The End of The World

[maxfaraday]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/earth-tipping-point/

This planet will be dead by the end of the century.

[Phatscotty]

We will have forgotten all about the end of the world by October

[kentington]

It will probably end about 1007 years or so after the next election.

[BigBallinStalin]

The pressing question, then, is one of risk analysis: Given incomplete but troubling information, what should people do? Barnosky and colleagues call for innovations and changes — more-efficient food production, fossil fuel alternatives, better ecosystem management and reduced population growth. Ellison hopes some disruptive change will cause a tipping point in human sustainability.

1st world countries meet these criteria (if you dislike the energy industry in its current form, then sub that for predominantly nuclear power, and I'll then agree).


Shall that model be followed for all nations and peoples?

[Woodruff]

We will have forgotten all about the end of the world by October

I have no doubt at all that you will have forgotten about this issue, certainly.

[rdsrds2120]

The pressing question, then, is one of risk analysis: Given incomplete but troubling information, what should people do? Barnosky and colleagues call for innovations and changes — more-efficient food production, fossil fuel alternatives, better ecosystem management and reduced population growth. Ellison hopes some disruptive change will cause a tipping point in human sustainability.

1st world countries meet these criteria (if you dislike the energy industry in its current form, then sub that for predominantly nuclear power, and I'll then agree).

No they don't. The mere current existence of land farms disproves this, just for starters.

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

The pressing question, then, is one of risk analysis: Given incomplete but troubling information, what should people do? Barnosky and colleagues call for innovations and changes — more-efficient food production, fossil fuel alternatives, better ecosystem management and reduced population growth. Ellison hopes some disruptive change will cause a tipping point in human sustainability.

1st world countries meet these criteria (if you dislike the energy industry in its current form, then sub that for predominantly nuclear power, and I'll then agree).

No they don't. The mere current existence of land farms disproves this, just for starters.

-rd

Um, wut?

The existence of land farms disproves what?

[rdsrds2120]

The pressing question, then, is one of risk analysis: Given incomplete but troubling information, what should people do? Barnosky and colleagues call for innovations and changes — more-efficient food production, fossil fuel alternatives, better ecosystem management and reduced population growth. Ellison hopes some disruptive change will cause a tipping point in human sustainability.

1st world countries meet these criteria (if you dislike the energy industry in its current form, then sub that for predominantly nuclear power, and I'll then agree).

No they don't. The mere current existence of land farms disproves this, just for starters.

-rd

Um, wut?

The existence of land farms disproves what?

That the criteria in question aren't met.

[BigBallinStalin]

Mr. Vague, I don't get. What's your argument?

I don't know what you mean by "land farms," or how that shows that whichever criterion has failed to be met.

[rdsrds2120]

Mr. Vague, I don't get. What's your argument?

I don't know what you mean by "land farms," or how that shows that whichever criterion has failed to be met.

Right, I'll explain. Also, they used to call my Mr. Vague. Who they were and why are none of your business.

Farms that use land (that big fieldy stuff) are extremely inefficient. One criterion of the quoted post was "more-efficient food production". Do you want a full sciency explanation as to why they're inefficient, too? YOU GONNA MAKE ME WORK?!?

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

Mr. Vague, I don't get. What's your argument?

I don't know what you mean by "land farms," or how that shows that whichever criterion has failed to be met.

Right, I'll explain. Also, they used to call my Mr. Vague. Who they were and why are none of your business.

Farms that use land (that big fieldy stuff) are extremely inefficient. One criterion of the quoted post was "more-efficient food production". Do you want a full sciency explanation as to why they're inefficient, too? YOU GONNA MAKE ME WORK?!?

-rd

Oh yeah. I'm ready for class, rds.

1. Why is "that big fieldy stuff" inefficient?

2. And what alternatives are more efficient?

[rdsrds2120]

Mr. Vague, I don't get. What's your argument?

I don't know what you mean by "land farms," or how that shows that whichever criterion has failed to be met.

