Because people don't click on links on twitter as often as they bother to read a tweet thread.
But also, I actually like this form of communication. By the nature of the medium (one thought per tweet), you are forced to discard all superfluous details. Instead each tweet/thought must be a strong point. This is compared to a blog, where the only thing holding you back from adding fluff is your own intellectual discipline.
Can you explain why you find this impossible/discipline to follow?
Well, not all discourse needs to happen on twitter.
Sure, it is nice when there is something you can actually convey in just a few sentences but I have a hard time reading this.
It is hard to follow because my reading gets interrupted, and I need to focus on where I am instead of what information I am receiving. I donno. I just think it's hard and it's very annoying so I'm rather inclined to stop reading because honestly I don't care enough to make the hassle worth it.
A tweet thread is also often meant to be chewed upon. Because minimal details are provided with the expectation that the reader will be able to fill in some of the obvious blanks with a little thought. So I usually read these threads a tweet at a time, wondering on the implications of each statement (a lot of times I can't think of any).
I rarely read tweet threads, mainly because I am rarely on twitter but also because there is often little reason to. Most of the threads is simply just angry people who disagree or people that agree and want to spread the word.
There is a serious disconnect between medium and message when people find it necessary to manually number every message, and stoop to doing so on a regular basis. You might still find it readable but the absurdity of that behavior should at least be a glaring red flag. Twitter's layout is designed around the assumption that discrete posts will be distinct thoughts or status updates, but this breaks when people force even a paragraph through. I find it grossly unreadable to sift through so much whitespace, redundant usernames, redundant time stamps, numerous like and share icons, etc. that interrupt the text when it's broken into tiny chunks in this manner--I can read it, but I hate doing so.
IMO this is both Twitter's fault for existing, since the prevalence of this kind of posting seems to indicate that microblogging is a failed concept, and the userbase's for insisting on using it for content which is obviously unsuitable. Obviously a lot of people are willing to put up with this format but I see it as a huge mess and I avoid Twitter links whenever possible.
I always thought watersheds were a great way of defining state-level regions. They're more stable than boundaries set by rivers, and are more natural than arbitrary lines of latitude/longitude. In the (near) future, there's going to be a lot of hand wringing over who has what rights to which water. The only way to completely solve it is to have one region be in control of the entire course of the water's flow.
Granted, redrawing the map based on watershed doesn't solve India's problem. But, it sounds like that in the future their drinking water is going to come from careful management of groundwater, which will require a lot of state level agreements. Right now, I'm not optimistic those agreements will happen smoothly.
> Granted, redrawing the map based on watershed doesn't solve India's problem
Thats a recipe for political disaster. Identity based politics is the only paradigm of politics in India. Currently southern states in India are organised on linguistic identity and every now and then there are statements from main-stream politicians calling for secession and establishing a separate country to counter the influx for North Indians who are painted as separate racial and ethnic group by these politicians. Breaking up existing units of governance organised on the linguistic identity will add fuel to the fire of separatism and powers like China and Pakistan will be more than happy to assist the separatists movement that starts because of this stupidity. BTW this is the wet dream of Pakistan and China as to India's future. Be noted the human cost a separatist movement will cause. India's bulk of fighting forces is made up by youths from north India. Do this and we have a Syria or Bangladesh with a scale of 1 billion plus people.
What are you smoking? That's what happen when you try to impose your language on us through some education policies. That's what happens when you remove the Tamil name with some name in a language somewhat foreign to us.
And calling us racists? Who coined the name madarasi for South Indians? It's the north of Vindhya.
Posting like this will get you banned here, regardless of how provocative another comment was or you felt like it was. Please make your substantive points without personal attacks and flamebait.
