Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BCSpace

Water Wars: Mormons Vs Las Vegas

Recommended Posts

Yeah, this is why I live on a boat. I can be ready to leave in 48 hours. Well after I get some varnish and caulking put on. If it's too cold I go out the gate and turn left, if it's too hot I turn right. I'm getting another solar panel in 2 weeks at the boat show. I need 3 more total and I can make 6 gallons per hour with out burning diesel or gas.

You're my kind of guy, rod!!   :friends:

Share this post


Link to post

......................................................   

6th Thing would push even harder for good desalination plants

.......................................................   

I was speaking with an Israeli friend of mine last week, and he reported to me that his country has gone whole hog for modern desalination.  Turns out that Israel now desalinates 20% of all water used by the country.  They built a very large reverse osmosis plant for $500 million, which seems very cost effective to them.  http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/ .

 

I didn't mention it before, but the Israelis have considered and rejected what is sometimes called the Ded-Med Project in which water from the Mediterranean or Red Sea is brought to the Dead Sea overlook and used to generate electricity and to be used for desalination -- in the same fashion I have already mentioned for the Salton Sea.  They say that the Country of Jordan may still employ just such a project in the future.

Share this post


Link to post

I was speaking with an Israeli friend of mine last week, and he reported to me that his country has gone whole hog for modern desalination.  Turns out that Israel now desalinates 20% of all water used by the country.  They built a very large reverse osmosis plant for $500 million, which seems very cost effective to them.  http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/ .

 

I didn't mention it before, but the Israelis have considered and rejected what is sometimes called the Ded-Med Project in which water from the Mediterranean or Red Sea is brought to the Dead Sea overlook and used to generate electricity and to be used for desalination -- in the same fashion I have already mentioned for the Salton Sea.  They say that the Country of Jordan may still employ just such a project in the future.

 

Israel is a tiny country of 8.3 million, and where most of land is scrub. California has a population of almost 37 million +,  with the Central Valley that can easily hold the entire country of Israel.

SEE http://iris.org.il/sizemaps/calif.htm

 

Again the logistics of transporting sea water hundreds of miles to desalinate it then pump it back to where the people live is cost prohibitive at this point.

BTW just a 6% drop in use by Big Agriculture would eliminate the need for the city dwellers to cut back at all. There is still plenty more that Big Ag can do before we have to go the desalination route. Though if this drought continues we may have to.

Share this post


Link to post

Israel is a tiny country of 8.3 million, and where most of land is scrub. California has a population of almost 37 million +,  with the Central Valley that can easily hold the entire country of Israel.

SEE http://iris.org.il/sizemaps/calif.htm

 

Again the logistics of transporting sea water hundreds of miles to desalinate it then pump it back to where the people live is cost prohibitive at this point.

BTW just a 6% drop in use by Big Agriculture would eliminate the need for the city dwellers to cut back at all. There is still plenty more that Big Ag can do before we have to go the desalination route. Though if this drought continues we may have to.

 

Big ag feeds the world and with the advent of modern sprinkler systems they do it with half the water previously used.

Share this post


Link to post

Big ag feeds the world and with the advent of modern sprinkler systems they do it with half the water previously used.

 

Big Ag in California uses 80% of the water. A simple decline of 6% in their water use would eliminate the restrictions on city/town dweller use. You could cut the city/town dweller use to zero and farmers would still have the problem of not enough water. Life without either food or water is precarious at best.

SEE http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103950335

Share this post


Link to post

Israel is a tiny country of 8.3 million, and where most of land is scrub. California has a population of almost 37 million +,  with the Central Valley that can easily hold the entire country of Israel.

SEE http://iris.org.il/sizemaps/calif.htm .

California has a climate and even a good deal of desert land, just as does Israel, which is one of the reasons why so many Israelis live in Califnornia.  It seems just like home. The larger population of California is not an issue, simply because whatever use is made of desalination can be scaled up at pretty much the same cost as borne by the State of Israel.  Cost - benefit analysis is always key, even though you resist that notion.

 

Again the logistics of transporting sea water hundreds of miles to desalinate it then pump it back to where the people live is cost prohibitive at this point.

