused by this toxin.

More troubling, it has been claimed that the state was aware of the problem and officials decided to cover it up. The state also apparently tried to discredit the research conducted by Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha before finally admitting to the truth.

There have been various attempts to explain why this occurred, with filmmaker Michael Moore presenting the hypothesis that it was an attempt at “racist genocide.” This claim does have a certain appeal, given that the poor and minorities have been impacted by the corrosive water. Apparently the corrosive water has far less effect on newer infrastructure, which tends to be in areas that are better off economically. It is also appealing in that it is consistent with the fact of institutional racism that still plagues America. However, before rushing to accept the genocide hypothesis, it is worth considering alternative explanations.

One alternative is that the initial problem arose from political ideology. There is the view that the most important objective is reducing the spending of the state (typically to also lower taxes). Going along with this is also an opposition to federal regulations. Switching to the corrosive water and not treating it was initially cheaper and certainly evaded the regulations governing drinking water treatment. That said, the approach taken by the state did go against some professed conservative values, namely favoring local control and being opposed to government overreach. However, these values have been shown to be extremely flexible. For example, many state legislatures have passed laws forbidden local governments from banning fracking. As such, the initial action was consistent with the ideology.

In regards to the fact that the impact has been heaviest on the poor and minorities, this need not be driven by racism. An alternative explanation is that the policy was aimed not on the basis of race, but on the basis of power and influence. It is, of course, the case that the poor lack power and minorities are often poor. Since the poor lack the resources to resist harm and to buy influence, they are the most common target of budget cuts. Because of this, racism might not be the main factor.

In regards to the ensuing cover up, it might have begun with wishful thinking: the state officials did not want to believe that there was a problem. As such, they refused to accept that it existed. People are very good at denial, even when doing so is harmful to themselves. For example, many who do not take good care of themselves engage in wishful thinking in regards to the consequences their unhealthy behavior. It is, obviously, even easier to engage in wishful thinking when the harm is being suffered by others. Once the cover up progressed, the explanation is rather easy: people engage in a cover-up in the hopes of avoiding the consequences of their actions. However, as is so often the case, the cover-up has resulted in far more damage than a quick and honest admission.

This ongoing incident in Flint does show some important things. First, it does indicate that some traditional conservative claims are true: government can be the problem and local authorities can be better at decision making. Of course, government was the problem in this case because the focus was on saving a little money rather than ensuring the safety of the citizens.

Second, it serves as yet another example of poor assessment of consequences resulting from a shortsighted commitment to savings. This attempt at saving has done irreparable harm to many citizens (including children) and will cost millions of dollars to address. As such, this ill-considered attempt to save money has instead resulted in massive costs.

Third, it serves as yet another lesson in the fact that government regulations can be good. If the state had spent the $100 a day to treat the water in accord with federal regulations, then this problem would have not occurred. This is certainly something that people should consider when politicians condemn and call for eliminating regulations. This is not to claim that all regulations are good—but it is to claim that a blanket opposition to regulations is shortsighted and unwise.

I would like to say that the Flint disaster will result in significant changes. I do think it will have some impact—cities and towns are, no doubt, checking their water and assessing their infrastructure. However, the lessons will soon fade until it is time for a new disaster.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Water & Food

by 2 Comments

Česky: Pitná voda - kohoutek Español: Agua potable
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since most of the earth’s surface is covered in water it no doubt seems odd to be worried about the availability of water. Of course, this seems less odd when one considers that much of this liquid bounty is too salty for humans to drink or use in most forms of agriculture. When pollution and distribution (people have an irrational propensity to build cities where water is scarce) are taken into account, then the grounds for worry become clear.

While people normally think of water in terms of something we drink, 92% of our water usage as a species is due to agriculture. Plants and animals need water directly, but water is also used for other purposes in the industry. For example, the feed given to animals requires water. In addition to the direct use of water, water is also “consumed” (that is, removed from being useful to humans) by contamination from agriculture. The chemicals and waste of agriculture often ends up in rivers and other bodies of water, rendering it unusable or at least harmful.