I dont know as to why you would infer that I am calling a couple of hundreds of million people racist. I will restate what my assertion is. Identity politics is the political paradigm in India. Majority of the populace in India votes on basis of identity, caste, creed or religion. The linguistic identity of people is the best and only identity politics that is there. Now if reorganisation of Indian states on basis of water considerations will lead to situations were politicians will exploit and portray the reorganisation as imperialistic designs of north Indian hegemonies of Hindi and Hindutva policies even though the policy will be based on water considerations. Add to this the influx of Chinese and Pakistani influences and situation may get worse and we might have a humanitarian crisis on our hand.
And I do reiterate that I am not against linguistic units of governance.
And also this is the worst case scenario but nevertheless a scenario. All depends upon how our politicians portray these to citizens and when it comes to politicians, we never know.
Delimitation of LS by population was frozen in 1976 and will remain so until 2026. North will be favored by population even then. Why not redistrict anyway?
Let's take a moment and remember that a lot of the bad aspects of what happened to India after the brits left was because they divided up the country and then washed their hands in innocence. Now you propose to do it again. Why? It did not work well last time, and somehow you imagine dividing it along the lines of a single relatively minor (as in it's eminently solvable, not because it has little impact) problem that it will go better now.
or go all in, and establish a world government. I think a single governing body is the only true way forward for humanity, if humanity is to move beyond earth and be a space faring civilization.
Talking of space faring .. according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organi..., the Indian Space Research Organisation budget of 11,538.26 crore (US$1.7 billion)(2019–20 est.) would buy a lot of water infrastructure, but that's obviously not as exciting as going to Space..
All the infrastructure you can built won't solve the fundamental problem: humans are taking water out of the ground faster than it can be replenished, and there are more of them taking more and more water each year. Eventually the train will plow through the buffers...
ISRO provides and interprets a lot of meteorological data crucial for the agrarian economy of India amongst other things. ISRO is mostly focused on activities that benefit India in the now(launching higher resolution meteorological satellites/cooperating with EU on launch vehicles) vs countries like the US/China that focus on the future(spacelabs/spacex/mars mission etc)
There have been a flurry of alarmists posts like these but somehow I cant wrap my head around how will we run out of water. I stay in Bangalore and some people do have the problem of water - but for the most part it doesnt seem to be an issue of 'lack' of water perse but mostly distribution issues.
Bangalore has been having intermittent rains throughout the summers and even though few people use them now, but if situation gets dire almost everyone should be able to setup a rain water harvesting system and get by.
India is also installing solar at a rapid pace and the cost of electricity is going down. The next level solution could be just to use sea water that India is surrounded by, and use some of that solar power to filter this water.
Somehow I dont get all this alarmist news. Maybe im missing something.
If you already have rainwater harvesting, good for you, but if you depend on borewells and tankers for water, then news like this is not alarmist and is worrisome. Borewells are already becoming dry throughout the city, and digging deeper results in more brackish water. Cementing every single part of land, and not building recharge wells only adds to the problem. (Tankers are reliable for now, but it's silly to put the control of a vital resource in the hands of a private entity that will always be attracted to the highest bidder. The poorer sections of society will be affected first and hardest)
As the population of Bengaluru increases, the demand for water will increase. It's not just a distribution issue, it's a civic planning and ecological issue. Encroachment of lakes[0] and the booming real estate market aren't helping the situation at all.
Also, desalination is not as easy as one thinks [1].
Better solutions to this problem are effective civic planning, ensuring that the groundwater table is recharged, (as you rightly mentioned) rainwater harvesting, and preserving the lakes Bengaluru has.
There is a water shortage and you propose to solve it with two solutions that don't currently exist. Not everyone harvests rain water right now. The solar that you speak of doesn't exist, and filtering sea water is definitely not as simple as "using some of that solar power".
It is a problem because the situation currently is looking pretty bad. As far as I can tell people are not denying that a solution is possible. When is it not?
So, I am confused about whether we really have a problem or there is some other agenda. I know lot of people in Bengaluru don't get govt water supply (Cauvery water). Was speaking to a friend just yesterday who was complaining about the quality of the tanker water they get in their apartment, that some people are getting skin diseases because of it and that they use filtered water for washing their baby and their hair.
