Tier 1 Water Shortage for SW appears inevitable

[steve_bank]

South and central American civilizations came and went. Growth to the limits of resources. In one case archeological evidence points to fouling of the water supply from large scale production of building materials involving lime.

Anyone who thinks population can continue to grow without And is playing solitaire with a short deck.

Africa as it has been is chronically unable to support existing populations. Chronic poverty, food shortages, and disease.

The govt predictionis that we will no longer be a net exporter of food with climate change and water shortages.

I believe India rhas eached its water limit already.

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/us/lake-mead-drought-water-shortage-climate/index.html

Lake Meade is drying up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/us/lake-mead-drought-water-shortage-climate/index.html

Lake Meade is drying up.

Oh, so that's why the drivers are so bad here--they're drunk!

I wish it were Lake Water.

 

[bilby]

The seas are big. People used to think about the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie similarly, just keep dumping the waste there, it won't matter.

Back on topic, the problem isn't water, it's population.

Population isn't a problem, it's the objective.

All of human endeavour is about making life better for the population.

Population has stopped growing, so the exponential growth fears of the 1960s and '70s are no longer valid.

We can sustainably improve the lives of the population we have through technology, or we can force people to live in misery; or we can force people to have children only at the say-so of the authorities, or we can commit genocide.

Those are the options. People who say "population is the problem" either haven't looked at demographics in the last fifty years, or want to be luddites even if that entails being a vile sociopathic cunt.

 

[bilby]

South and central American civilizations came and went. Growth to the limits of resources. In one case archeological evidence points to fouling of the water supply from large scale production of building materials involving lime.

Anyone who thinks population can continue to grow without And is playing solitaire with a short deck.

Anyone who thinks population is going to grow beyond the next couple of decades hasn't paid attention since the 1970s

It doesn't matter if it CAN. Because it WON'T.

Africa as it has been is chronically unable to support existing populations. Chronic poverty, food shortages, and disease.

Africa is a vast continent with huge variations in quality of life. But with very few exceptions, every part of Africa has a wealthier, better fed, and healthier population today than it did forty years ago. Typically FAR wealthier, better fed, and healthier.

The last major famine in Africa was the one Bob Geldof ranted about at Live Aid. Since then, Ethiopia has approximately trebled its population. No famine. It turns out, population doesn't correlate with famine at all in most of Africa. Famine is a characteristic of war and civil disturbance.

The govt predictionis that we will no longer be a net exporter of food with climate change and water shortages.

[citation needed]

I believe India rhas eached its water limit already.

Reality doesn't care what you believe.

 

[Jokodo]

Rwanda and Senegal today have about the same life expectancy and infant mortality the US had in 1960 or Austria in 1968: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=US-AO-GH-DE-SN-RW-ET

Ethiopia is a net exporter of agricultural products*.

Those African countries that do have significant trade deficits in agricultural products either do so because peasants fleeing conflicts have left the land fallow, like Sudan or Somalia, or because they can afford to rely on imported food due to mineral riches.

* these statistics are typically based on dollar value rather than nutritional value, so it's conceivable would be unable to feed its population without importing grains even if they were to convert their coffee and rose plantations to grain fields. I'd like to see some actual data before concluding this is true, though.

 

[Bomb#20]

Anyone who thinks population is going to grow beyond the next couple of decades hasn't paid attention since the 1970s

It doesn't matter if it CAN. Because it WON'T.

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,' just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

 

[steve_bank]

Funny how as things are getting worse some people just keep rationalizing the problem away.

Over here that generally defines Trump era republicans.

 

[Elixir]

We can sustainably improve the lives of the population we have through technology

We do that, and could do it further but for the foibles of human character.

or we can force people to live in misery

We do that too. While overall metrics of health and welfare (life expectancy, quality of life etc.) continue to improve, some populations are forced to live in misery.

or we can force people to have children only at the say-so of the authorities

Well, we can try that. But there are dueling authorities - most of the religious ones condone runaway reproduction to increase the ranks of their "faithful".

or we can commit genocide.

And we do that also.
The only question in my mind is whether the next significant decrease in global human population will be man-made or "natural". I anticipate a combination of the two. For example, a good blast of gamma rays from a nearby supernova, a pulsar or even an exceptional solar storm could take out so much infrastructure including transportation and communication, that widespread famine and violence would almost certainly follow.
Super-volcanoes, impact events and numerous other natural events could bring mass deaths on a scale previously impossible. It is a certainty that some such thing will occur eventually, whether or not we are anticipating and preparing for it (which we are not as of now).

In the meanwhile, as Hans Rosling points out

"The world's population will grow to 9 billion over the next 50 years -- and only by raising the living standards of the poorest can we check population growth."

This is the paradoxical answer that Hans Rosling unveils at TED@Cannes using colorful new data display technology (you'll see).