Right, I'll explain. Also, they used to call my Mr. Vague. Who they were and why are none of your business.

Farms that use land (that big fieldy stuff) are extremely inefficient. One criterion of the quoted post was "more-efficient food production". Do you want a full sciency explanation as to why they're inefficient, too? YOU GONNA MAKE ME WORK?!?

-rd

Oh yeah. I'm ready for class, rds.

1. Why is "that big fieldy stuff" inefficient?

2. And what alternatives are more efficient?

I'M QUOTE-LAZY SO I'LL JUST RETYPE:

1. Why is "that big fieldy stuff" inefficient?

Firstly, let's establish exactly what the author is implying by 'more-efficient'. Some would argue that since we're not carrying buckets of water to our farms in a 20-man work-line like Laura Ingalls Wilder days, just waiting for one man in line to die to be replaced by the next-of-kin, that we're already 'more-efficient' than we used to be, so that criterion is met! WRONG, NANCY.

There is an objective bar of efficiency that we should reach, and that bar is the level of efficiency needed to reach a level of self-sustainability. Big fieldy farms are not at this efficiency standard -- not even close. The two most prominent limiting factors for traditional farming methods are crop yield and watering. Current crop yield (the measure of the yield of a crop per unit area of land) isn't at the sustainable mark with traditional methods due to the increased demand of said crop caused by population growth. As for watering, a good 80+% of water used for irrigation isn't even absorbed by the crops that are being watered, but instead either evaporates or becomes runoff. If you're familiar with the dangers of runoff combined with the increased amount of land used due to non-optimal crop yield, you understand why the inefficiency of one perpetuates the other more than linearly.

BUT RDS? IS THIS JUST DOOM AND GLOOM, WHAT'S FARMER MAC SUPPOSED TO DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE?

2. And what alternatives are more efficient?

Currently, there isn't a whole lot Farmer Mac can do...for now! There are, however, alternatives becoming more available for farmers as time goes in. There is a lot of promise for Hydroponics, or growing crops without soil. This farming methodology isn't too far from being easily used, actually http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/426/426-084/426-084.html
I was reading a more up to date article with the exact numbers of how much this system is better, but I remember that crop yield was about 40x higher due to vertical stacking of the plants combined with that each plant doesn't need as much space as it used to, since its roots don't need to search for water.

-rd

[nagerous]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/earth-tipping-point/

This planet will be dead by the end of the century.

and I feel fine.

[nietzsche]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

[GBU56]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

Birth control is a good start with controlling the human infestation on earth. Look at China's success in controlling runaway births. India will surpass China populace during the century. This is due to a lack of education for the poorest, sort of like the Roman Catholic teachings of over-populating this poor planet of Catholics. Thank GOD! the Catholic clergy is filled with pedophiles as this lessen the chances of pregnancies.

[rdsrds2120]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

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.

Birth control is a good start with controlling the human infestation on earth. Look at China's success in controlling runaway births. India will surpass China populace during the century. This is due to a lack of education for the poorest, sort of like the Roman Catholic teachings of over-populating this poor planet of Catholics. Thank GOD! the Catholic clergy is filled with pedophiles as this lessen the chances of pregnancies.

this^^^ Family planning, education (for women especially), and advances in medicine, science, and technology are all major contributions towards population ageing in developing countries (which implies that their birth rates go down).

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

I'M QUOTE-LAZY SO I'LL JUST RETYPE:

1. Why is "that big fieldy stuff" inefficient?

Firstly, let's establish exactly what the author is implying by 'more-efficient'. Some would argue that since we're not carrying buckets of water to our farms in a 20-man work-line like Laura Ingalls Wilder days, just waiting for one man in line to die to be replaced by the next-of-kin, that we're already 'more-efficient' than we used to be, so that criterion is met! WRONG, NANCY.