Desalination seems to be expensive:
>"Rs 1.36 crore a day for just 200 million litres of water; can Chennai really afford desalination plants?"
>Our water problems are essentially due to mismanagement of water bodies, and Chennai is not a rain-starved city. “Chennai’s average annual rainfall of 139 cm is sufficient to recharge its aquifers. We don’t have perennial rivers, but we have abundant surface water resources. The city of London, with just 60 cm of annual average rainfall, relies on surface water resources. It is shameful that we have opted for the extravagant choice of desalination plants instead,” said Sai Praneeth, Director, Hydro-Meteorological Innovative and Explorative Solutions (HYMIES).
Also just came across this Twitter account. They seem to be posting a lot of info about India's water situation.
https://twitter.com/zenrainman
Water relations are complex and require sophisticated culture. You are right there were cities thriving in arid climate like Karakorum dessert or Palestine. Ancient Rome had been able to supply more fresh water to the Rome via aqueduct system then entire New York used up to 1980s.
Some societies created intricate cultures like subak in Bali.
The practical question is if India can reform its water policy within years left before certain cities will start to die. Because they will otherwise.
Let me give the PoV from Hyderabad.
Hyderabad gets water from mainly 3 sources;
1. Musi river water/Manjeera
2. the Large lakes like Hussain/Osmania Sagar etc.
3. ground water/borewells
My apartment society in Gachibowli area, just ran of water for a few days back in June. The borewell just couldnt get the water. There is no lake around us.
Getting the river water connection would be around Rs.15_00_0000. To add to the issues, the gov is not giving out new river water connections without a longdrawn process and the river water itself is too low to sustain all the existing connection.
Right now several apartment societies with 3000+ apartments in them are coming up in my immediate neighbourhood.
So next year, we can expect the borewell water to be over way before june (early may?). We will certainly don't have river water connection by then. So, we will be dependent on water takers for a few months.
this year the tankers are charging 8k (from 2k last year) for each refill. next year, the price would be over 20k for each refill.
Rain water harvesting doesnt works greatly in areas like ours which only get a few months of rain. Where will you keep the harvested water for the next 8-9 months? How do you maintain the quality of this stagnant water? So, most likely people would end up using it and the hope would be that an equivalent amount of ground water will be spared. It really doesnt works out in practice. People don't ration the water usage and will not until it gets dire. Also rain harvesting infra will take years to set up. Desalinating water is not much help as transporting the water is a logistical issue. So yes, while there are possible solutions, they will take a lot of political will to execute and will certainly take more than a few years to bear fruit. The situation, till then will be bad.
2020 is going to be bad for us in Hyderabad. Not Chennai level bad. but we will get there in the next few years.
And what i do know of Bangalore form my other friends who live there, its pretty bad there already. A lot of large societies are dependent on tanker waters despite Bangalore having much more rainfall than Hyderabad.
All in all, I think this level of alarm is not just necessary, it should have come a decade ago, when it would have been easier to circumvent. Hyderabad's population will cross 12MM by 2030.
Now, whatever approach we end up taking, its gonna be costly, hard to execute and will take a lot of time.
And will probably will not be enough.
EDIT: I am wildly off on the Hyderabad population growth. The existing census data is from 2011. Apparently we crossed 12MM in 2019. https://indiapopulation2019.com/population-of-hyderabad-2019...
If correct, this is over the population of major mega cities like NY, LA etc.
> Right now several apartment societies with 3000+ apartments in them are coming up in my immediate neighbourhood. So next year, we can expect the borewell water to be over way before june (early may?).
Do you mean that a permit had been given to developement project without providing adequate water supply first? And it will depend on borewells?
> Rain water harvesting doesnt works greatly in areas like ours which only get a few months of rain. Where will you keep the harvested water for the next 8-9 months?
Some desert cities in Palestine had a rain once in a three years. Still tanks provided adequate amounts of water.
