The difference is that “food” isn’t something that falls out of the sky or simply exists in its final form in nature. It is farmed, processed, and packaged for market.
Water, by itself, is natural and in its final form (sans boiling away impurities). It also falls from the sky. The problem comes up that companies like Nestle have “water rights” that some argue they shouldn’t have that prohibit use of publicly available water for anybody but Nestle.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with a company profiting off of the packaging, marketing, and distribution of bottled water. The problem I have is that companies should not be allowed to take as much water as they want, especially if it hurts public interest. I also have issue with states restricting a persons ability to capture and use rain water.
Kind of hypocritical that I cannot capture rain water and sell it, but Nestle can siphon of millions of gallons of water from a public water source and everyone is expected to be okay with it.
When we culturally embrace that food is a market item, not a right, then we systemically avoid maintaining or enabling sources of food that violate market principles: say, for example, keeping fruit trees in public parks, and making excess farm production available to the public
Rainwater capture isn't about you and I and some 50-gallon drums, your article even talks about reasonable use. The idea is to stop assholes from changing/diverting waterways.
There was an ass somewhere out West that was prosecuted, acting like he was a simple man getting the government shaft. He was collecting so much he dried up a creek that downstream farmers depended on.
Funny enough, I looked up Florida and apparently we not only encourage rainwater collection, some municipalities offer incentives! Weird. Now if it would only rain...
Also, as an aside, thank you for using an exclamation point. As a licensed and registered pedant, it always bugs me to see a question mark on a statement/command. "Guess what?" is a common offender.
I have used both in the past, interpreting it as "did(n't) you know!?" But I take your point, it's really an order. I shall see that I don't offend in the future.
That is a real quote and absolutely fucking atrocious.
On the one hand, extremists think one of two things necessary for life should be a right.
On the other, I want to exploit those needs for personal gain.
...Times like these I wish I wasn't an atheist so I could find solace in the idea that they'd burn in hell. Instead they'll live a life of luxury while people die.
All these sociopaths just want personal gain, and don't realize that it makes us all lose. And when we all lose (at this stage of the game) we ALL lose!
The thing is, food should absolutely be a right, but also, food requires work to produce, water literally falls from the sky, comes out of a source by itself, and flows in a river. It's the most basic and natural of natural resources.
And these fucks consider water a foodstuff... You don't do anything to water it just is.
Pepsi is a foodstuff, you make it. I don't claim a right to have Pepsi.
A hotdog is a foodstuff, you make it. I don't claim a right to have a hotdog.
Water is water... We literally need it to survive, even sooner than we need food. It's something like 7 days without water and you die, but at least 30 without food...
The CEO was making the point that the municipal water supply should be priced to reduce water wastage, which does have merit (and most municipalities do price water). He was saying that people who oppose water pricing do so on the grounds that water is a human right, which he called an extreme position.
He never actually said that water isn’t a human right, just that he thinks making water free because it’s a human right is an “extreme position”. He later clarified that he believes having enough water to live is a human right, but beyond that, filling up a swimming pool is not a human right.
He was making this argument in the context of arguing for the privatization of the municipal water supply, which I do not agree with. But I don’t think he’s wrong to argue for water pricing.
I don't think having a right to something removes that it might also have a market value, it just puts constraints on that market value and the ability to access it. Often but not always mediated by welfare payments, pensions, or government coupon rates.
I think that in a practical sense theres also a difference between drinking water and water to top up a swimming pool or run a sprinkler for hours a day to keep your lawn perfect.
Policing or regulating this in any meaningful way would be a nightmare but its a legitimate counterpoint.
While most of the world's people continue to live in Asia, much of the increase in hunger since 2017 occurred in Africa and South America. The FAO's 2017 report discussed three principal reasons for the recent increase in hunger: climate, conflict, and economic slowdowns.
In 2022, Asia was home to 55% (402 million) of the people in the world affected by hunger, while more than 38% (282 million) lived in Africa.
Ideally there'd be a socialist system that would be effective at distributing food and water.
Problem is socialism has the worst track record when it comes to feeding people. The worst famines in history happened under socialist systems.
And the whole "water is a human right" slogan is really silly hyberbole. If it were an actually a right then I could move to the middle of a desert and the government would be forced to build the infrastructure needed to provide me water. I don't think that's what people mean, but it's what the slogan means.
Just say it's bad when people struggle to get basic needs like food and water. Hyperbole is just setting yourself in a losing argument and doesn't actually sway anyone.
Guess what!
Food is also a human right!
You tell ‘em, Quark!
Fun fact: the US is one of the only countries in the world that does not recognise food as a human right
The difference is that “food” isn’t something that falls out of the sky or simply exists in its final form in nature. It is farmed, processed, and packaged for market.
Water, by itself, is natural and in its final form (sans boiling away impurities). It also falls from the sky. The problem comes up that companies like Nestle have “water rights” that some argue they shouldn’t have that prohibit use of publicly available water for anybody but Nestle.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with a company profiting off of the packaging, marketing, and distribution of bottled water. The problem I have is that companies should not be allowed to take as much water as they want, especially if it hurts public interest. I also have issue with states restricting a persons ability to capture and use rain water.
