The End of The World

[nietzsche]

I don't really understand the water panic stuff. If water becomes scarcer won't desalination just pick up the slack? It's not used much today simply because it isn't very cost effective yet.

Not cost effective, damaging to fisheries and generally difficult to administer on a very large scale.

Also, the water in the oceans is getting contaminated as well.

I'm with Haggis in this one, I truly believe that we can come up with better methods (read cheaper) for making the sea water available for use, and also, there are very good methods for cleaning sewage water already. It's a matter of time only.

[Haggis_McMutton]

There exist finite non-renewable that can't be replaced, or they can't be replaced cheaply anytime soon. One example of the latter is Coltan being mined in Congo, and the impact of the mining operations there (though that's a different issue) for cell phone usage.

So, as the mineral becomes scarcer and scarcer the price will increase, this will put pressure on the companies to find ways to lower the cost and therefore find alternatives.

An example of the former, however, is land. If you think about it from a mathematical perspective, eventually, the planet's population growth rate must reach zero or begin to decline, because both the land and the carrying capacity for the planet is finite. (Don't ya' make a 'move to the moon' wise crack, ya' wise guy!)

It can be conjectured that we won't reach that point as long as appropriate efforts on a local, state/nation, and global persist (and they have) to keep developed countries at a certain minimum and hopefully advance, and to aid developing countries to become, well, DEVELOPED.

Two points:
1. Why do you so readily reject space colonization?
2. Are you proposing we actually do something about this concern, rather than be vaguely worried about it?
Because I find it rather arrogant to try something as radical as culling the human population on the assumption that hundreds(thousands?) of years from now our descendants still would not have managed to solve this problem, so we'd better solve it now. I think it's wiser to focus on problems that will actually be relevant in <100 years.

+1 to BBS & oss

I had never actually thought about governments artificially lowering the cost of water. interesting.

I don't really understand the water panic stuff. If water becomes scarcer won't desalination just pick up the slack? It's not used much today simply because it isn't very cost effective yet.

Most likely.

Wrong. Desalination is far too impractical and pricey to use as a commercially viable water source. One of the glaring problems with desalination is the vast amount of energy currently needed to do it, and the plants are pretty darn dangerous, too. Maybe in a long long time, but not really an option now.

In BBS' (and my) view It is impractical and pricey because water's cost is artificially low and therefore there is no pressure to innovate and make the method better. Once there actually is a large-scale need for desalination then a shitload of R&D will be poured into it and the system will very likely be made much more efficient.
This process can be seen time and again (most recently, look at electric cars, also how Japanese banks immediately deployed ID via veins in your hand on a large scale as soon as the government made them liable for all credit card fraud, thus giving them the incentive to deploy the extra security)

We have seen numerous times that the difficulty stands in creating the new technology for the first time. However, refining it seems to be relatively easy by comparison, as long as someone actually has the incentive to do it.

Again, if the prices of water were allowed to be discovered through the market, then substitutes like desalination become more profitable, or relatively more cost-effective.

To nitpick, desalination can be cost-effective, but it depends on the price and quantity of nearby fresh water. For example, for Saudi Arabia desalination is cost-effective. For Louisiana, it isn't.

The offset operation costs of desalination won't allow for an anything-near profitable or cost-effective option.

You have no way of knowing this. (short of crystal ball). Look at the development of computers/cell phones/internet/etc/etc/etc. Once the incentive is there, the improvements can come at an exponential rate.

As a tangent:
A priori, we can't know the future price of water if price controls and many federal regulations were to be removed. Who knows. If there was a significantly freer market for water, the price of water might be less than it is today (100 years from now?). What is more certain is that if the government retains the status quo, the available and quality of water will likely suffer as time progresses--unless of course, the market bails out the government by finding some innovation.

I don't trust the knowledge and culture of the people of the market to know that water is finite for some of them, and for others not something that should be wasted, but that's just me. Maybe the collective psyche about how to treat/conserve water will change in years to come.

