Politics Are Water Wars in the Near Future?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bottled water is a huge cause of water being wasted.

Personally, I see single use plastic bottles as the bigger problem.
Tom

That's the point. She isn't talking about the five gallon or larger bottles you see at water stations. When I see people leaving stores with five cases of plastic water I just shake my head. Where I worked the staff went through cases. I think I drank one bottle of plastic water there in 30 years.

 

[TSwizzle]

We're not unlike the Kaibab deer. You overpopulate and overconsume, you suffer.

Unlike deer, we humans have technology to overcome natural constraints. But here in California, our incompetent and corrupt government can’t or won’t address our water shortage problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're not unlike the Kaibab deer. You overpopulate and overconsume, you suffer.

Unlike deer, we humans have technology to overcome natural constraints. But here in California, our incompetent and corrupt government can’t or won’t address our water shortage problem.

Start that high tech rain dance. The world is watching.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We're not unlike the Kaibab deer. You overpopulate and overconsume, you suffer.

Unlike deer, we humans have technology to overcome natural constraints. But here in California, our incompetent and corrupt government can’t or won’t address our water shortage problem.

And you wouldn't want to pay for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

• The Board has Pollyannas who, in other threads, insist that depletion of rivers and aquifers due to overpopulation is NOT an issue — just desalinate some salt water. (Or move California's agriculture industry to the Yukon — I can't keep up with Pollyanna's solutions.) Yet the articles about water shortage generally overlook such simple solutions. What gives?

In the long run the only solution is going to be desalinization, but that's going to be expensive and everyone wants to resolve the situation by taking more for themselves and making someone else bear the burden.

 

[bilby]

The Board has Pollyannas who, in other threads, insist that depletion of rivers and aquifers due to overpopulation is NOT an issue — just desalinate some salt water. (Or move California's agriculture industry to the Yukon — I can't keep up with Pollyanna's solutions.) Yet the articles about water shortage generally overlook such simple solutions. What gives?

Well, for a start "overpopulation" isn't a thing.

Depletion of rivers and aquifers is due to locally inadequate infrastructure. People cannot live in deserts without water supply infrastructure, so they are left with two options: Move to non-desert locations, or pay the price of the necessary infrastructure.

As climate changes, they may well find that that price goes up. When it does, they can choose to pay the extra, or leave. But they generally don't want to leave (fair enough), and they don't really grasp that they need to pay more, because they've acquired the habit of taking the infrastructure for granted (because people are dumb).

So they demand that 'somebody' do something about it. While claiming that spending money on a solution is somehow unacceptable. Did I mention people are dumb?

People live, and even farm, in arid regions by the application of technologies (often cheap and simple technologies) to the problem of insufficient rainfall, or of insufficient standing water, or both. When cheap and simple technologies are inadequate, they can use more expensive and complex ones, or leave.

The technologies aren't particularly difficult to implement. They just cost money. Saying "Americans don't need to worry too much because they are wealthy enough to bear the additional costs" isn't pollyannaish. It's a simple fact.

It's a different issue for somewhere like, say, Sudan, where the local economy cannot support the additional costs of such infrastructure - and in such cases the options are either to obtain the money (by growing the economy, or as aid from countries that can afford to pay, or as debt forgiveness from the former colonial powers that are bleeding them white, or something else, or a combination of these); Or to move off the drought affected land; Or to die.

But in California or Arizona, it's easy. Pay to fix the issue, or stop using the land. Nobody has a god given right to grow almonds at somebody else's expense. Any Californian can have as much fresh water as they could possibly want, delivered to any location in the state that they want it, at a few months notice. But it may well be very expensive by comparison to what they've been in the habit of paying.

Desalinated seawater might easily cost five or six dollars per cubic metre*, once you pay for the whole system of plant, pipes, pumps, (and some components that don't start with "p") that is needed to get that water reliably supplied to an inland location at high elevation.