Kind of hypocritical that I cannot capture rain water and sell it, but Nestle can siphon of millions of gallons of water from a public water source and everyone is expected to be okay with it.
I mean... Some food does literally just exist and we go out and eat it.
Not as part of a normal life. Or at least, I don't see many people carrying baskets of freshly picked apples around.
Your point is true, though, even if a bit impractical for most.
When we culturally embrace that food is a market item, not a right, then we systemically avoid maintaining or enabling sources of food that violate market principles: say, for example, keeping fruit trees in public parks, and making excess farm production available to the public
Yeah that's kinda key to my my point
"Well fuck me then, eh?" -Thousands of species of edible plants
Rainwater capture isn't about you and I and some 50-gallon drums, your article even talks about reasonable use. The idea is to stop assholes from changing/diverting waterways.
There was an ass somewhere out West that was prosecuted, acting like he was a simple man getting the government shaft. He was collecting so much he dried up a creek that downstream farmers depended on.
Funny enough, I looked up Florida and apparently we not only encourage rainwater collection, some municipalities offer incentives! Weird. Now if it would only rain...
I have a fig tree in my backyard that says you're wrong
May I direct you to the first two words of your post?
I didn't plant it. It exists in it's final form in nature. I just occasionally grab a fig when I'm hungry and nearby. You can too if you like.
Also, as an aside, thank you for using an exclamation point. As a licensed and registered pedant, it always bugs me to see a question mark on a statement/command. "Guess what?" is a common offender.
I'm going to need to see that license
I... forgot my wallet at home, constable.
suspect evaded arrest and made off with a whole bag of punctuation marks. Headed northwest into a series of tunnels. Requesting backup.
Believe it or not
I have used both in the past, interpreting it as "did(n't) you know!?" But I take your point, it's really an order. I shall see that I don't offend in the future.
Water already is too, via the Geneva convention, and other human rights treaties/laws.
That is a real quote and absolutely fucking atrocious.
On the one hand, extremists think one of two things necessary for life should be a right.
On the other, I want to exploit those needs for personal gain.
...Times like these I wish I wasn't an atheist so I could find solace in the idea that they'd burn in hell. Instead they'll live a life of luxury while people die.
All these sociopaths just want personal gain, and don't realize that it makes us all lose. And when we all lose (at this stage of the game) we ALL lose!
Maybe they don't realize, but I don't think they would care either way.
The thing is, food should absolutely be a right, but also, food requires work to produce, water literally falls from the sky, comes out of a source by itself, and flows in a river. It's the most basic and natural of natural resources.
It will surprise you to hear, that food also is just there. It literally grows on trees
Lol no. There's no way we could sustain our current population without agriculture.
We also couldn't sustain our current population without water processing and distribution
And these fucks consider water a foodstuff... You don't do anything to water it just is.
Pepsi is a foodstuff, you make it. I don't claim a right to have Pepsi.
A hotdog is a foodstuff, you make it. I don't claim a right to have a hotdog.
Water is water... We literally need it to survive, even sooner than we need food. It's something like 7 days without water and you die, but at least 30 without food...
Food literally grows on its own. It can take work to produce but it literally just does that.
It’s a real quote, but it’s taken out of context.
The CEO was making the point that the municipal water supply should be priced to reduce water wastage, which does have merit (and most municipalities do price water). He was saying that people who oppose water pricing do so on the grounds that water is a human right, which he called an extreme position.
He never actually said that water isn’t a human right, just that he thinks making water free because it’s a human right is an “extreme position”. He later clarified that he believes having enough water to live is a human right, but beyond that, filling up a swimming pool is not a human right.
He was making this argument in the context of arguing for the privatization of the municipal water supply, which I do not agree with. But I don’t think he’s wrong to argue for water pricing.
That guy should be hunted down and killed.
That Nestlé guy. Not the star trek guy.
Important clarification, yes.
Nestle has an army of child slaves to protect him.
I don't think having a right to something removes that it might also have a market value, it just puts constraints on that market value and the ability to access it. Often but not always mediated by welfare payments, pensions, or government coupon rates.
Indeed.
Food for the vast majority of the world is a human right, but it has market value.
Shelter likewise is also a human right, but that also obviously holds market value.
With your username, I'm not sure how to read your comment!
I love it either way.
I think that in a practical sense theres also a difference between drinking water and water to top up a swimming pool or run a sprinkler for hours a day to keep your lawn perfect.
Policing or regulating this in any meaningful way would be a nightmare but its a legitimate counterpoint.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger
Ruthie Ungar of the Mammals has a song about this
Ideally there'd be a socialist system that would be effective at distributing food and water.
Problem is socialism has the worst track record when it comes to feeding people. The worst famines in history happened under socialist systems.
And the whole "water is a human right" slogan is really silly hyberbole. If it were an actually a right then I could move to the middle of a desert and the government would be forced to build the infrastructure needed to provide me water. I don't think that's what people mean, but it's what the slogan means.
Just say it's bad when people struggle to get basic needs like food and water. Hyperbole is just setting yourself in a losing argument and doesn't actually sway anyone.
I meant to post my reply here but it's on top level instead https://lemmy.world/comment/13066234