-rd

I share these concerns (sorry BBS), but I think it makes much more sense for the government to provide incentives to nudge the market in the "right" direction rather than trying to centrally plan it.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't really understand the water panic stuff. If water becomes scarcer won't desalination just pick up the slack? It's not used much today simply because it isn't very cost effective yet.

Not cost effective, damaging to fisheries and generally difficult to administer on a very large scale.

Also, the water in the oceans is getting contaminated as well.

I'm with Haggis in this one, I truly believe that we can come up with better methods (read cheaper) for making the sea water available for use, and also, there are very good methods for cleaning sewage water already. It's a matter of time only.

Except, the real point is that it is not a solution, and may actually lead to even more problems.

Sure sea water currently seems to be essentially "unlimited", but that is because we still do send vast quantities of freshwater to renew it. Given a huge population boom and a continued lack of respec to reuse, recycling, it won't help... in fact, we will reach the point where we actually cause the oceans great harm.

The ocean has a lot of inbuilt "buffers", so that it seems somewhat "static" amongst a lot of change. However, once you exceed those "buffers", then the system will cascade. For example, its estimated that a very small increase in the Atlantic temperature will cause the Jet Stream to reverse. (and yes, I do mean the jet stream... but other things will change as well).

Instead of worrying about desalination plants, we need to employ the technology -- techology that actually largely exists already -- to keep our current water supply functioning and clean.

Just utilizing basic marsh systems, for example, goes a LONG way.

Here is an example if you don't know what I am talking about...
http://www.humboldt.edu/arcatamarsh/index.htm

But, note, that is just ONE aspect. Also, while those systems are very effective in removing biological and most "common" contaminates, they don't necessarily remove the more advanced chemicals, such as those we now see in Fracking operations. That type of technology could be moved to a fix, but we are not "there" yet. And, sadly, a lot of the investment in education and such that allowed the above system to happen are now gone in the name of budget cuts and such.

[PLAYER57832]

As a tangent:
A priori, we can't know the future price of water if price controls and many federal regulations were to be removed. Who knows. If there was a significantly freer market for water, the price of water might be less than it is today (100 years from now?). What is more certain is that if the government retains the status quo, the available and quality of water will likely suffer as time progresses--unless of course, the market bails out the government by finding some innovation.

I don't trust the knowledge and culture of the people of the market to know that water is finite for some of them, and for others not something that should be wasted, but that's just me. Maybe the collective psyche about how to treat/conserve water will change in years to come.

-rd

I share these concerns (sorry BBS), but I think it makes much more sense for the government to provide incentives to nudge the market in the "right" direction rather than trying to centrally plan it.

I would change the format slightly. The government should not be nudging the economics at all, directly. The problem here is not fundamentally and economic one. Economics are just the symptom. One problem is that we, inherently, in our system place no real value upon things until they are actually used. A second, closely related, is that because there is no real value on, say minerals in the ground or water in the ground (except that they sometimes are TAXED as if they are being used! -- and important point), there is almost no incentive to wisely use those resources, to recycle. The drive is involved in the cost of withdrawels, but even that is minimized, because most long-term impacts -- pollution , land damage, etc are simply ignored.

The fundamental change that has to happen is to give unused minerals/materials and future generation's needs true value. I don't believe that can happen through markets (which are responsive.. and responsive to the immediate). It therefore has to happen through another system. Right now, that essentially means government dictates. The disconnect between what I am saying and what BBS is arguing against, though, is that I am not talking about direct economic programs. I am talking about limits that are based on science.

I will use deep fracking as an example, becuase it is very current and pertinent to this. ONe of themajor arguments in favor has been that the chemicals used, while admittedly highly toxic (and untreatable given current techology.. water so contaminated cannot be reentered safety into the hydrocycle), won't invade public or private water systems. It is contained and CANNOT migrate to the aquifers. Now, I will say that many of us in the field have well, to put i mildly "questioned" that finding. However, we had no real direct data to show that it was happening. Basically, its just that we know groundwater is contained in rock layers (to be crude in the explanation), that fracking fundamentally alters those layers in ways not fully understood (think --earthquakes in Ohio, for example -- a "big surprise"). Yet, these companies are allowed to continue, because there has been no set, firm evidence that it would cause harm.