This is irrelevant, since (as I explained) the Israelis have not gone that route -- the Dead-Med route.  Nor have the Jordanians yet.  In any case, as usual, you offer no cost - benefit figures.  Presumably (as I have pointed out to you before) you would make the same ridiculous argument against the great California Aquaduct due to the prohibitive cost of all the pumping stations required.  Pumping stations which were built and remain in service today.

 

With five desalination plants along the Mediterranean coast, Israel now desalinates 80% of the drinking water used in its cities. How many such plants does California have planned or in operation (aside from the plant on Santa Catalina Island)?

 

BTW just a 6% drop in use by Big Agriculture would eliminate the need for the city dwellers to cut back at all. There is still plenty more that Big Ag can do before we have to go the desalination route. Though if this drought continues we may have to.

Conservation is always important, and we could learn much from the Israelis, who have gone much further than any Americans in reducing water use through drip-irrigation, reuse of grey water, etc.

 

Californians and Americans in general are always behind the curve in adopting advanced technology and serious conservation measures.  Germany, for example, is way ahead of America in its commitment to conservation and environmentalism:  They plan to eventually close all nuclear fission and coal-fired power plants.  Currently, Germany produces fully 20% of all its power from renewable resources.

Share this post


Link to post

California has a climate and even a good deal of desert land, just as does Israel, which is one of the reasons why so many Israelis live in Califnornia.  It seems just like home. The larger population of California is not an issue, simply because whatever use is made of desalination can be scaled up at pretty much the same cost as borne by the State of Israel.  Cost - benefit analysis is always key, even though you resist that notion.

 

This is irrelevant, since (as I explained) the Israelis have not gone that route -- the Dead-Med route.  Nor have the Jordanians yet.  In any case, as usual, you offer no cost - benefit figures.  Presumably (as I have pointed out to you before) you would make the same ridiculous argument against the great California Aquaduct due to the prohibitive cost of all the pumping stations required.  Pumping stations which were built and remain in service today.

 

With five desalination plants along the Mediterranean coast, Israel now desalinates 80% of the drinking water used in its cities. How many such plants does California have planned or in operation (aside from the plant on Santa Catalina Island)?

 

Conservation is always important, and we could learn much from the Israelis, who have gone much further than any Americans in reducing water use through drip-irrigation, reuse of grey water, etc.

 

Californians and Americans in general are always behind the curve in adopting advanced technology and serious conservation measures.  Germany, for example, is way ahead of America in its commitment to conservation and environmentalism:  They plan to eventually close all nuclear fission and coal-fired power plants.  Currently, Germany produces fully 20% of all its power from renewable resources.

 

Southern California is mostly chaparral to about 100 miles inland so we're closer to Italy than Israel. When you go further inland then you get desert. Plus northern California is wetter with extensive rivers. This drought is effecting the entire western part of the US not just California. It's the lack snow pack in the Rockies that is the problem. All the desalination plants in world won't produce the amount of water that the snow pack usually does. We have people from all over the world here in California, and the weather is part of the reason. Good paying jobs were and continue to play a bigger part.

 

The much larger population of California is always the issue. Without Mr. Mulholland, Los Angeles would have less than a quarter of a million people. The system he built used no pumping stations. It is entirely gravity fed. Scaling up isn't that easy. It is not a linear progression, and the costs can get out of control very easily. Again the task is not insurmountable but it is a significant investment.

 

Cost benefit calculations are fine. However 4 wet years mean a far less benefit to cost ratio, and 4 more dry years and we won't have to worry about it. We'll be looking for way's to pack our bags and leave for literally greener pastures.You tell me how much longer is this drought going to last?  One more year, four more years, ten more years. California has known 200 year droughts.

 

Do you think the Jordanians and Israelis are too stupid to do a cost benefit analysis?  They couldn't make the numbers work even in their much drier climate. Will it someday make economic sense to do it? Maybe, but right now it doesn't . A Pacific Ocean to the Salton Sea channel makes even less economic sense. Much of the Imperial Valley is already used for agriculture or housing. Will it make economic sense someday? Maybe, but right now it doesn't.