Seems like India ain't lacking in water resources but in governance.
Governance and public apathy are always a big issue in India.
And with the sheer speed of growth, it would be a struggle for even a gov with the political will to make meaningful changes.
Regarding you question on giving permits without providing adequate water supply, that's how it is in Indian metropolitans.
Same issue in Pakistan, it's a very watery place in comparison to say, Europe or Southern USA, but you have hard time finding a place with reliable tap water:
1. Water theft from utilities
2. Gigantic and wasteful usage of water in agriculture
3. Leaky pipes and contamination from sewage
4. Utilities are just starting to recover from decades of extreme mismanagement
5. Tanker mafia of course doing its worst to keep all of above going
Agricultural irrigation is a far bigger problem, particularly because existing systems are hugely wasteful due to subsidies (water and even the electricity to pump it is often free), leakage and corruption.
> How many litres of water does it take to make a litre of mineral water?
Interesting question, I found this article[1] which says:
- for North American companies, it takes 1.39 liters to make one liter of water
- That's less than the global averages of a liter of soda, which requires 2.02 liters of water
- A liter of beer, meanwhile, needs 4 liters of water, wine demands 4.74 liters. Hard alcohol, it turns out, is the greediest, guzzling 34.55 liters of water for every liter
India does not have a water issue, they have a population issue, but it’s really hard to mange the population, so natural resources are being consumed beyond sustainability.
This problem is not confined to India, it’s a problem with humanity. Nature is working on a correction.
You could also say that resources of India had been depleted by greed, overexploatation and the lack of proper governanace. You can't run a multimilion city on borewells and groundwater - the government should had built proper infrastructure - pipelines, reservoirs, water meters, sewage treatment plans etc.
I beg to differ, India's population density is comparable to many Western European countries. They a problem of population distribution. Like many developing nations, populations cluster in large cities leading to pressures on resources.
> India's population density is comparable to many Western European countries.
I went down worldpopulationreview.com's list; I'll post my list annotated with country size as a reply to this comment.
Findings:
India, the country, is #28. It has essentially equal population density to the Netherlands (#29, in Europe!), while being a modest 87 times larger. Belgium (#33) has only slightly less density, and India is merely 102 times bigger.
The next European country down is England at #50. It's much closer to the size of India -- 8% as large -- and has two-thirds the density.
Pakistan is #55; it's about four times the size of England with comparable density.
#59 is Germany; it's less than half the size of Pakistan with comparable density. Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, who you might have thought would have super-high density, are equal to Germany. (Monaco and Vatican City really do have super-high density.)
The only other country-sized European countries in the top 70 are Switzerland and Italy, #68 and #69. They have half the density of India. Italy is a tenth of India's size. Switzerland is slightly larger than the Netherlands.
Bangladesh, by the way, is #12, with more than double the density of India (in about 1/20 of the space).
So I can't agree that India's population density is comparable to "many Western European countries". It's comparable to a couple of diminutive European countries. Equal density over 100 times the area is not what you would expect; it's something very unusual about India.
In fact, we can just compare the regions directly. Europe has 743 million people in 10 million square kilometers of land for an average density of 74.3 people per square km. India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) has 1740 million people in 4 million square km, for an average density of over 400 people per square km (roughly equal to the density of India the country, which makes sense), about 6 times the figure for Europe.
Areas are taken from Wikipedia, with water area removed where Wikipedia lists water area. This list is the full top 30 "countries" plus whoever I thought was of interest down to #70. Many areas are rounded.