Looking just at the direct water costs, the creation of animal “products” imposes the highest water costs per kilo-calorie (kcal). Growing edible roots and cereals requires .5 quarts per kcal, making these foods very water efficient. Fruits are rather more costly, requiring 2.2 quarts per kcal. For meat product, pork is relatively efficient, requiring 2.3 quarts per kcal. Beef is by far the least efficient, using 10.8 quarts per kcal. As might be imagined, the use of water raises both practical and moral concerns.

One obvious practical concern is working out how to efficiently handle water resources as the population increases. Adding to the difficulty of this matter is the fact that economic improvements in developing countries will most likely lead to a significant increase in the desire for meat, especially beef. Given the water cost of meat the agriculture industry will be hard pressed to meet such increased demand especially if the water supply is under even greater strain.

As might be imagined, there are various practical solutions to the technical problems of water. For example, more efficient agriculture would enable more food to be grown using less water. As another example, the development of cheaper means of purifying water of salt or pollutants would help. Obviously enough if the world eschewed meat in favor of plants, then that would have a significant impact on water usage.

The main moral concern is one of distribution. That is, using moral values to determine how the available water will be used and who will benefit from its use. As noted above, the growing of meat and other animal products is water intensive relative to growing plants. While there are practical grounds to moving away from animal agriculture, the decision to do so (or not do so) is a matter of ethics. After all, decisions about who is entitled to the water resources and how these resources should be distributed are moral decisions. If, for example, it is decided that water resources will be allocated to the beef industry, then this means that less water will be available to grow more water efficient foods, thus potentially reducing the food supply while also creating food that is relatively expensive for the consumer.

As the population grows, the moral concerns will become even more serious. After all, it is certainly worth considering that the demand on water resources will eventually be high enough that choosing between growing beef and raising more water efficient crops will be a choice between providing the more affluent few with a luxury food and providing the less affluent many with the food they need to survive.

An obvious counter to this is that we have always managed to find a solution to such problems in the past and hence we will surely find one (or more) in the future. After all, the population doomsdays predicted in the past all turned out to be in error.

While this response has considerable appeal, it is worth noting that there must be a point at which our ability to solve the water problem reaches its limit. After all, the supply of water on the earth is finite and even if we were to use the water with incredible efficiency there would be a point at which the available fresh water could not support a population of a certain size. Naturally, this can be countered by reducing population size—but determining whether we should do this or not and the details of the reduction would involve moral choices.

It is also worth noting that there are many practical (rather than theoretical) problems that could prevent us from adequately solving the water problem. The droughts that affected the United States in 2012 had an impact on food production and if these droughts become more common, then the matter of distributing water resources will become even more pressing. There are also the political considerations, such as political entities controlling the distribution of water to serve their own ends. Even the United States has political conflicts over water distribution and these will probably only worsen as the population increase and water distribution changes as the climate changes.

As a final point, it is worth noting that water is a resource that is almost endlessly reusable. Unlike oil, our use of water generally does not destroy the water. For example, when we drink water we are not digesting it into hydrogen and oxygen to provide energy—rather we use it to hydrate our tissues, remove waste and so on. Roughly put, the water that goes in eventually comes back out. Of course, the water that we use does become contaminated and this contamination can render the water useless to us. For example, while urine is mostly water it is rather unsuitable for drinking. As another example, water that is contaminated with chemicals, feces or radiation is useless for many purposes. Fortunately, we can purify water (although this can be rather costly) and purification also occurs naturally. Unfortunately, we have been rather busy damaging many of the natural purification systems and even more busy contaminating water. Also unfortunate is the fact that being “pro-environment” (favoring the preservation of natural purification systems and being in favor of limiting water pollution) is often cast in a negative light and dismissed by mockery and hyperbole. However, there are very practical economic reasons for preserving and restoring the natural purification systems, not the least of which is that nature does for free what would cost a fortune to do artificially. These same reasons apply to avoiding water contamination as much as possible. After all, cleaning water is generally more costly than avoiding polluting it. For example, keeping feces contaminated runoff from agriculture out of the water supply is certainly cheaper than removing the contamination.

My Amazon author page.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rush & Oil

by Leave a Comment

Rush Limbaugh booking photo from his arrest on...
Image via Wikipedia

Commenting on the oil spill, Rush Limbaugh said ““The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It’s natural. It’s as natural as the ocean water is.”