That's likely too expensive to make almond farming profitable. It's certainly not a particularly significant expense by the standards of a Californian cost of living, though. Even a profligate family that uses far more water than average would not see their water costing anywhere close to what they spend on other essentials such as food and clothing.

Pointing out these facts may be uncomfortable for almond farmers who have been in the habit of getting their water for next to nothing, and of believing that the resulting profits are solely derived from the sweat of their own brow. But there's nothing pollyannaish about them. California can (and eventually must) afford to pay for the necessary infrastructure. It's not particularly expensive by Californian standards, and it's not optional.

I doubt that even Californians are dumb enough to die of thirst because they refuse to pay a few cents in additional taxes for the provision of essential infrastructure. But if they are, I am struggling to see how that would be a major loss to humanity.






*Real world data suggests that actual costs are likely about half of this; I am deliberately erring on the side of caution

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

• The Board has Pollyannas who, in other threads, insist that depletion of rivers and aquifers due to overpopulation is NOT an issue — just desalinate some salt water. (Or move California's agriculture industry to the Yukon — I can't keep up with Pollyanna's solutions.) Yet the articles about water shortage generally overlook such simple solutions. What gives?

In the long run the only solution is going to be desalinization, but that's going to be expensive and everyone wants to resolve the situation by taking more for themselves and making someone else bear the burden.

Or we could get all that extra carbon out of the atmosphere.

 

[TSwizzle]

Or we could get all that extra carbon out of the atmosphere.

Rain dance, carbon

you’re such a doofus.

 

[Rhea]

Bottled water is a huge cause of water being wasted.

Personally, I see single use plastic bottles as the bigger problem.
Tom

That's the point. She isn't talking about the five gallon or larger bottles you see at water stations. When I see people leaving stores with five cases of plastic water I just shake my head. Where I worked the staff went through cases. I think I drank one bottle of plastic water there in 30 years.

It’s not only single serving ones, though. I also see those 2-gallon ones purchased and tossed half full.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Board has Pollyannas who, in other threads, insist that depletion of rivers and aquifers due to overpopulation is NOT an issue — just desalinate some salt water. (Or move California's agriculture industry to the Yukon — I can't keep up with Pollyanna's solutions.) Yet the articles about water shortage generally overlook such simple solutions. What gives?

Well, for a start "overpopulation" isn't a thing.

Depletion of rivers and aquifers is due to locally inadequate infrastructure. People cannot live in deserts without water supply infrastructure, so they are left with two options: Move to non-desert locations, or pay the price of the necessary infrastructure.

Okay! So the Ganges Basin and the jungles through which the Mekong River flows are "deserts." Live and learn.

 

[bilby]

Bottled water is a huge cause of water being wasted.

Personally, I see single use plastic bottles as the bigger problem.
Tom

That's the point. She isn't talking about the five gallon or larger bottles you see at water stations. When I see people leaving stores with five cases of plastic water I just shake my head. Where I worked the staff went through cases. I think I drank one bottle of plastic water there in 30 years.

It’s not only single serving ones, though. I also see those 2-gallon ones purchased and tossed half full.

Bottled water is an excellent way of paying a thousand times as much for a commodity as you need to pay.

It's a perfect example of the fact that the most fundamental premise of laissez faire economics is utterly false.

According to economists, it would be completely impossible to charge a 100,000% markup on a widely available commodity; A business based on so doing would never be able to succeed, because people would simply take the cheaper option.

In other news, in the financial year 2020, Coca Cola Amatil recognized trading revenue of 4.76 billion Australian dollars.

 

[bilby]

The Board has Pollyannas who, in other threads, insist that depletion of rivers and aquifers due to overpopulation is NOT an issue — just desalinate some salt water. (Or move California's agriculture industry to the Yukon — I can't keep up with Pollyanna's solutions.) Yet the articles about water shortage generally overlook such simple solutions. What gives?

Well, for a start "overpopulation" isn't a thing.