1. Macau 30 square km
2. Monaco 2.2
3. Singapore 720
4. Hong Kong 1,070
5. Gibraltar 6.7
6. Bahrain 778
7. Vatican City 0.44
8. Maldives 298
9. Malta 316
10. Sint Maarten 37
11. Bermuda 39
12. Bangladesh 138,000
13. Palestine 5,800
14. Saint-Martin 53
15. Mayotte 374
16. Barbados 439
17. Lebanon 10,300
18. Taiwan 36,000
19. Mauritius 2,000
20. Aruba 179
21. San Marino 61
22. South Korea 100,000
23. Nauru 21
24. Saint Barthelemy 25
25. Rwanda 25,000
26. Comoros 1,659
27. Tuvalu 26
28. India 2,970,000
29. Netherlands 34,000
30. Israel 21,000
33. Belgium 29,000
37. Japan 365,000
47. Vietnam 310,000
50. United Kingdom 239,000
55. Pakistan 860,000
59. Germany 357,000
68. Switzerland 40,000
69. Italy 294,000
Most european countries have highly cultivated land and are industrialized through and through. It might go faster nowadays, but it took them hundreds of years to get there. Turning the middle of nowhere into arable land doesn't happen over night in any case.
This makes them able to efficiently provide for their population with the land they have available. India has some way to go in that respect.
This is not accounting for differences in geography or resources - like water - that are directly limited unless you want to build infrastructure for artificial water purification too.
I suppose it's more of the density than the population. India is massive by all measurements, but west and east sides are completely different. In the west, you have Mumbai, a city full of dust, slums, and millions of people riding trains in a single evening, all fighting for resources.
East side, is full of greenery, rainforest, and a peaceful living with hardly any population compared to west.
The Drought Early Warning System (DEWS) revealed that more than 42% of the country’s area is abnormally dry, which is 6% more than that of the previous year.
... as many as 26 out of 36 meteorological subdivisions in India have recorded deficit rainfall. This is the second driest pre-monsoon that the country has witnessed ever since 1954.
China managed in a similar situation. I think it may be harder to fight people for resources, or just reducing their resource use, than making sure they are never born.
When you cover large swarth of land with concert the rain water goes on the roof and on the road goes to gutter and makes it way to sevege. In absence, of this it is drawn underground and refills underground water.
When people were building these concert jungles, they didn't keep in mind where the water comes from and how exactly it's refilled and what we can do to replenish the capacity lost due to our development projects.
This is not a problem of city size but lack of planning for growth at the regional level. Look at New York City as an example, they started sourcing water from far distances early on and built an infrastructure to support a very large city. cities need to develop their surrounding areas to support themselves, sprawl isn't just because people don't want to live in a city sprawl is also required to support one
> If we do not limit the number of people who can get in, it will naturally result in whole population of India moving into these cities.
The population of France does not all live in Paris, nor that of the USA in New York. Even in as small a country as Luxembourg not everyone lives in Luxembourg City.
I must ask, does Paris or Luxembourg has slums like Mumbai has? Higher prices doesn't stop people below poverty line from coming to Mumbai and living below the standards here.
> This will result in people making wherever they live better instead of just moving to a better city.
Maybe in the long term. In the immediate future, it would lead to massive economic recession due to labour shortages in high-employment areas and economic genocide in low-employment areas. The only way to redistribute employment might be gradual with economic incentives and disincentives. It also requires long-term thinking and implementation and it is difficult to imagine this in the Indian context.
I've see a number of documentaries about indians that have used permaculture to turn desert into food producing forests. maybe they need to apply their knowledge in cities?
how much is Coca-Cola[1][2] to blame for this. Afaik it has been the center of criticism in India for over a decade now:
Coca-Cola operates 58 water-intensive bottling plants in India. In the southern Indian village of Plachimada in Kerala state, for example, persistent droughts have dried up groundwater and local wells, forcing many residents to rely on water supplies trucked in daily by the government.
I'll assume that every ounce of bottled water or soft drink replaces water that people would have drank anyway, and possibly with more efficiency - a larger percentage of the (expensive) bottled water gets used on the unalienable human need to drink than if the same water was piped to houses and used for both drinking and washing.
The plants may be blamed for transferring water scarcity from places where the drinks are bought and drunk to the places where the bottling plants are operated, but not for creating water scarcity.