There is an objective bar of efficiency that we should reach, and that bar is the level of efficiency needed to reach a level of self-sustainability. Big fieldy farms are not at this efficiency standard -- not even close. The two most prominent limiting factors for traditional farming methods are crop yield and watering. Current crop yield (the measure of the yield of a crop per unit area of land) isn't at the sustainable mark with traditional methods due to the increased demand of said crop caused by population growth. As for watering, a good 80+% of water used for irrigation isn't even absorbed by the crops that are being watered, but instead either evaporates or becomes runoff. If you're familiar with the dangers of runoff combined with the increased amount of land used due to non-optimal crop yield, you understand why the inefficiency of one perpetuates the other more than linearly.

For clarity's sake,

The term "efficient" is very much confused and misused with the term "effective". In general, efficiency is a measurable concept, quantitatively determined by the ratio of output to input. "Effectiveness", is a relatively vague, non-quantitative concept, mainly concerned with achieving objectives.

So, according to this definition, you have a problem with the effectiveness of the current, dominant means of agricultural production. Their goal is profit through production, and yours seems to be very long-run profit through "self-sustainability."

If the standard (i.e. goal) of efficiency is self-sustainability, then what exactly is "self-sustainable"?


(To build on your position):
I agree that the consumption of water at increasing rates over time is not sustainable in the long-run; however, why is so much water being allowed to evaporate or become runoff? Because it's so cheap. In order to make this situation more sustainable, then the price controls for water (by the government) must be relaxed, either by increasing the price of water, or by allowing the market to set the price. This may also involve privatization of rivers, reservoirs, water tables, and what not, so that the price of water creates the incentives for people to use water more sparingly (or more efficiently, thus more sustainably).

Of course, letting the prices of water rise is not agreeable to most people, for they are used to receiving water at currently and artificially low prices. However, these higher prices need not be high in the long-run because as the price of something rises, people have a stronger incentive to find substitutes. Substitutes for water? No, substitutes for the current use of water. So, instead of wasting so much water, the expectation (and the actual) higher price stimulate consumers to substitute on the margin (e.g. purchasing greywater systems, storing rain water, and for farmers of all sorts, finding other innovations which mitigate runoff and evaporation). This free market approach is a way to self-sustainability, and it comes with other costs (as do all means), but I don't see a more practical plan for the long-run.

BUT RDS? IS THIS JUST DOOM AND GLOOM, WHAT'S FARMER MAC SUPPOSED TO DO AS AN ALTERNATIVE?

2. And what alternatives are more efficient?

Currently, there isn't a whole lot Farmer Mac can do...for now! There are, however, alternatives becoming more available for farmers as time goes in. There is a lot of promise for Hydroponics, or growing crops without soil. This farming methodology isn't too far from being easily used, actually http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/426/426-084/426-084.html
I was reading a more up to date article with the exact numbers of how much this system is better, but I remember that crop yield was about 40x higher due to vertical stacking of the plants combined with that each plant doesn't need as much space as it used to, since its roots don't need to search for water.

-rd

So, these alternatives may work, but without changing the price of water, then people's incentives aren't likely to change. Of course, cultural attitudes matter, but not as much as profit margins (and feeding people at a lower price in a competitive market). So, again, if self-sustainability is your ideal standard, then you should adopt a more favorable attitude to freer markets for the sake of sustainability.

Of course, the onset of hydroponics, if they prove cheaper than the current means, may render pointless the relaxing of price controls on water. Nevertheless, these price controls on water still lead to an unsustainable outcome in the long-run.

[BigBallinStalin]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

Not necessarily. Economic freedom and material wealth are positively correlated with slow (and sometimes stagnant or negative) population growth rates. Besides, look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. As the population was increasing, people feared that the increase in the demand for goods would result in forever increasing prices. Eventually, there'd be no more metals, fossil fuels, and trees left! People would die by the billions!

But, it turns out that Ehrlich was wrong, and so was the Club of Rome. Nevertheless, concerns of overpopulation and diminishing resources persist because people fail to update themselves with the facts, or they simply readjust their predictions to a later date (e.g. forever Doom and Gloom, forever on the horizon).

