Natural resources: can supply be maintained in a world of increasing demand?

[Speakpigeon]

If something we need ever runs out, we'll have to do something otherwise some people, possibly many, will die. Whether anything we need ever runs out and whether we don't do what's needed are contingent events and essentially unpredictable.

Might happen, might not. Who knows? But I'm not worried.

I worry exactly for the opposite. I worry for what's not necessary: The elephants, the whales, the orang-outan, democracy and freedom. What goes around comes around. I won't be there to see it, I don't think, but it would hurt a lot if I was to be still around.

I think of now as Aristotle's Athens. We may seem to be much more resilient, but Rome also was. I believe we are much more fragile than our technocrats may think, and who is doing the thinking that may become necessary?

Still, the worse will be that lots of people will die. And guess what, lots of people are dying today and we don't make such a fuss about it.
EB

 

[barbos]

There is a nice program called google-earth. Go and look at Europe Germany/France for example and see how much land is not used for growing food. Yes. Brazil have some forest left to destroy. Russia has some lots but it's not suitable for agriculture, but Europe has none.

 

[Jokodo]

There is a nice program called google-earth. Go and look at Europe Germany/France for example and see how much land is not used for growing food. Yes. Brazil have some forest left to destroy. Russia has some lots but it's not suitable for agriculture, but Europe has none.

You should actually do that yourself before you embarass yourself posting nonsense. Almost a third of Germany's or France's area is forest.

Here's two estimates for Germany: 29.7% not including brushwood https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/date...aeche/struktur-der-flaechennutzung#textpart-1
32%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_in_Germany

 

[Jokodo]

Less than 3 per cent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), of which 2.5 per cent is frozen in the Antarctica, Arctic and glaciers. Humanity must therefore rely on 0.5 per cent for all of man’s ecosystem’s and fresh water needs.

those 0.5% would still be over 800 million liters or 800,000 cubic meters - a cube-shaped pool of very nearly 100 meters to both sides and in depth to every person alive, including children.
Or expressed in terms of the typical household water consumption of 140 per person and day my city council quotes: 15600 years worth of fresh water.

Turns out my back of the envelope calculation was too pessimistic. Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/...population+of+earth+/+140+(liters/day/person) assuming again 140l per person and day (a rather first-world-level)

This is not to deny that drinkable water is difficult to come by in many places - it is. It does however show that quoting a number like "less than 0.5%" just because it sounds low adds literally nothing to an intuitive understanding of the problem, or potential venues for its solution.

 

[Speakpigeon]

And most people I know eat three times as much as they should. Most of you probably do as well. My local shop throw away good food people won't buy because it's a bit damaged. Meat is costly to produce in terms of ressources and vegetables are better. The population will start decreasing before any shortage of anything. The problem will be a shortage of (young) people, not stuff. Technology is evolving fast, what's a key ressource today will be irrelevant tomorrow. We can dig deeper. Consume less. Work more efficiently. Stop wasting resources and stop producing inefficient products like cars. We can shout "Help" very loud. But mostly, we won't be so many to begin with. The problem will be, is already today, managing our own evolution rather than our environment. People are growing indifferent to nature as we knew it. We're becoming something else and somewhere along that evolution there is potential hazard.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand

Continue?

Are everybody's demands currently being met?

 

[skepticalbip]

Less than 3 per cent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), of which 2.5 per cent is frozen in the Antarctica, Arctic and glaciers. Humanity must therefore rely on 0.5 per cent for all of man’s ecosystem’s and fresh water needs.

those 0.5% would still be over 800 million liters or 800,000 cubic meters - a cube-shaped pool of very nearly 100 meters to both sides and in depth to every person alive, including children.
Or expressed in terms of the typical household water consumption of 140 per person and day my city council quotes: 15600 years worth of fresh water.

Turns out my back of the envelope calculation was too pessimistic. Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/...population+of+earth+/+140+(liters/day/person) assuming again 140l per person and day (a rather first-world-level)

This is not to deny that drinkable water is difficult to come by in many places - it is. It does however show that quoting a number like "less than 0.5%" just because it sounds low adds literally nothing to an intuitive understanding of the problem, or potential venues for its solution.

Does this 17,000 years supply only use the current volume of water in our lakes and rivers assuming that it will never rain again? I see no end of plentiful fresh water assuming rain and snow continues to happen. There are many, many rivers continually being fed by rains. Just the St. Lawrence River has a discharge rate of 347, 849 cubic feet of water per second. Throw in the Nile, Congo, Yellow River, Yangtze, Amazon, Volga, Mississippi, etc. etc. and there are many millions (maybe billions) of cubic feet of fresh water flowing into the oceans every second.

 

[Jokodo]

Turns out my back of the envelope calculation was too pessimistic. Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/...population+of+earth+/+140+(liters/day/person) assuming again 140l per person and day (a rather first-world-level)

This is not to deny that drinkable water is difficult to come by in many places - it is. It does however show that quoting a number like "less than 0.5%" just because it sounds low adds literally nothing to an intuitive understanding of the problem, or potential venues for its solution.

Does this 17,000 years supply only use the current volume of water in our lakes and rivers assuming that it will never rain again?.

Exactly, yes. You're right that volume at any one point in time is the wrong dimension. Even so, the "only0.5%(tm)" turns out to be quite a lot

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater:

Actually, humans can use nuclear, or solar, or wind energy combined with other technologies to obtain fresh and clean water from the sea.

 

[bilby]

So, no problem? Business as usual?

Improvement as usual. The main thing is to make energy and other infrastructure available to anyone who wants it at any time as cheaply as possible.

As long as we continue to reduce the cost of doing that, there's no problem.

Things have been on an improving trend for a couple of centuries now. Quite why so many people find this a cause for fear and alarm is unclear - but fear certainly seems to be both common and incredibly counterproductive.

 

[bilby]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand

Continue?

Are everybody's demands currently being met?

Not yet, but we are getting closer. People are not starving in large numbers anymore - the last major famine was in the 1980s, and the famines of the 1950s and earlier make the 'Live Aid' famine of the '80s look like a picnic.

South East Asia has started to gain a significant middle class, and sub-Saharan Africa will be next - already we are seeing Chinese and Indian cheap labour being displaced by cheaper African labour, and the resulting construction of decent infrastructure in Africa. Efficient ports and airports, good roads, communications (and IT), and reliable and inexpensive fuel and/or electrical power are what makes it possible to get rich. They are necessary, if not sufficient, conditions for an escape from poverty. And the absence of warfare is a prerequisite for all of these things.

The poor get exploited, but then they realise that the rich depend upon them for their wealth, and demand a share. The rich either give them that share, or go elsewhere to find more poor people to exploit. Generally, a bit of both happens.

The mill and factory workers and the miners of Western Europe demanded a share of the wealth, rose out of starvation, and then had their poverty level jobs exported to South East Asia, or replaced by machines. Now the SE Asian workers are beginning to expect and demand better than poverty; They will get some concessions, and then the multinationals will shift the poverty level jobs to Africa. But then the rich are going to run short of poor people to exploit - and like all scarce resources, the price will have to rise.

Contrary to the OP, the only truly scarce resource is human labour - and as it gets more expensive, poverty gets less common. All we need to do is to use people power to force the multinationals to share some of the wealth they get from automation - which is actually in their interest to do, because: a) It's not a zero sum game, and wealthier masses make good customers; and b) They probably wouldn't enjoy being dragged out of their mansions and guillotined.

 

[bilby]

Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater:

Actually, humans can use nuclear, or solar, or wind energy combined with other technologies to obtain fresh and clean water from the sea.

At a cost of about $1 per person per week - including all delivery costs.

Whether that's 'expensive' depends on individual income, but even in the poorer parts of the world this is rapidly becoming affordable for most people.

 

[DBT]

Turns out my back of the envelope calculation was too pessimistic. Wolfram Alpha says we even have over 17000 years worth of liquid freshwater: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/...population+of+earth+/+140+(liters/day/person) assuming again 140l per person and day (a rather first-world-level)

This is not to deny that drinkable water is difficult to come by in many places - it is. It does however show that quoting a number like "less than 0.5%" just because it sounds low adds literally nothing to an intuitive understanding of the problem, or potential venues for its solution.

Does this 17,000 years supply only use the current volume of water in our lakes and rivers assuming that it will never rain again?.

Exactly, yes. You're right that volume at any one point in time is the wrong dimension. Even so, the "only0.5%(tm)" turns out to be quite a lot

The issue is not how much water there is, but how much demand is placed on supply in any given region, inadequate supply in one region can destabilize that region causing flow on effects, refugees, etc.

The problem is not only water supply. Climate change is a big factor for our ability to meet the needs of ever growing demand.

As already mentioned, the problem is not so much a projected population figure of roughly 8 - 10 billion but the increasing demand as living standards are raised worldwide....thus magnifying the problems we have now by orders of magnitude.

 

[bilby]

Exactly, yes. You're right that volume at any one point in time is the wrong dimension. Even so, the "only0.5%(tm)" turns out to be quite a lot

The issue is not how much water there is, but how much demand is placed on supply in any given region, inadequate supply in one region can destabilize that region causing flow on effects, refugees, etc.

The problem is not only water supply. Climate change is a big factor for our ability to meet the needs of ever growing demand.

As already mentioned, the problem is not so much a projected population figure of roughly 8 - 10 billion but the increasing demand as living standards are raised worldwide....thus magnifying the problems we have now by orders of magnitude.

What 'problems we have now'?

The trend is for stuff to get cheaper and more widely available over time. We do not have a resource scarcity problem in general, and the specific local resource problems are slowly but surely being eliminated by the provision of better infrastructure.

Your ability (or the ability of other worry-warts, fearmongers, and out-of-date neo-Malthusians) to imagine some intractable problem, is not evidence of its existence. What real problems, whose existence is supported by evidence, do you anticipate will be magnified by increasing wealth?

 

[DBT]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand as developing countries raise the living standards of their citizens to a rate comparable to developed nations, assuming that population stabilizes at around 9 billion, but demand continues to grow with increases in standard of living ?

I'd say that its not likely that our ecosystems can supply the needs and wants of this level of consumption at that population figure.