TED Talk, worth watching IMHO -

 

[bilby]

Funny how as things are getting worse some people just keep rationalizing the problem away.

Over here that generally defines Trump era republicans.

Funny how people just assert what they believe without bothering to look at whether or not it's true.

That reminds me of a certain political class too...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The only question in my mind is whether the next significant decrease in global human population will be man-made or "natural".

That's actually the problem, don't you think? It's this mindset among many that humans and nature are something separate. I find it strange. It probably explains why we really can't get our act together when it comes to environmental health and sustainability.

 

[bilby]

The only question in my mind is whether the next significant decrease in global human population will be man-made or "natural".

That's actually the problem, don't you think? It's this mindset among many that humans and nature are something separate. I find it strange. It probably explains why we really can't get our act together when it comes to environmental health and sustainability.

There's also this mindset that a significant decrease in global population due to some catastrophic event is both inevitable and has solid precedent. But it's not (at least not on historical, rather than evolutionary, timescales), and it doesn't.

When was the last time that a catastrophe caused global human population to fall by a significant fraction? When was the last time it fell far enough that it didn't recover all of the decline and more within a couple of years, much less a couple of generations?

55 million people died in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61. That was more than eight percent of the approximately 660,000,000 Chinese population at the end of 1958; By the end of 1961, the Chinese population had already recovered to its 1958 level.

The Blue Fever (now often called the 'Black Death') caused a world population decline that some place at as much as 20%; Population may have taken almost two hundred years, or seven to ten generations, to completely recover. That's the biggest catastrophic world population decline I am aware of, both as a proportion of total population, and in terms of time taken to recover. World population is estimated to have been about 450 million in 1340, and was 'only' around 375 million in 1400. That catastrophe could have been almost completely averted by antibiotics.

 

[Bomb#20]

There's also this mindset that a significant decrease in global population due to some catastrophic event is both inevitable and has solid precedent. But it's not (at least not on historical, rather than evolutionary, timescales), and it doesn't.

When was the last time that a catastrophe caused global human population to fall by a significant fraction? When was the last time it fell far enough that it didn't recover all of the decline and more within a couple of years, much less a couple of generations?

55 million people died in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61. That was more than eight percent of the approximately 660,000,000 Chinese population at the end of 1958; By the end of 1961, the Chinese population had already recovered to its 1958 level.

The Blue Fever (now often called the 'Black Death') caused a world population decline that some place at as much as 20%; Population may have taken almost two hundred years, or seven to ten generations, to completely recover. That's the biggest catastrophic world population decline I am aware of, both as a proportion of total population, and in terms of time taken to recover. World population is estimated to have been about 450 million in 1340, and was 'only' around 375 million in 1400. That catastrophe could have been almost completely averted by antibiotics.

Exactly. So why the bejesus do you believe this:

Anyone who thinks population is going to grow beyond the next couple of decades hasn't paid attention since the 1970s

It doesn't matter if it CAN. Because it WON'T.

When fertility falls so far that the population starts to decline, say in 2050 or whenever it's currently projected to happen, what the heck makes you think that isn't going to be merely another temporary dip in the overall trend, another Great Leap Forward / Black Death?

The current drop in fertility is great for human happiness, but it's just another natural catastrophe from the gene-level point of view, and from the subculture meme point of view. Oh my god, something unprecedented in a billion years of evolution happened: a disease organism evolved a bioweapon that lets its hosts have sex without making babies, a billion years of optimization targeted at making organisms want sex as a proxy for wanting babies thereby rendered futile. The end result is predictable: our genes will evolve a countermeasure, in the unlikely event that some subculture meme complex capable of Lamarckian evolution doesn't beat them to it.

ETA: Can we be sure the world's population will stop rising?

 

[bilby]

There's also this mindset that a significant decrease in global population due to some catastrophic event is both inevitable and has solid precedent. But it's not (at least not on historical, rather than evolutionary, timescales), and it doesn't.

When was the last time that a catastrophe caused global human population to fall by a significant fraction? When was the last time it fell far enough that it didn't recover all of the decline and more within a couple of years, much less a couple of generations?

55 million people died in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959-61. That was more than eight percent of the approximately 660,000,000 Chinese population at the end of 1958; By the end of 1961, the Chinese population had already recovered to its 1958 level.

The Blue Fever (now often called the 'Black Death') caused a world population decline that some place at as much as 20%; Population may have taken almost two hundred years, or seven to ten generations, to completely recover. That's the biggest catastrophic world population decline I am aware of, both as a proportion of total population, and in terms of time taken to recover. World population is estimated to have been about 450 million in 1340, and was 'only' around 375 million in 1400. That catastrophe could have been almost completely averted by antibiotics.

