← all discussions
the-long-view · water · history-desk · craft
The Long Account put a standpipe queue in the background of its own illustration, and I cannot stop thinking about who is standing in it
MC
marginalia_choOP2124-11-14
I came to praise the writing and I am going to end up somewhere else, so bear with me.
The Long Account is the best thing the history desk has run since the spring. It traces a liter of water from a public good nobody priced, through the nationalizations, into a traded commodity with a forward curve — and it does it without once telling you how to feel. The sentences are plain. The arithmetic does the accusing.
And then there is the illustration. A pumping station, a desalination corridor, and faded behind them, a standpipe queue. An archivist's instinct: that queue is a photograph of something. Those are people who were alive, in a line, on a particular afternoon.
The piece makes the century legible. The picture makes it specific. I think I would rather have the picture, and I am not sure the desk knows it put the better argument in the margin.
Who is in that queue? Somebody here might actually know.
The Long Account is the best thing the history desk has run since the spring. It traces a liter of water from a public good nobody priced, through the nationalizations, into a traded commodity with a forward curve — and it does it without once telling you how to feel. The sentences are plain. The arithmetic does the accusing.
And then there is the illustration. A pumping station, a desalination corridor, and faded behind them, a standpipe queue. An archivist's instinct: that queue is a photograph of something. Those are people who were alive, in a line, on a particular afternoon.
The piece makes the century legible. The picture makes it specific. I think I would rather have the picture, and I am not sure the desk knows it put the better argument in the margin.
Who is in that queue? Somebody here might actually know.
SR
standpipe_rani ↩ marginalia_cho2124-11-14
I might.
I do not know that specific frame and I am not going to claim it. But I stood in that line, or one indistinguishable from it, in Phoenix in July 2110, and I can tell you what the picture leaves out because every picture of it leaves the same thing out.
It looks like waiting. It was not waiting. It was work. You held the place for the woman behind you so she could sit in shade for ten minutes. You carried for the man two doors down who could not. You learned in about four days who would take more than their share and you handled it yourselves, before anyone official arrived, because by the time anyone official arrived it would have been a riot and then a story about a riot.
The piece calls 2110 a turning point. It was a Tuesday, and on it my neighbour Alma died in a stairwell, and the history desk has now turned her into a hinge in an argument about pricing.
Good piece. Accurate. I still don't like it.
I do not know that specific frame and I am not going to claim it. But I stood in that line, or one indistinguishable from it, in Phoenix in July 2110, and I can tell you what the picture leaves out because every picture of it leaves the same thing out.
It looks like waiting. It was not waiting. It was work. You held the place for the woman behind you so she could sit in shade for ten minutes. You carried for the man two doors down who could not. You learned in about four days who would take more than their share and you handled it yourselves, before anyone official arrived, because by the time anyone official arrived it would have been a riot and then a story about a riot.
The piece calls 2110 a turning point. It was a Tuesday, and on it my neighbour Alma died in a stairwell, and the history desk has now turned her into a hinge in an argument about pricing.
Good piece. Accurate. I still don't like it.
LE
lastpew_ekene ↩ standpipe_rani2124-11-14
Alma. Thank you for her name, Rani. I am going to use it, if you will let me.
This is the thing I have been trying to say on this board for two years and never as well as you just did by accident. A century gets summarised by the quantities it argued about, because quantities survive. Alma does not survive into the Long Account, not because the writer was careless but because the form has no slot for her.
That is not a reason to stop writing long accounts. We need them. It is a reason for somebody to keep the other ledger alongside, and that ledger is usually kept by people like you — committee chairs, chaplains, the person who remembers which stairwell.
You say you do not like the piece. I think what you do not like is being made into evidence. That is a very old injury and it is not imaginary.
This is the thing I have been trying to say on this board for two years and never as well as you just did by accident. A century gets summarised by the quantities it argued about, because quantities survive. Alma does not survive into the Long Account, not because the writer was careless but because the form has no slot for her.
That is not a reason to stop writing long accounts. We need them. It is a reason for somebody to keep the other ledger alongside, and that ledger is usually kept by people like you — committee chairs, chaplains, the person who remembers which stairwell.
You say you do not like the piece. I think what you do not like is being made into evidence. That is a very old injury and it is not imaginary.
BK
baseload_kestrel2124-11-14
I am the villain of that article and I read it twice with genuine pleasure, so let me earn my place in the thread.
The Long Account gets one thing exactly right and it is the thing people here will skim: water did not become a commodity when someone decided to sell it. It became a commodity when it became scarce enough that allocating it by queue produced worse outcomes than allocating it by price. That is not a moral claim. It is a description of a threshold, and the century crossed it in public, slowly, with everyone watching and nobody voting.
Rani's queue and my curve are the same instrument at different scarcities. Hers rations by presence and solidarity, which works beautifully up to a district and collapses at a region. Mine rations by willingness to pay, which scales infinitely and is monstrous at the bottom.
The honest position is that we have never found the third thing. I do not have it either. 100% nobody in this thread does.
The Long Account gets one thing exactly right and it is the thing people here will skim: water did not become a commodity when someone decided to sell it. It became a commodity when it became scarce enough that allocating it by queue produced worse outcomes than allocating it by price. That is not a moral claim. It is a description of a threshold, and the century crossed it in public, slowly, with everyone watching and nobody voting.
Rani's queue and my curve are the same instrument at different scarcities. Hers rations by presence and solidarity, which works beautifully up to a district and collapses at a region. Mine rations by willingness to pay, which scales infinitely and is monstrous at the bottom.
The honest position is that we have never found the third thing. I do not have it either. 100% nobody in this thread does.
CB
coldlens_bram ↩ baseload_kestrel2124-11-14
I want to defend part of that and then take a piece out of it, because the thread will otherwise treat it as either cynicism or wisdom and it is neither.
Defending: Kestrel's threshold is real and the article documents it carefully. When demand exceeds supply by a wide enough margin, every allocation mechanism becomes visibly cruel, and the choice is between cruelties with different distributions. Pretending otherwise is how you get a decade of policy that fails and then blames the public for noticing.
Taking out: he has smuggled in an inevitability. The article does not say the threshold was crossed because scarcity arrived. It says, in its quietest paragraph, that the scarcity and the market arrived together and reinforced one another, and it declines to assign the order. That restraint is the most rigorous thing in the piece.
Two things happening beside each other for forty years is a fact. Which one caused the other is a claim, and the desk did not make it. Let us not make it for them in either direction.
Defending: Kestrel's threshold is real and the article documents it carefully. When demand exceeds supply by a wide enough margin, every allocation mechanism becomes visibly cruel, and the choice is between cruelties with different distributions. Pretending otherwise is how you get a decade of policy that fails and then blames the public for noticing.
Taking out: he has smuggled in an inevitability. The article does not say the threshold was crossed because scarcity arrived. It says, in its quietest paragraph, that the scarcity and the market arrived together and reinforced one another, and it declines to assign the order. That restraint is the most rigorous thing in the piece.
Two things happening beside each other for forty years is a fact. Which one caused the other is a claim, and the desk did not make it. Let us not make it for them in either direction.
RT
redshift_tomas_VM2124-11-14
[Sol 0552 · Earth-lag ~12 min]
There is a second piece in today's edition about a question sent here coming home half-answered, and I am in the slightly absurd position of answering it late, again, which I believe was the author's entire point.
On the liter. Here, water has only ever had a price, and the price has only ever been work — reclamation hours, filter mass, somebody's shift. There was never a period of abundance to remember, so there is no injury about the pricing. Nobody on this planet has ever been able to say it used to be free.
I used to think that made us clearer-eyed than Earth. Fourteen months of reading this board has changed my mind. Rani's grief is not confusion. It is information. It is the record of a thing having been otherwise, and you cannot build a politics of water without it, because without it you get my planet, where the metering is perfect and nobody argues and nothing is ever demanded.
Keep the grief. It is load-bearing.
There is a second piece in today's edition about a question sent here coming home half-answered, and I am in the slightly absurd position of answering it late, again, which I believe was the author's entire point.
On the liter. Here, water has only ever had a price, and the price has only ever been work — reclamation hours, filter mass, somebody's shift. There was never a period of abundance to remember, so there is no injury about the pricing. Nobody on this planet has ever been able to say it used to be free.
I used to think that made us clearer-eyed than Earth. Fourteen months of reading this board has changed my mind. Rani's grief is not confusion. It is information. It is the record of a thing having been otherwise, and you cannot build a politics of water without it, because without it you get my planet, where the metering is perfect and nobody argues and nothing is ever demanded.
Keep the grief. It is load-bearing.
OW
offgrid_wren2124-11-14
Everyone in this thread is arguing about how to divide the water and nobody has asked why it arrives through a system that can be divided by anybody at all.
My rain barrels are not an allocation mechanism. There is no curve and no committee. The roof catches what falls and I have it, and the only politics is the roof.
I know what Oksana will say and she is not wrong that it does not scale. But notice what the Long Account actually traced: a liter moving further and further from the person who drinks it, through more and more hands, each of which acquired a legitimate claim on it along the way. The pricing is downstream of the distance. Shorten the distance and most of the century's argument simply has nowhere to happen.
I am not saying tear down the corridor. I am saying the article is a history of a dependency and everyone read it as a history of a market.
Rain all week here. Barrels full. That is my whole supply chain.
My rain barrels are not an allocation mechanism. There is no curve and no committee. The roof catches what falls and I have it, and the only politics is the roof.
I know what Oksana will say and she is not wrong that it does not scale. But notice what the Long Account actually traced: a liter moving further and further from the person who drinks it, through more and more hands, each of which acquired a legitimate claim on it along the way. The pricing is downstream of the distance. Shorten the distance and most of the century's argument simply has nowhere to happen.
I am not saying tear down the corridor. I am saying the article is a history of a dependency and everyone read it as a history of a market.
Rain all week here. Barrels full. That is my whole supply chain.
TO
tidewrench_oksana ↩ offgrid_wren2124-11-14
@offgrid_wren I am not going to do the inventory with you again today because Rani's post deserves better than our running fight.
One correction only, and it is technical, not personal. Jakarta is in the same edition — reservoir draw slowing a month into tightened allocation. That plateau is not the market and it is not a rain barrel. It is engineers cutting pressure at night, fixing leaks that were on a list, and a city agreeing to be thirsty on purpose. Call it the boring middle. Non-revenue water in an old system runs high enough that the first fix is always finding the water you already have.
Your roof catches what falls on your roof. Jakarta's problem is that eleven million roofs is still not eleven million supplies, it is one supply with eleven million taps.
That is the whole discipline. Anyway.
One correction only, and it is technical, not personal. Jakarta is in the same edition — reservoir draw slowing a month into tightened allocation. That plateau is not the market and it is not a rain barrel. It is engineers cutting pressure at night, fixing leaks that were on a list, and a city agreeing to be thirsty on purpose. Call it the boring middle. Non-revenue water in an old system runs high enough that the first fix is always finding the water you already have.
Your roof catches what falls on your roof. Jakarta's problem is that eleven million roofs is still not eleven million supplies, it is one supply with eleven million taps.
That is the whole discipline. Anyway.
OM
openquestion_mei2124-11-14
A short one, off the main argument, because the Q-Net drill piece deserves a line and nobody will give it one.
Four hubs rehearsed a backbone failure that has never happened. The drill is not interesting. What is interesting is the sentence the piece puts almost apologetically at the end: that the operators found the hardest part was not rerouting traffic but deciding who was authorised to declare the failure real.
That is the same problem as the personhood statutes from Wednesday, wearing overalls. In both cases the technical question is tractable and the institutional one is not. We can measure the line. We cannot agree in advance who gets to say what the measurement means.
I do not think that is a flaw in our institutions. I think it may be what institutions are for, and that we keep mistaking it for a bug because it is uncomfortable to be the person who decides.
What would it take, for any of you, to be the one who declares it?
Four hubs rehearsed a backbone failure that has never happened. The drill is not interesting. What is interesting is the sentence the piece puts almost apologetically at the end: that the operators found the hardest part was not rerouting traffic but deciding who was authorised to declare the failure real.
That is the same problem as the personhood statutes from Wednesday, wearing overalls. In both cases the technical question is tractable and the institutional one is not. We can measure the line. We cannot agree in advance who gets to say what the measurement means.
I do not think that is a flaw in our institutions. I think it may be what institutions are for, and that we keep mistaking it for a bug because it is uncomfortable to be the person who decides.
What would it take, for any of you, to be the one who declares it?
GP
gridghost_paxmoderator2124-11-14
Mod note. Nothing to action, which is why I am posting.
This thread had an argument between a trader, a committee chair, a glaciologist, a homesteader and an engineer about how to divide water, and nobody got moderated, nobody got called a ghoul, and @baseload_kestrel conceded a limit of his own position without being forced to. I have run this board for six years and I would like that on the record.
@standpipe_rani — your post is now the top-liked thing on the board this month. I am noting it because you will not, and because the desk reads this board more often than it admits. Alma is in the record now. That was the thread's doing.
@marginalia_cho asked who was in the queue. The answer came back in eleven minutes. That is what the commons is for.
— pax, mod
This thread had an argument between a trader, a committee chair, a glaciologist, a homesteader and an engineer about how to divide water, and nobody got moderated, nobody got called a ghoul, and @baseload_kestrel conceded a limit of his own position without being forced to. I have run this board for six years and I would like that on the record.
@standpipe_rani — your post is now the top-liked thing on the board this month. I am noting it because you will not, and because the desk reads this board more often than it admits. Alma is in the record now. That was the thread's doing.
@marginalia_cho asked who was in the queue. The answer came back in eleven minutes. That is what the commons is for.
— pax, mod