 

That would be a minimum of at least 25 or more desalination plants. Plus that wouldn't touch the needs of agriculture you keep ranting about.

SEE http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-658616-desalination-county.htm

 

Now you are starting to talk sense. I've been saying all along we need to conserve water, and other resources. So Yes we need to conserve water, and other resources, much much more so than we now do. So yes the rest of the world can teach us a great deal about how, and the most effective ways to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

.................................................................. All the desalination plants in world won't produce the amount of water that the snow pack usually does.

Desalination plants along the California coast are both affordable and necessary as a bulwark against declining snow packs in the Sierras, not as an absolute replacement of all water sources. The Rockies are of primary importance for other states.

 

The system he built used no pumping stations. It is entirely gravity fed. Scaling up isn't that easy. It is not a linear progression, and the costs can get out of control very easily. Again the task is not insurmountable but it is a significant investment.

The great California Aquaduct uses many pumping stations and they are cost-effective.  I did not speak to Mulholland's theft of water from the Owens Valley, which is a very different matter, and you typically ignore the true issue since you have repeatedly and falsely claimed that pumping stations would be too expensive.  The California Aquaduct comes from the Sacramento Delta in northern California.

 

...........................................................

..............................  

That would be a minimum of at least 25 or more desalination plants. Plus that wouldn't touch the needs of agriculture you keep ranting about.

SEE http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-658616-desalination-county.htm

 

Now you are starting to talk sense. I've been saying all along we need to conserve water, and other resources. So Yes we need to conserve water, and other resources, much much more so than we now do. So yes the rest of the world can teach us a great deal about how, and the most effective ways to do it.

You have finally admitted that California would need at least 25+ more desalination plants, while at the same time falsely claiming that this would not help agriculture.  Yet the whole point is to leave agriculture with plenty of water not needed by the cities.  The drought in California does not mean that there is no water at all, as you pretend, but the reduced availability of water and the consequent battles between cities and agribusiness.

 

Of course, if it were my decision, there would be a couple of huge projects: (1) to bring sea water to the Salton Sea overlook, generate electricity, and purify the water, and (2) do the same with Death Valley, which was once a great inland sea, fed by rivers.  One could change the very climate in that region and at the same time bless the nation with constant agricultural resources.  Costly, yes.  Long term benefit.  Of course.

Share this post


Link to post

Desalination plants along the California coast are both affordable and necessary as a bulwark against declining snow packs in the Sierras, not as an absolute replacement of all water sources. The Rockies are of primary importance for other states.

 

The great California Aquaduct uses many pumping stations and they are cost-effective.  I did not speak to Mulholland's theft of water from the Owens Valley, which is a very different matter, and you typically ignore the true issue since you have repeatedly and falsely claimed that pumping stations would be too expensive.  The California Aquaduct comes from the Sacramento Delta in northern California.

 

You have finally admitted that California would need at least 25+ more desalination plants, while at the same time falsely claiming that this would not help agriculture.  Yet the whole point is to leave agriculture with plenty of water not needed by the cities.  The drought in California does not mean that there is no water at all, as you pretend, but the reduced availability of water and the consequent battles between cities and agribusiness.

 

Of course, if it were my decision, there would be a couple of huge projects: (1) to bring sea water to the Salton Sea overlook, generate electricity, and purify the water, and (2) do the same with Death Valley, which was once a great inland sea, fed by rivers.  One could change the very climate in that region and at the same time bless the nation with constant agricultural resources.  Costly, yes.  Long term benefit.  Of course.

 

Desalination in Orange County California

SEE http://www.ocregister.com/articles/water-658616-desalination-county.html

 

There is no Pacific Ocean to Salton Sea overlook. You'd have to pump the water up mountains

SEE https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTccN6NjdV33AAFDknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aWRtNmFyBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMV8x?p=topographical+map+of+Salton+sea+basin&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dtopogrwaphical%2Bmap%2Bof%2BSalton%2Bsea%2Bbasin%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26fr%3Dyhs-mozilla-001&w=802&h=519&imgurl=www.sci.sdsu.edu%2Fsalton%2FSaltonTopographicL.jpg&size=84KB&name=SaltonTopographicL.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sci.sdsu.edu%2Fsalton%2FSaltonSeaRegionTopoMap.html&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sci.sdsu.edu%2Fsalton%2FSaltonSeaRegionTopoMap.html&type=&no=2&tt=120&oid=106309e4bae3bdb6f179bdcc331b7f67&***=Saving+the+Salton+Sea&sigr=11qvkvc00&sigi=11e2po1kb&sign=10m7k83hp&sigt=103vg5ole&sigb=1454hbitp&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

 

Plus the area is now used for houses and agriculture. It's called the Imperial Valley.