Depletion of rivers and aquifers is due to locally inadequate infrastructure. People cannot live in deserts without water supply infrastructure, so they are left with two options: Move to non-desert locations, or pay the price of the necessary infrastructure.

Okay! So the Ganges Basin and the jungles through which the Mekong River flows are "deserts." Live and learn.

If you honestly think that that's implied by anything I have written, then it is fairly evident that you have completely failed at the latter.

I shall assume that your abject failure to address my argument, other than with a pathetic mischaracterisation of it, is a concession that I am substantively correct.

 

[TSwizzle]

One thing I would like to see is much MUCH more regulation of factories that bottle water.

I have the feeling it would be more than “one thing” you’d like to see MUCH more regulation of.

Jeezus, the control freaks never tire of such things.

 

[Rhea]

Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.

 

[bilby]

Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.

It doesn't need regulation. The rational consumers acting in the free market will ensure that the industry can never make a profit, and will immediately cease to exist.

 

[TSwizzle]

Notwithstanding the silly and contentless ad-hominem attack, the lack of regulation over water extraction is causing severe damage to communities and ecosystems that support humans. Yes it should have much more regulation.

How would you like it regulated ?

 

[Swammerdami]

Main causes of the depletion of the Mekong include upstream damming by China and drought. Moreover, high populations use more resources than low populations do. Vietnam alone has 100 million people.

Depletion of rivers and aquifers is due to locally inadequate infrastructure. People cannot live in deserts without water supply infrastructure, so they are left with two options: Move to non-desert locations, or pay the price of the necessary infrastructure.

Okay! So the Ganges Basin and the jungles through which the Mekong River flows are "deserts." Live and learn.

If you honestly think that that's implied by anything I have written, then it is fairly evident that you have completely failed at the latter.

I shall assume that your abject failure to address my argument, other than with a pathetic mischaracterisation of it, is a concession that I am substantively correct.

If you honestly think that "Depletion of rivers and aquifers is due to locally inadequate infrastructure" is a good description of Mekong, I shrug my shoulders.

Do you have some "semantic" rhetoric to justify the sentences I've reddened? Maybe. Who cares?

Most of your posts are intelligent and informative; I admire them. But you do remain confused on the topic of scarcity due to high population. Let's just agree to disagree about that.

 

[bilby]

But you do remain confused on the topic of scarcity due to high population.

I am not confused at all. You believe that I am wrong. But that appears to be based on your failing to understand what I have said, and instead substituting poor guesses at what I might have said.

Your belief that I am wrong isn't confusion on my part. It's just an error you are making.

Scarcity due to high population isn't a thing. Your belief that it must be a thing is in the same category of heartfelt but factually wrong beliefs as the belief that there's a God, or that Santa beings gifts at Christmas. And your objections to my pointing out the nonexistence of your object of belief are notable for their similarity with the objections raised by religionists. I am not confused; I am just not swallowing your nonsensical belief system.

Scarcity due to stupidity, cruelty, selfishness, lack of investment in infrastructure, investment in selfishly designed infrastructure, and a whole bunch of other problems, now that's a thing.

And while we pointlessly and incorrectly blame "high population", we are failing to even attempt to address the real causes of scarcity.

The lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans are fucking huge. They can easily support our current population of humans, or any plausible future population, in a luxurious lifestyle, if we apply technology in a less pointlessly selfish way - and we have already made some progress towards that objective.

But instead of working towards further progress, some people have simply decided to hate humanity. Which is absurd, imbecilic, and very human.

Scarcity is everyone's problem, and the solutions are independent of population size.

There was a neat microcosm of this during the Apollo 13 mission.

The three astronauts were threatened by rising CO₂ levels, and this was happening faster than expected, because they had worked out the rate based on ready-reckoners that assumed a Lunar Module population of two, not three.