Why am I not concerned? Because as prices increase (from increasing scarcity, for example) people find substitutes, and producers developed more efficient ways of producing the same goods at a lower cost. This has held true for the past 200 years, and evidence against this trend has been proven wrong (see: Club of Rome and their 1970s predictions) or is completely lacking.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

My main concern is that there is a limit to science, and more importantly its practical application. Already, we have the means to remove ourselves from the necessity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas for producing power. It's called nuclear power, but with the regulatory apparatus, price controls, and general lack of liability for nuclear companies, such means are prevented from providing us with better opportunities.

And, no, we haven't "mastered getting resources" because there's still more efficient ways of extracting resources, which also have unforeseeable alternative uses.

Most of your concerns are unfounded.

[oss spy]

From the article itself:

[The question asked in the article is] by no means a settled scientific proposition

Therefore, we can ignore it and write it off as scaremongering.

[Haggis_McMutton]

+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.

[BigBallinStalin]

+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.

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.

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.

[nietzsche]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

Not necessarily. Economic freedom and material wealth are positively correlated with slow (and sometimes stagnant or negative) population growth rates. Besides, look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. As the population was increasing, people feared that the increase in the demand for goods would result in forever increasing prices. Eventually, there'd be no more metals, fossil fuels, and trees left! People would die by the billions!

But, it turns out that Ehrlich was wrong, and so was the Club of Rome. Nevertheless, concerns of overpopulation and diminishing resources persist because people fail to update themselves with the facts, or they simply readjust their predictions to a later date (e.g. forever Doom and Gloom, forever on the horizon).

Why am I not concerned? Because as prices increase (from increasing scarcity, for example) people find substitutes, and producers developed more efficient ways of producing the same goods at a lower cost. This has held true for the past 200 years, and evidence against this trend has been proven wrong (see: Club of Rome and their 1970s predictions) or is completely lacking.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

My main concern is that there is a limit to science, and more importantly its practical application. Already, we have the means to remove ourselves from the necessity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas for producing power. It's called nuclear power, but with the regulatory apparatus, price controls, and general lack of liability for nuclear companies, such means are prevented from providing us with better opportunities.

And, no, we haven't "mastered getting resources" because there's still more efficient ways of extracting resources, which also have unforeseeable alternative uses.

Most of your concerns are unfounded.

I have had sex with your mom.

[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.

[BigBallinStalin]

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

Not necessarily. Economic freedom and material wealth are positively correlated with slow (and sometimes stagnant or negative) population growth rates. Besides, look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. As the population was increasing, people feared that the increase in the demand for goods would result in forever increasing prices. Eventually, there'd be no more metals, fossil fuels, and trees left! People would die by the billions!

But, it turns out that Ehrlich was wrong, and so was the Club of Rome. Nevertheless, concerns of overpopulation and diminishing resources persist because people fail to update themselves with the facts, or they simply readjust their predictions to a later date (e.g. forever Doom and Gloom, forever on the horizon).

Why am I not concerned? Because as prices increase (from increasing scarcity, for example) people find substitutes, and producers developed more efficient ways of producing the same goods at a lower cost. This has held true for the past 200 years, and evidence against this trend has been proven wrong (see: Club of Rome and their 1970s predictions) or is completely lacking.

There's no limit to science of course, but for the time science is mature enough to give us all free and clean energy, cheaper and eco-friendly materials and marvelous ways of cleaning water, it would be too late.

There are too many of us, admittedly because we've mastered getting resources from the earth.

I don't want to be dramatic because I don't really care, I won't be here when everybody is fighting for a glass of water to shower.

My main concern is that there is a limit to science, and more importantly its practical application. Already, we have the means to remove ourselves from the necessity of burning coal, oil, and natural gas for producing power. It's called nuclear power, but with the regulatory apparatus, price controls, and general lack of liability for nuclear companies, such means are prevented from providing us with better opportunities.

