The Helmand River is the longest river in Afghanistan, and is the main source of water in Helmand Province. Access to water is one of the major issues in the province, especially since farmers upriver often grow water-intensive crops, leaving less for the farmers downriver. (And Iranians, who apparently have threatened war over the Helmand River. Plus the Kajaki Dam apparently caused some salinization, and since opium grows well in salty water it contributed to the spread of opium.)
Water usage and irrigation is one of the common examples of a social dilemma, and something Elinor Ostrom talked about a lot. I remember talking to a USAID (or another similar agency) hydrologist, and he said that there was enough water in the province if it was managed correctly...
But issues like this are as much about managing people as they are about actually managing the water.
Or rather, people act differently when they have a scarcity mindset. It turns it into 'us against them', as opposed to 'how can we work together to make sure everyone gets what they need.'
Of course farmers downriver have an incentive to cooperate. Any agreement will probably benefit them, since it will probably include limiting how much water the upriver farmers use.
But why would the upriver farmers agree? Right now they've got the water to grow whatever they want, so why should they care about anyone else?
The answer...
Well, it may not be one they want to hear. I mean, I suppose I could go the route of 'what happens to one happens to all' (sort of like Matthew 25:35-40) but I'll go for a more realpolitick answer here.
Which is, mainly, that people don't just roll over and die when they're prevented from getting the resources they need. And when they're at risk of starving, they'll probably find a way to attack the ones they blame. In this case, the upriver farmers. (Consider, again, that Iran threatened to go to war with Afghanistan because by the time the Helmand River crossed into Iran too much water was being taken.)
Certain things are... well, now that I'm studying computer science I suppose I'll put it like this:
There are vulnerabilities in society, and hunger is one of them. A software vulnerability doesn't automatically mean that you've been hacked - it still takes someone writing malicious code and infecting your system - and hunger in and of itself doesn't mean society is going to fall apart. But the risk of someone exploiting the vulnerability will always be there. (This is where the analogy falls apart, though, as 'exploiting the vulnerability' in society is not necessarily done by malicious actors the way most malware is.)
And just as businesses try to patch vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, anyone who wants to live in a stable society should have a vested interest in patching these types of vulnerabilities before they lead to problems.
To put it another way, some of the studies on game theory have shown that if people feel they're getting a raw deal they will sometimes take action that hurts themselves, just to express their displeasure at the other party.
Our current system allows for a high degree of inequality, and we consider it acceptable because of the belief in a meritocracy, that we can succeed or fail by our own efforts, and that the wealthy earned what they have.
But too much inequality becomes a vulnerability, especially if it's coupled with the widespread belief that we're no longer a meritocracy, and that the wealthy haven't really earned the money they've got. (Or earned it at the expense of the rest of society, where people who work hard no longer reap the benefits of doing so... not when they have to have two or three jobs just to make ends meet, as wages fail to keep up with inflation and whatnot.)
You can never predict when a vulnerability will be exploited, of course. I can't honestly say "if nothing changes X will happen in ten years."
But I can note that there are vulnerabilities, and that if/when those vulnerabilities are exploited the people currently benefiting by our system will probably not like what happens.
That the growing popularity of the phrase 'eat the rich' is a symptom of this, and that if the Powers That Be aren't aware and willing to address this (and NOT by force, or dismissing everyone as a bunch of whiners and socialists), then they're fools.
Water usage and irrigation is one of the common examples of a social dilemma, and something Elinor Ostrom talked about a lot. I remember talking to a USAID (or another similar agency) hydrologist, and he said that there was enough water in the province if it was managed correctly...
But issues like this are as much about managing people as they are about actually managing the water.
Or rather, people act differently when they have a scarcity mindset. It turns it into 'us against them', as opposed to 'how can we work together to make sure everyone gets what they need.'
Of course farmers downriver have an incentive to cooperate. Any agreement will probably benefit them, since it will probably include limiting how much water the upriver farmers use.
But why would the upriver farmers agree? Right now they've got the water to grow whatever they want, so why should they care about anyone else?
The answer...
Well, it may not be one they want to hear. I mean, I suppose I could go the route of 'what happens to one happens to all' (sort of like Matthew 25:35-40) but I'll go for a more realpolitick answer here.
Which is, mainly, that people don't just roll over and die when they're prevented from getting the resources they need. And when they're at risk of starving, they'll probably find a way to attack the ones they blame. In this case, the upriver farmers. (Consider, again, that Iran threatened to go to war with Afghanistan because by the time the Helmand River crossed into Iran too much water was being taken.)
Certain things are... well, now that I'm studying computer science I suppose I'll put it like this:
There are vulnerabilities in society, and hunger is one of them. A software vulnerability doesn't automatically mean that you've been hacked - it still takes someone writing malicious code and infecting your system - and hunger in and of itself doesn't mean society is going to fall apart. But the risk of someone exploiting the vulnerability will always be there. (This is where the analogy falls apart, though, as 'exploiting the vulnerability' in society is not necessarily done by malicious actors the way most malware is.)
And just as businesses try to patch vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, anyone who wants to live in a stable society should have a vested interest in patching these types of vulnerabilities before they lead to problems.
To put it another way, some of the studies on game theory have shown that if people feel they're getting a raw deal they will sometimes take action that hurts themselves, just to express their displeasure at the other party.
Our current system allows for a high degree of inequality, and we consider it acceptable because of the belief in a meritocracy, that we can succeed or fail by our own efforts, and that the wealthy earned what they have.
But too much inequality becomes a vulnerability, especially if it's coupled with the widespread belief that we're no longer a meritocracy, and that the wealthy haven't really earned the money they've got. (Or earned it at the expense of the rest of society, where people who work hard no longer reap the benefits of doing so... not when they have to have two or three jobs just to make ends meet, as wages fail to keep up with inflation and whatnot.)
You can never predict when a vulnerability will be exploited, of course. I can't honestly say "if nothing changes X will happen in ten years."
But I can note that there are vulnerabilities, and that if/when those vulnerabilities are exploited the people currently benefiting by our system will probably not like what happens.
That the growing popularity of the phrase 'eat the rich' is a symptom of this, and that if the Powers That Be aren't aware and willing to address this (and NOT by force, or dismissing everyone as a bunch of whiners and socialists), then they're fools.
No comments:
Post a Comment