Rush is actually right.

First, oil will eventually break down through natural processes. However, this will take a rather long time and the oil will do considerable damage in the meantime. Given Rush’s logic, we should say the same thing about things like dirty dishes and garbage in our houses. After all, natural processes will eventually take care of the food on the dishes and the garbage in the house. So, why bother with those things? Also, natural processes will eventually take care of any illness (this might involve death, of course), so why mess around with medicine?

Second, oil is natural and is as natural as the water. After all, we do not make the oil that we drill for-we simply find it after it has been produced by natural processes. Of course, being natural does not mean that something is not dangerous. Cyanide, rattlesnake venom, red tide, earthquakes, volcanoes, and gamma rays are all natural. Yet they are rather dangerous. The fact that something is natural does not mean that we should not be concerned about it showing up on our beaches.

You know, Rush, it doesn’t make you a tree hugger if you accept that an oil spill is bad. Even the folks in the oil companies are willing to admit this.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Cleaning Up After Others

by 1 Comment

I’m not a neat freak, as my friends will attest. However, I feel compelled to pick up trash and junk I see in public areas. At my university, I’ll often get strange looks as a walk to the nearest trash can carrying various bits of trash. I used to get even stranger looks when I would be seen running through the park, carrying bottles, cans and the occasional blender (really). I suspect that people either thought I was crazy (“that guy is nuts…I think it is that trash-madness that we studied in my psychology class”) or homeless (“that poor man, running around gathering bottles so he can buy pants and a shirt”).

One area I end up cleaning up fairly often is the pool in my home owners’ association. Although I do pay dues to take care of it, I also feel an extra bit of ownership because I spent days last summer pressure washing the deck and patching cracks in the concrete. In the past, I’ve cleaned up the usual stuff-bottles, cans, cigarette butts and such. Today, however, I had a new experience. When I went to the pool, I saw a soaked diaper lying on the deck. Fortunately, it had not been “used”, so cleaning it up was not as bad as it could have been. Someone had also thrown the life savers in the pool, so I fished those out-along with some shredded rope.

As I was cleaning up the pool, I wondered a bit about why people make such messes and do not clean then up.

In areas open to the general public, I suspect that people often treat the areas poorly because they figure that they won’t be back to that area anytime soon. But, the pool is only accessible to the people in my association (or folks who come here and climb the fence) and people will presumably return to use it.

I’ve got three main hypotheses as to why people make a mess of areas like the pool. The first is that some people are just accustomed to having someone else clean up after them. While this is generally seen as a kid’s trait, adults also exhibit this-especially when it comes to shared areas. People who leave stuff no doubt often think that someone else will take care of it. Of course, I suppose that I contribute to this-I don’t want to be walking on butts and cans when going to the pool, so I clean up after these people. I could leave it there in the hopes that the people who make the messes would eventually clean up, but I don’t think I could endure it longer than they can.

My second hypothesis is that some people are just oblivious to messes and filth. I’ve seen people who live in what could be described as filth pits. Oddly enough, these have often been educated, intelligent people who lived that way out of choice rather than because they were too poor to afford repairs or too overworked to have time to clean. So, perhaps some folks just treat the world the way they treat their own homes. Along these lines, I have also noticed that a lot of trash consists of beer cans/bottles and cigarette butts. My guess is that someone who treats her own body like a trash can will treat the rest of the world the same way.

My third hypothesis is that some folks simply do not think about what they do-they just do it. So, when someone finishes a beer, he throws the can down. When the cigarette is done, she just flicks it to the deck. When the diaper is removed, he just tosses it to the ground. There is no thought about the consequences.

People can change their behavior. For example, after some folks started leaving beer bottles around the pool, the treasurer of the association had a little talk with them and the bottle count dropped significantly. Of course, anyone with even a tiny bit of sense should have realized that a concrete deck by a pool is not the place to have glass bottles.

While leaving trash and junk around a pool is a small thing, it does reflect a damaging attitude towards the world in general. It shows a lack of concern for others and that is a fundamental cause of problems in the world.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: