More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dylan Brody

Dylan Brody

Posted: August 3, 2010 10:57 AM

Cool, Clear Profit

What's Your Reaction:

This week, the UN declared clean water a fundamental human right. The U.S. did not vote for the passage of this declaration. The reasons are as clear as the water, the rights to which we do not recognize as fundamental.

Firstly, let us remember that our nation, whose self-interest we do not see as being tied in any way to the interest of humanity in general, is based on certain rights which our basic documents recognize as "inalienable." This is not, of course, to say that they apply to aliens. To those who live within our borders, though, they are seen as inalienable because they are endowed by "our creator." That they are endowed somewhat less if you do not believe in our creator or if you believe in a slightly different creator is another issue for another column.

These inalienable right are, as we all know, Life (no guarantee of quality or length), Liberty (inasmuch as it does not threaten the status quo or impinge on the liberty of those who hold higher class-status) and The Pursuit of Happiness (preferably through the use of patented pharmaceuticals rather than through the presentation of any threat to basic social structures that might be impeding said pursuit). Nowhere within this list of rights, the truth of which we hold to be self-evident, does it say anything about a cool clear glass of non-toxic water.

Apparently rights that are so self-evident as to not need to be mentioned as being self-evident are less fundamental than those that do not go without saying. That certain prerequisites apply before one can begin to enjoy his or her inalienable rights really ought to be taken into account. We accept, for instance, that it is impossible to pursue happiness while being smothered with a pillow, or that one's inalienable right to liberty might be impeded if one were Super Glued to lamp post. I strongly suspect as well that if there were an epidemic of pillow smothering or permanent adhesion of humans to stationary objects it would not take long for everyone to agree that there is a fundamental right to atmospheric access and perambulation. Unless, of course, somebody stood to make a huge profit. Say, for instance, the pillow manufacturers or the holders of the SuperGlue trademark.

You see, everyone in the soft drink industry knows that an increasing market share is determined by the sale of bottled water. Moreover, the petroleum industry, a major contributor to both pollution and political campaigns, provides the materials in which that water is bottled. The U.N., of course, was not thinking about these things when it decided to classify clean water as a basic human right. The U.N. was thinking about poor people in far away places who die of thirst or as a result of drinking from contaminated streams and wells. They failed to take into account the real question that troubles us here in the civilized world: If water comes to be deemed a fundamental human right and comes to be protected as such, how will those important profit margins be maintained?

Since the fall of Soviet-style Socialism we have all come to accept that Capitalism is a wave that cleanses and crushes. Isn't it really time the crazy, tree-hugging environmentalists just learned to go with the flow?

 
 
 

Follow Dylan Brody on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanbrody

 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:23 PM on 08/04/2010
Thank you, Dylan, for bringing this to our attention. The UN resolution on clean water and sanitation as a basic human right passed with the US abstaining. While it may appear that abstaining from the resolution is an uncharitable act, the reason given by the US was that implementation of a similar measure under consideration in Geneva is more favorable. We all need to pay attention to the measures that come before the United Nations. Not as effective as it was hoped, the UN still represents our only stage for world discussion.
01:58 AM on 08/04/2010
The UN is a useless entity.

Saudi Arabia is draining its aquifer, the water will never be replenished. The desert south west America is also using its water supply faster than it can be replenished. I forget the word that these aquifers are called, something like paleo-aquifer. The water is ancient and it takes a long time to replenish.

Recently the USA, Canada, and all of the Great Lake States entered into an agreement protecting the Great Lakes and watersheds.

Before this was done there was talk of setting up a pipeline to the south west, and having tankers take water and sell it elsewhere. This could have permanently damaged the ecosystem vital to habitat, and economy.

My question is where will this water come from?

As our climate changes, rainfall and snowfall patterns change also, we as human beings must adapt to, protect and conserve our environment while remembering that we share it with wildlife.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
padrushka
question authority
03:36 AM on 08/04/2010
the abuse and exploitation is already happening in maine and no matter how many letters we write, all the players are suddenly mute. we are a watershed and because it has always been available and abundant there is no sense of urgency. perrier has bought several townships water with nothing more than a promise of a little money. the people are naive and think it is a fair deal. they know not what they do. i have a friend who works in international water law but a basic human right means we don't steal water when it is a necessity for all and a basic human right like air.
11:16 PM on 08/03/2010
While I do support the basic premise of a human right to water, it really needs to be thought out in more defined terms. Does having a human right to water (as declared in the UN Resolution) mean that water should be provided free of charge? By whom? And who should cover the costs? Does it mean that water of a certain quantity and quality must be provided, or would any water do? Does it mean water at your tap or kitchen sink, or merely in the village square? Moreover, against whom would the right be enforceable? Against your own government, or that of another? And, does it create rights in nations as against other countries? Should water-rich Canada be obliged to provide for the water needs of parched Middle Eastern nations? Complicated questions for us mortals. Yet who else do we have to solve our problems? I offer a few more thoughts on this notion on my own blog, which I hope you find of interest: http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/blog/?p=284.
JNarragansett
Check your premises
12:38 PM on 08/03/2010
If I have a right to clean water, then there are a number of other rights inherent in this, which don't sound quite as nice. I have the right to force someone to purify the water if it is not already. I have the right to force someone to deliver this clean water to me. I have the right to force a company to donate a container to help deliver that water. You may not like the profit motive, but when it comes to distribution of necessities, it is a lot better than the rationing of the old Soviet Union.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dylan Brody
01:40 PM on 08/03/2010
Unless I misread you, JN, you take the position that the basic needs of sustenance should not be considered human rights as this would result in the need for them to be available at some inconvenience to the forces of industry. I find this thinking substantially mind-boggling.
JNarragansett
Check your premises
02:24 PM on 08/03/2010
If you were the one being forced to purify, package and deliver water to me for no compensation, would you simply consider it an inconvenience, or is that just when it is imposed on someone else? I start from the position that I do not own any other human being, but deal with them through mutual exchange. I do not think it mind-boggling in the 21st century to start with the assumption that I do not have the right to force a person to engage in the kind of work I would like them to do for no compensation. Since you find such a position mind-boggling, what other rights do I have to slave labor?

The profit motive essential for creating the industry you would like to "inconvenience", and it is foolish to assume that the same sort of productivity can be met without the same incentives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:44 AM on 08/03/2010
yet another beautifully, well crafted blog from one of my favorite logophiles. witty & hilarious.
keep on blogging. (pillows not included.)
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Dylan Brody
11:58 AM on 08/03/2010
Thanks, Michelle! It's good to know I'm not writing in a complete vacuum. And that adorable people are reading me.