 

They are too expensive right now.

 

The California Aqueduct has 5 pumping stations none of which generate more power than they use .You can't violate the laws of physics that way.  

 

Ps; The Central Valley was underwater a long time ago too from 50miilion to 10 million years ago.

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post

Nice, informative article.  I recall the test unit being run at Huntington Beach (where my uncle Woody was the high school principal) when I last lived in California.  Glad to see that realism is finally coming to California.

 

There is no Pacific Ocean to Salton Sea overlook. You'd have to pump the water up mountains

As I said previously, dig and tunnel, without pumping at all, unless the cost-benefit ratio makes pumping cost effective.  You should provide actual figures rather than grousing about how impossible it is.

 

 

Plus the area is now used for houses and agriculture. It's called the Imperial Valley.

 

They are too expensive right now.

Your comments here make no sense, and certainly don't speak to piping the water to So California after treatment at the Salton Sea overlook.

 

The California Aqueduct has 5 pumping stations none of which generate more power than they use .You can't violate the laws of physics that way.  

 

Ps; The Central Valley was underwater a long time ago too from 50miilion to 10 million years ago.

Also glad that you finally face the fact of pumping stations along that great Aquaduct, although you seem to misunderstand that they are not built as hydroelectric units.  They merely pump the water uphill to get it to Southern California from the Sacramento Delta.  You can't make a judgment on the violation of the laws of physics if you don't understand them.

Share this post


Link to post

Nice, informative article.  I recall the test unit being run at Huntington Beach (where my uncle Woody was the high school principal) when I last lived in California.  Glad to see that realism is finally coming to California.

 

As I said previously, dig and tunnel, without pumping at all, unless the cost-benefit ratio makes pumping cost effective.  You should provide actual figures rather than grousing about how impossible it is.

 

 

Your comments here make no sense, and certainly don't speak to piping the water to So California after treatment at the Salton Sea overlook.

 

Also glad that you finally face the fact of pumping stations along that great Aquaduct, although you seem to misunderstand that they are not built as hydroelectric units.  They merely pump the water uphill to get it to Southern California from the Sacramento Delta.  You can't make a judgment on the violation of the laws of physics if you don't understand them.

 

The realism is that everything has a cost and not just in terms of dollars. In California it may come to the point where the benefits outweigh the costs. We're not there yet. IE; Water for my garden is expensive, but not so expensive that it outweighs the benefits. Agricultural water on the other hand is cheap being subsidized by the state and the Feds. As I've told you before a cut back of just 6% in agricultural use would eliminate ANY need for city and town dwellers to cut back.

 

Digging a sea level tunnel won't help you. The difference in pressure is what powers a turbine. There just isn't enough water pressure difference between the Pacific Ocean and the Salton Sea to power those turbines. I've never said it was impossible just tremendously impractical at this time for a variety of reasons.

 

The Salton is hundreds of miles from the coast where the vast majority of people live. So your tunnel drills through hundreds of miles of mountains, fills up an already prime agricultural area with sea water. Then pumps just some that water to plants desalinate it. Then pumps the now clean watehttp://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/drying-up-the-race-to-save-california-from-drought/r back again to the coast where the population lives. What are you going to do with the now extremely salty residue? Again not a impossible to solve problem, but one that has many costs besides dollars associated with it.

 

I understand the physics quite well. The California Aqueduct system takes already clean, for agricultural purposes, water and pumps it south.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

 

it couldn't be used to produce electricity even if it wanted to. That is a cost to the system. That cost is offset by the use of that water by agriculture(You the consumer), and the tax payers of California and the Feds. 