And, no, we haven't "mastered getting resources" because there's still more efficient ways of extracting resources, which also have unforeseeable alternative uses.

Most of your concerns are unfounded.

I have had sex with your mom.

Your recent claim is as unfounded as most of your concerns about the environment, future human behavior, etc.

[rdsrds2120]

If the standard (i.e. goal) of efficiency is self-sustainability, then what exactly is "self-sustainable"?

I won't lie -- I used that term accidentally. I don't expect farms to be self-sustainable, as that would imply a whole lot more of SHTUFF that I'll only touch on if brought up.

(To build on your position):
I agree that the consumption of water at increasing rates over time is not sustainable in the long-run; however, why is so much water being allowed to evaporate or become runoff? Because it's so cheap. In order to make this situation more sustainable, then the price controls for water (by the government) must be relaxed, either by increasing the price of water, or by allowing the market to set the price. This may also involve privatization of rivers, reservoirs, water tables, and what not, so that the price of water creates the incentives for people to use water more sparingly (or more efficiently, thus more sustainably).

Of course, letting the prices of water rise is not agreeable to most people, for they are used to receiving water at currently and artificially low prices. However, these higher prices need not be high in the long-run because as the price of something rises, people have a stronger incentive to find substitutes. Substitutes for water? No, substitutes for the current use of water. So, instead of wasting so much water, the expectation (and the actual) higher price stimulate consumers to substitute on the margin (e.g. purchasing greywater systems, storing rain water, and for farmers of all sorts, finding other innovations which mitigate runoff and evaporation). This free market approach is a way to self-sustainability, and it comes with other costs (as do all means), but I don't see a more practical plan for the long-run.

I don't agree with the free-market approach for the basic arguments that underlying both of our arguments, but you get the picture, which is what I was hoping to help do with my post. I actually have something that you might enjoy reading about Consumerism and Water Usage (though, from a more sciency point of view, still readable by you, I'm sure):Plan B, by Lester Brown

So, these alternatives may work, but without changing the price of water, then people's incentives aren't likely to change. Of course, cultural attitudes matter, but not as much as profit margins (and feeding people at a lower price in a competitive market). So, again, if self-sustainability is your ideal standard, then you should adopt a more favorable attitude to freer markets for the sake of sustainability.

Of course, the onset of hydroponics, if they prove cheaper than the current means, may render pointless the relaxing of price controls on water. Nevertheless, these price controls on water still lead to an unsustainable outcome in the long-run.

I am not knowledgeable enough to speculate or comment on the economics of the system, only the inputs and outputs and natural systems I know about. I'll keep what you say in the back of my mind, though I do have other ideas on how it may be implemented.

rds you are wrong. If we become more efficient in producing food, there will be even MORE of us, needing then more trees, more metals, more fossil fuels, clean water.

Not necessarily. Economic freedom and material wealth are positively correlated with slow (and sometimes stagnant or negative) population growth rates. Besides, look at the Simon-Ehrlich wager. As the population was increasing, people feared that the increase in the demand for goods would result in forever increasing prices. Eventually, there'd be no more metals, fossil fuels, and trees left! People would die by the billions!

But, it turns out that Ehrlich was wrong, and so was the Club of Rome. Nevertheless, concerns of overpopulation and diminishing resources persist because people fail to update themselves with the facts, or they simply readjust their predictions to a later date (e.g. forever Doom and Gloom, forever on the horizon).

Why am I not concerned? Because as prices increase (from increasing scarcity, for example) people find substitutes, and producers developed more efficient ways of producing the same goods at a lower cost. This has held true for the past 200 years, and evidence against this trend has been proven wrong (see: Club of Rome and their 1970s predictions) or is completely lacking.

I'll agree with your statement that ignorance is a horribly perpetuating thing when it comes to these discussions with most of us, but there is always merit for a concern of dwindling resources and overpopulation (just not for the reasons I think you're thinking, thinker!).

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.

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.

+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.

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.

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