The CM pilot, who wasn't expected to be there, quipped that perhaps he should hold his breath. But of course, all three men knew that the problem was not able to be resolved by population reduction. If one or even two of them had been able to save the others by suicide, then that option would at the very least have been seriously discussed; But of course, it wouldn't have worked - it would just have delayed the inevitable.

Scarce resources can be used half as fast by half as many people, but that doesn't help, anymore than it would have helped Lovell and Haise, if Swiggart had held his breath.

The only long term fix is technological - we need to recycle resources faster than they turn over naturally. And we have been doing so, in support of increasing population, since at least the neolithic.

Killing people (or even just telling them how large their families are allowed to be), not only constitute inhumane and cruel behaviour; They constitute completely futile inhumane and cruel behaviour.

Population is the objective. It's not a problem, much less the problem.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But you do remain confused on the topic of scarcity due to high population.

I am not confused at all. You believe that I am wrong. But that appears to be based on your failing to understand what I have said, and instead substituting poor guesses at what I might have said.

Your belief that I am wrong isn't confusion on my part. It's just an error you are making.

Scarcity due to high population isn't a thing. Your belief that it must be a thing is in the same category of heartfelt but factually wrong beliefs as the belief that there's a God, or that Santa beings gifts at Christmas. And your objections to my pointing out the nonexistence of your object of belief are notable for their similarity with the objections raised by religionists. I am not confused; I am just not swallowing your nonsensical belief system.

Scarcity due to stupidity, cruelty, selfishness, lack of investment in infrastructure, investment in selfishly designed infrastructure, and a whole bunch of other problems, now that's a thing.

And while we pointlessly and incorrectly blame "high population", we are failing to even attempt to address the real causes of scarcity.

The lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans are fucking huge. They can easily support our current population of humans, or any plausible future population, in a luxurious lifestyle, if we apply technology in a less pointlessly selfish way - and we have already made some progress towards that objective.

But instead of working towards further progress, some people have simply decided to hate humanity. Which is absurd, imbecilic, and very human.

Scarcity is everyone's problem, and the solutions are independent of population size.

There was a neat microcosm of this during the Apollo 13 mission.

The three astronauts were threatened by rising CO₂ levels, and this was happening faster than expected, because they had worked out the rate based on ready-reckoners that assumed a Lunar Module population of two, not three.

The CM pilot, who wasn't expected to be there, quipped that perhaps he should hold his breath. But of course, all three men knew that the problem was not able to be resolved by population reduction. If one or even two of them had been able to save the others by suicide, then that option would at the very least have been seriously discussed; But of course, it wouldn't have worked - it would just have delayed the inevitable.

Scarce resources can be used half as fast by half as many people, but that doesn't help, anymore than it would have helped Lovell and Haise, if Swiggart had held his breath.

The only long term fix is technological - we need to recycle resources faster than they turn over naturally. And we have been doing so, in support of increasing population, since at least the neolithic.

Killing people (or even just telling them how large their families are allowed to be), not only constitute inhumane and cruel behaviour; They constitute completely futile inhumane and cruel behaviour.

Population is the objective. It's not a problem, much less the problem.

Bilby: this is a pretty common theme for you that there is no problem with higher human population. Why? What is your motivation? How is it "cruel and inhumane" to have a smaller family? I think the exact opposite. You focus a lot on resources. But raising successful and happy kids to me is more about time. This is my opinion, take it as you want, but I've found for me that the more time parents give to their kids in the form of activities that they want to do and are interested in, the happier they are and more successful. IMO, kids who don't get this attention and time have trouble more than the average kid. I think that it's cruel and selfish to have a large family because it leads to less time with each kid.

The above is a derail. But I also really don't see how anymore can conclude that very large families aren't a drain on resources.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The above is a derail. But I also really don't see how anymore can conclude that very large families aren't a drain on resources.

No derail. There isn't anything wrong with large families. The factor that matters is total population. There's an obvious difference between a million families with two children and a million families with fourteen children.