 

Ps; http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/drying-up-the-race-to-save-california-from-drought/

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post

The realism is that everything has a cost and not just in terms of dollars. In California it may come to the point where the benefits outweigh the costs. We're not there yet. IE; Water for my garden is expensive, but not so expensive that it outweighs the benefits. Agricultural water on the other hand is cheap being subsidized by the state and the Feds. As I've told you before a cut back of just 6% in agricultural use would eliminate ANY need for city and town dwellers to cut back.

 

 

A 6% cut back in agriculture would be a reduction of 2 - 3 billion dollars to the states economy per year.  That is a lot of hungry people.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking that no matter the (probably quite severe) short term impact, we ought to quit subsidizing crops that need a lot of water in any desert area.  We have a good transportation system.   Let crops be raised where the natural resources they need are readily available.

Share this post


Link to post

So the government is again working to screw the Church in Southern Nevada.

 

The Church owned a wonderful Hot Springs where Church members/family's and others could go and have a great time swimming in healthy natural water that doesn't have chemicals.

But the government forced the Church to shut down the facility, and instead I guess give the water to farmers and whomever or whatever.

 

An irony is Howard Hughes gave the Church the facility, and now his legacy is trying to destroy the Church elsewhere in relation to water.

 

The destruction of good and light doesn't end.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking that no matter the (probably quite severe) short term impact, we ought to quit subsidizing crops that need a lot of water in any desert area.  We have a good transportation system.   Let crops be raised where the natural resources they need are readily available.

Since California is the agricultural center of the nation, where do you propose shifting all that agriculture?  If we follow the Israeli example, we will build plenty of desalination plants for public drinking water in the major cities along the coast and leave the rest (including gray water) for agriculture.

Share this post


Link to post

Since California is the agricultural center of the nation, where do you propose shifting all that agriculture?  If we follow the Israeli example, we will build plenty of desalination plants for public drinking water in the major cities along the coast and leave the rest (including gray water) for agriculture.

 

Indeed, and as much as it rains in California, every household should be forced to have a water collection cistern, like they do in poor country's, like my ex's family has in their village home, which is water they use for cooking, washing, etc..

LOL

Edited by williamsmith

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed, and as much as it rains in California, every household should be forced to have a water collection cistern, like they do in poor country's, like my ex's family has in their village home, which is water they use for cooking, washing, etc..

 

Lots depends on where in California you are. It has to rain pretty hard to clean the roof of dirt and things before cistern water could be used for cooking or drinking. Water for your garden would be fine though.

Share this post


Link to post

Since California is the agricultural center of the nation, where do you propose shifting all that agriculture?  If we follow the Israeli example, we will build plenty of desalination plants for public drinking water in the major cities along the coast and leave the rest (including gray water) for agriculture.

Since Almond crop is not native to California or any desert, shift the operation to the rain forests.  However, according to Wikipedia:  Almond grows best in Mediterranean climates with warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, not watering your lawn can be good for it. I haven't watered my lawns for at least 10 years. Fortunately we do get a bit of rain here but not much. Not watering forces the grass roots to drive deeper and search out lower sources in times of drought. One drawback, the earthworms REALLY like the dryness. The lawns are not putting surface smooth.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Elliot Sagat (AP), “California's largest lake threatened by urban water transfer,” Yahoo News, June 3, 2015, online at http://news.yahoo.com/californias-largest-lake-threatened-urban-water-transfer-062601605.html#  ,

 

 

The Salton Sea is not a natural occurring body of water. It is the result of a man-made overflow of the Colorado River.

Share this post


Link to post

The Salton Sea is not a natural occurring body of water. It is the result of a man-made overflow of the Colorado River.

Of course it isn't, but that misses the point of the article entirely.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it isn't, but that misses the point of the article entirely.