Local communities are often not even given any choice. The legislation and policies are changing constantly here in PA and elsewhere, but Corbett recently wanted to implement changes that would take away local rights completely... under the guise of "ensuring uniformity",e tc. Too much is happening to put here.

HOWEVER, the point is that it does not take "rocket science" to see that someone drilling close to your home and injecting thousands of gallons of toxic fluid might be a concern. Yet.., as I said, it is fully legal. Not just legal, its essentially impossible to fight or even prove direct damages, even when they occur. (that does require more explanation, but I am keeping this short... and have gone into that more in other CC threads anyway, in different contexts).

EXCEPT.. amazingly, a report was just released showing that what "could not happen", very much IS happening.. namely, that water is migrating into the aquifer. NOTE.. industry is quick to say that no direct harm to humans was proven in this study (true). But that is not the point. The point is that they have been claiming all along that "this could not happen".. so we have "nothing to worry about" when fracking operations are nearby. Yet, it did.

Are fracking operations going to halt in my area? No.

It won't unless and until thousands of people are directly harmed, and have the ability/funds to prove that harm in court... which, of course will take years after the harm already occurs.


If I take a gun and shoot someone to injure them, I go to jail. If I shoot a hundred people and manage to avoid lynching, I will probably see the electric chair.. or, at best, a lifetime of "barred rubber walls". A corporation can cause harm to thousands, take their money, and leave. The people's only "recourse" is to sue.. a company that more often than not is already gone by the time harm is caused. Only rarely will the individuals involved in the corporations face any direct penalty. And I do mean when direct and serious harm is proven!

As long as that system perpetuates, then the calculation for corporations will be to ignore any longterm harm.. or, to put minimal token efforts into discovering harm.. and continue with what they are doing in the meantime, "convinced' that they are operating safely.

Funny how a few million dollars can make people overlook even extremely serious harm.. when its not their families impacted, and when they don't even really have to "see" the people impacted as more than just numbers (if even that) and fourth-hand retellings of complaints.

[PLAYER57832]

nietzsche, you are wrong ! Currently, the food efficiency issue isn't an active limiting factor on our population growth, that is, we aren't in a situation where the limit of our food production would put a halt on population growth. Therefore, having more food won't cause our population to boom, necessarily.

Worldwide, that is true. Regionally, it very much is impacting growth.. ergo famines, mass starvations, etc.

A more important point is that even those areas historically huge food producers are now losing that base. Overall farm acreage is going down. And, some of the gains from the "green revolution" are, we know know, essentially temporary.

I don't want to get bogged down into a discussion of all that, but your basic premise that food won't limit growth is just patently wrong, unless we fundamentally change technology or expand to a new area, be it the oceans or space.

[rdsrds2120]

There exist finite non-renewable that can't be replaced, or they can't be replaced cheaply anytime soon. One example of the latter is Coltan being mined in Congo, and the impact of the mining operations there (though that's a different issue) for cell phone usage.

So, as the mineral becomes scarcer and scarcer the price will increase, this will put pressure on the companies to find ways to lower the cost and therefore find alternatives.

Just because the pressure is there, that doesn't mean it can necessarily happen in due time, or even at all.

An example of the former, however, is land. If you think about it from a mathematical perspective, eventually, the planet's population growth rate must reach zero or begin to decline, because both the land and the carrying capacity for the planet is finite. (Don't ya' make a 'move to the moon' wise crack, ya' wise guy!)

It can be conjectured that we won't reach that point as long as appropriate efforts on a local, state/nation, and global persist (and they have) to keep developed countries at a certain minimum and hopefully advance, and to aid developing countries to become, well, DEVELOPED.

Two points:
1. Why do you so readily reject space colonization?
2. Are you proposing we actually do something about this concern, rather than be vaguely worried about it?
Because I find it rather arrogant to try something as radical as culling the human population on the assumption that hundreds(thousands?) of years from now our descendants still would not have managed to solve this problem, so we'd better solve it now. I think it's wiser to focus on problems that will actually be relevant in <100 years.