Exactly. So why the bejesus do you believe this:

Anyone who thinks population is going to grow beyond the next couple of decades hasn't paid attention since the 1970s

It doesn't matter if it CAN. Because it WON'T.

When fertility falls so far that the population starts to decline, say in 2050 or whenever it's currently projected to happen, what the heck makes you think that isn't going to be merely another temporary dip in the overall trend, another Great Leap Forward / Black Death?

The current drop in fertility is great for human happiness, but it's just another natural catastrophe from the gene-level point of view, and from the subculture meme point of view. Oh my god, something unprecedented in a billion years of evolution happened: a disease organism evolved a bioweapon that lets its hosts have sex without making babies, a billion years of optimization targeted at making organisms want sex as a proxy for wanting babies thereby rendered futile. The end result is predictable: our genes will evolve a countermeasure, in the unlikely event that some subculture meme complex capable of Lamarckian evolution doesn't beat them to it.

ETA: Can we be sure the world's population will stop rising?

Maybe. But evolution is slow. And not having children is a positive choice, albeit enabled by technology, not an unintended consequence secondary to the purpose of that technology. So that's why I believe that.

And whether it's true or not, the action item "we must do something to reduce future population!!" against which I am arguing is foolish. Insofar as we can, we have.

If it turns out we can't do it via increased wealth, reduced infant mortality, and access to effective contraception that is controlled by women, then we probably can't do it at all - no matter how many people run around screaming and waving their arms.

The continued and accelerating decline in global fertility rate over the several decades since the development of the oral contraceptive suggests that there's little chance of a reversal. But obviously "little" isn't "none".

If things turn out in what I consider to be the far less probable scenario, then what more can we do about it?

ETA: The consensus amongst experts has shifted from the mid-20th century position of "exponential growth is almost certain to continue until it causes a catastrophe" to "population might grow significantly, or might decline significantly, or might stabilise". That's not a shift that is reflected in public opinion, which remains woefully out of date.

 

[Bomb#20]

Maybe. But evolution is slow. And not having children is a positive choice, albeit enabled by technology, not an unintended consequence secondary to the purpose of that technology. So that's why I believe that.

Darwinian evolution is slow; and not having children is enabled less by technology than by culture choosing to make the technology available and supporting its use.

And whether it's true or not, the action item "we must do something to reduce future population!!" against which I am arguing is foolish. Insofar as we can, we have.

If it turns out we can't do it via increased wealth, reduced infant mortality, and access to effective contraception that is controlled by women, then we probably can't do it at all - no matter how many people run around screaming and waving their arms.

The continued and accelerating decline in global fertility rate over the several decades since the development of the oral contraceptive suggests that there's little chance of a reversal. But obviously "little" isn't "none".

If things turn out in what I consider to be the far less probable scenario, then what more can we do about it?

It seems to me the primary and surely more immediate risk is the memetic evolution of pronatalist subcultures that teach their members to regard women as brood mares. We won't be able to deliver women access to effective contraception that is controlled by women as long as access to the women themselves is controlled by their subcultures' male gatekeepers; and giving women access won't do any good if they've already been taught to regard themselves as brood mares. So the obvious thing remaining to be done about it is to be on guard for the warning signs that such a subculture is arising, and when one does, make every effort to help out any not-yet-fully-indoctrinated children who want to escape from them into a wider culture that's more respectful of women.

Here's a Jerusalem Post article about a situation that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place: https://www.jpost.com/magazine/back-to-the-core-for-haredi-education-469513

Entirely apart from the economic and personal problems the article focuses on, if similar scenarios recur in other cultures it has the potential to torpedo population stabilization.

 

[laughing dog]

The seas are big. People used to think about the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie similarly, just keep dumping the waste there, it won't matter.

Back on topic, the problem isn't water, it's population.

So what would you suggest doing? Lining up all the almond farmers and their investors, and shooting them?

What can be done when demand exceeds carrying capacity? In this instance, the demand for water. New technology? Better management?

Higher price for water.

 

[DBT]

What can be done when demand exceeds carrying capacity? In this instance, the demand for water. New technology? Better management?

Higher price for water.

Many households may be already struggling with high mortgage repayments, electricity bills, etc.

 

[bilby]

What can be done when demand exceeds carrying capacity? In this instance, the demand for water. New technology? Better management?

Higher price for water.

Many households may be already struggling with high mortgage repayments, electricity bills, etc.

Most of the water is being used by irrigators who pay a minuscule fraction of the amount charged to domestic consumers.

I picked a district at random in California, and according to Calwater, domestic consumers there pay from $3.95 up to $7.40 per 1000USgal (the low price is for the first 748USgal, then usage above that volume is more expensive), while farmers pay an average of $70/acre ft., or $0.215 per 1000USgal.

It's essentially a farming subsidy.

 

[bleubird]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

 

[barbos]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)