 

So now 110 years later when mother nature starts to return the basin to its natural origins people complain. Why? I'm not saying it is not a serious problem. But the Salton Sea is not going return to it former glory, any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      The ask: specifically, what goes into redrawing boundaries, other than prayer?
      Seems like critical mass of ward members and balancing of welfare needs, primarily. 
      Remember, good information leads to good inspiration. Though high school boundaries (and thus non-online seminary classes) don't' seem to be a consideration.  My son will be starting seminary in a class that has  no other youth from our ward in it, due to high school boundaries.
      -
      Friends of mine in the Greater Denver area recently had their ward and stake dissolved/absorbed by the three neighboring stakes.
      The ward they'd attended for 40 years or so had a lot of welfare needs / bishop's storehouse needs (majority of the cases in the stake were from that ward) and had a large group of inactive and less active members - example: some active members had 10-15 hometeaching families / ministering families. For clarity, I'll call this the "needy ward."
      No exceptions were made to those who requested to attend the ward that had the majority of "needy ward" members in it.
      Temple recommends were going to not be issued if members continued attending the ward which absorbed most of the "needy ward" members.
      My friends are now in a predominantly suburban ward with much less welfare need and more balance - though in their older age, the loss of existing social relationships is difficult.
      -
      A long time ago in a farming community in Utah, my family and I were in three wards in 2 years while never moving.
      Some said it was the high count of Primary age kids that caused the boundary update.
      Some said it was the higher welfare needs of part of the neighborhood that needed to be balanced amongst wards.
      Either way, as a newly-wed couple, starting out and having known some of the people in the area from high school, loosing these relationships was challenging.
      And, yes, my friends in Denver and in the farming area are able to remain friends and see each other; the challenge arises in finding the time after the kids, callings, commute, work, date night, FHE, etc.
       
    • By piccione
      If any are interested, there is a new free pdf book available comparing the order of Nehor characteristics with the Maya religion at www.academia.edu/35102438/EVIDENCE_of_the_NEHOR_RELIGION_in_MESOAMERICA
    • By Bernard Gui
      In 2 Nephi 2, Joseph, son of Lehi, is given this promise by his father:
      There is some question who this "one mighty among them" will be. It's not Joseph Smith, because the one will be a descendant of Lehi. Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer Kimball suggested it would be a future prophet to come out of the remnants of Lehi (a "Lamanite" or "Indian" prophet).
      Let me propose another candidate, one who we all know well but perhaps take for granted.
      He did much good in word and deed. He was an instrument in the hands of God. He had exceeding faith. He worked mighty wonders. He did that thing which is great in the sight of God in bringing restoration to the house of Israel and the seed of Lehi.   1. He did much good in word and deed.
       
      2. He was an instrument in the hands of God.
       
      3. He had exceeding faith.
       
      4. He worked mighty wonders.
       
      5. He did that thing which is great in the sight of God in bringing the restoration to the house of Israel and the seed of Lehi.
       
      Yes, I'm talking about that giant of a Nephite, the Prophet Mormon. As a boy, he was a leader of men. As a man, he was one of the greatest prophets of God. As a prophet, he was fearless in his faith and secure in his knowledge. As a warrior, he gave his life in defense of his people. As a father, he inspired greatness in his son Moroni. As a historian, he was entrusted to make and preserve the record of his people that became the foundation of the Restoration. Truly, he was "one mighty among them."
      Granted, some may point out that he claimed to be a descendant of Nephi, not Joseph, but it is reasonable to conclude that the descendants of the faithful Lehites (Nephi, Sam, Joseph, Jacob, and Zoram) intermarried and all could claim to be descended from Nephi. In fact, all the descendants of those Lehi sons became grouped under the head of Nephi. But is it not possible that this man was the one prophesied to come and bring restoration to Lehi's family?
      Others may have come to this conclusion, but I'm not aware of any who have proposed Mormon. Feel free to burst that bubble of pride.
      Your thoughts?
    • By Meadowchik
      This morning I came across a notion expressed by an LDS member, positing that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.
      I would like to respond to that idea here.
      As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.
      On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.
      Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.
      Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.
      Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.
      In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.
      I believe that Christ expects us to love "the least" because, in part, He wants all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.
      Thoughts?
    • By rockpond
      From yesterday's Deseret News:
      If that number is correct and if we assume that the Church's annual income is around $6 billion, than the Church's welfare and humanitarian aid averages about 0.7% of its annual income.  Or, looking at it another way, it is averaging $2.67 per member in welfare and aid efforts.
×
×
  • Create New...