Space colonization is also really impractical, unless you're talking about in a really long time, in which case your 2nd point kind of defeats space colonizing. Secondly, I in no way implied culling the population. I think we've had a miscommunication. If it's from my growth rates must reach zero or be negative statement, and you derive that I'm implying picking people off for population control, then that's really far from the target on what I was going for.

As countries develop and undergo advances in medicine, science, education, family planning, etc. they eventually can reach that rate by itself without picking people off. Germany is an example of this: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explor ... ion+growth

Negative growth rates, and I don't think that they're picking people off, but maybe there's some global conspiracy that I'm not aware of that's leading to a declining population .

+1 to BBS & oss

I had never actually thought about governments artificially lowering the cost of water. interesting.

I don't really understand the water panic stuff. If water becomes scarcer won't desalination just pick up the slack? It's not used much today simply because it isn't very cost effective yet.

Most likely.

Wrong. Desalination is far too impractical and pricey to use as a commercially viable water source. One of the glaring problems with desalination is the vast amount of energy currently needed to do it, and the plants are pretty darn dangerous, too. Maybe in a long long time, but not really an option now.

In BBS' (and my) view It is impractical and pricey because water's cost is artificially low and therefore there is no pressure to innovate and make the method better. Once there actually is a large-scale need for desalination then a shitload of R&D will be poured into it and the system will very likely be made much more efficient.
This process can be seen time and again (most recently, look at electric cars, also how Japanese banks immediately deployed ID via veins in your hand on a large scale as soon as the government made them liable for all credit card fraud, thus giving them the incentive to deploy the extra security)

We have seen numerous times that the difficulty stands in creating the new technology for the first time. However, refining it seems to be relatively easy by comparison, as long as someone actually has the incentive to do it.

Ok, I can agree to that.

Again, if the prices of water were allowed to be discovered through the market, then substitutes like desalination become more profitable, or relatively more cost-effective.

To nitpick, desalination can be cost-effective, but it depends on the price and quantity of nearby fresh water. For example, for Saudi Arabia desalination is cost-effective. For Louisiana, it isn't.

The offset operation costs of desalination won't allow for an anything-near profitable or cost-effective option.

You have no way of knowing this. (short of crystal ball). Look at the development of computers/cell phones/internet/etc/etc/etc. Once the incentive is there, the improvements can come at an exponential rate.

I was speaking in current terms, which is true. It is not currently a cost-effective option.

As a tangent:
A priori, we can't know the future price of water if price controls and many federal regulations were to be removed. Who knows. If there was a significantly freer market for water, the price of water might be less than it is today (100 years from now?). What is more certain is that if the government retains the status quo, the available and quality of water will likely suffer as time progresses--unless of course, the market bails out the government by finding some innovation.

I don't trust the knowledge and culture of the people of the market to know that water is finite for some of them, and for others not something that should be wasted, but that's just me. Maybe the collective psyche about how to treat/conserve water will change in years to come.

-rd

I share these concerns (sorry BBS), but I think it makes much more sense for the government to provide incentives to nudge the market in the "right" direction rather than trying to centrally plan it.

Meh. Like I said, I don't know enough about economics to agree or to counter such claims.

-rd

[rdsrds2120]

nietzsche, you are wrong ! Currently, the food efficiency issue isn't an active limiting factor on our population growth, that is, we aren't in a situation where the limit of our food production would put a halt on population growth. Therefore, having more food won't cause our population to boom, necessarily.

Worldwide, that is true. Regionally, it very much is impacting growth.. ergo famines, mass starvations, etc.

A more important point is that even those areas historically huge food producers are now losing that base. Overall farm acreage is going down. And, some of the gains from the "green revolution" are, we know know, essentially temporary.

I don't want to get bogged down into a discussion of all that, but your basic premise that food won't limit growth is just patently wrong, unless we fundamentally change technology or expand to a new area, be it the oceans or space.

So, which is it? I was speaking globally, so I think we agree, but I'm not sure.

-rd