It's not an issue. When we hit a wall we'll just make do with less. The big one is food. But we're nowhere near a crisis when it comes to food. We could feed ten times as many humans. Most of the effort we put into food is luxury food production. That could be cut in an instant and we'd be just as happy. Clean water, also not an issue. It's simply a question of political motivation. We're today really good at filtering and cleaning water.

The biggest problem is global warming. But that's not a problem of scarcity. That's a problem of an over-abundance of fossil fuels. So the opposite issue

The problem with global warming is that the climate may no longer be conducive for our agricultural practices, prolonged droughts in some regions, destructive storms elsewhere.

 

[Treedbear]

Civilization is going to run out of sand. There are many many uses but the most demand comes from making concrete. Think of how indispensable it is for all our infrastructure and all the new 3rd world development to come and then consider that the lifetime of concrete structures is about 200 years. So eventually it will all need to be torn down and replaced and it doesn't recycle very efficiently.

 

[DBT]

Exactly, yes. You're right that volume at any one point in time is the wrong dimension. Even so, the "only0.5%(tm)" turns out to be quite a lot

The issue is not how much water there is, but how much demand is placed on supply in any given region, inadequate supply in one region can destabilize that region causing flow on effects, refugees, etc.

The problem is not only water supply. Climate change is a big factor for our ability to meet the needs of ever growing demand.

As already mentioned, the problem is not so much a projected population figure of roughly 8 - 10 billion but the increasing demand as living standards are raised worldwide....thus magnifying the problems we have now by orders of magnitude.

What 'problems we have now'?

The trend is for stuff to get cheaper and more widely available over time. We do not have a resource scarcity problem in general, and the specific local resource problems are slowly but surely being eliminated by the provision of better infrastructure.

Your ability (or the ability of other worry-warts, fearmongers, and out-of-date neo-Malthusians) to imagine some intractable problem, is not evidence of its existence. What real problems, whose existence is supported by evidence, do you anticipate will be magnified by increasing wealth?

Environment/ecosystem degradation is a current problem. The Murry Darling region, for example, is under stress because too much demand is being placed upon these rivers by irrigation and urbanization....right now.

The problem seems to be that too many people feel that as a species we are divorced from our ecosystems, the very source of our supply.

This is likely to get worse as demand increases, as it must.

Nor am I a 'fear monger' - simply pointing to an unfolding problem with the way we do business and interact with our ecosystems.

 

[bilby]

What 'problems we have now'?

The trend is for stuff to get cheaper and more widely available over time. We do not have a resource scarcity problem in general, and the specific local resource problems are slowly but surely being eliminated by the provision of better infrastructure.

Your ability (or the ability of other worry-warts, fearmongers, and out-of-date neo-Malthusians) to imagine some intractable problem, is not evidence of its existence. What real problems, whose existence is supported by evidence, do you anticipate will be magnified by increasing wealth?

Environment/ecosystem degradation is a current problem. The Murry Darling region is under stress because too much demand is being placed upon these rivers by irrigation and urbanization....right now.

Local mismanagement of resources isn't evidence of a global shortage.

The problem seems to be that too many people feel that as a species we are divorced from our ecosystems, the very source of our supply.

I agree that that's a problem. But it's not caused by population numbers, nor by excessive economic consumption.

This is likely to get worse as demand increases, as it must.

Why? Increasing demand doesn't imply increasing ignorance of the environment. Nor does it imply an increasing amount of mismanagement of local resources.

We have solutions to these issues; If we choose to implement them, increasing consumption isn't a problem. If we choose not to implement them, the problem will persist even if consumption declines.

These kinds of local resource mismanagement issues have existed since the dawn of agriculture, and probably even earlier. If you shit upstream of your drinking water supply, you will have problems no matter how many, or how few, people there are in the world.

If you choose to license a big cotton farm to extract almost all of the water from the headwaters of a river system, then you choose not to continue to have a downstream river system anymore. That's a stupid choice, but not an irreversible one, nor one caused by population or consumption growth.

Shut down Cubbie Station, and nobody will notice except it's tiny number of wealthy owners, whose wealth would become slightly less excessive than it is now. Its existence owes everything to stupidity, corruption, and greed, and nothing at all to population or economic growth. Of course, those rich corrupt fucks want us to believe that the problems of the Murray-Darling basin are due to some nebulous 'population problem', and not due to their greed and indifference to suffering - but why would we choose to help them with that self-serving propaganda?

 

[DBT]

The local example was just one example, there are many more, as I'm sure we are all aware.

Increasing demand inevitably places further strain on the system regardless of environment awareness because there are more farms, more agriculture and irrigation.

 

[skepticalbip]

The local example was just one example, there are many more, as I'm sure we are all aware.

And increased wealth is the solution. It is the more affluent nations of the world that have ability to care about and for the environment. The people in poverty stricken nations like Haiti or Liberia can't afford to worry about the environment since their concern is basic survival so those nations live in an ecology that has been ravaged. Just a standing tree in Haiti is threatened because it can be used as firewood. Cross the boarder from Haiti into the Dominican Republic and the environment will be seen to be much more healthy.