Peak Water

[wildfirepower]

“It should be obvious from simple arithmetic that population growth is on a direct collision course with increasingly scarce resources.”
Jeremy Grantham

The notion of peak water probably sounds crazy to most people. The earth is 70% covered by water. The water cycle replenishes water on a continuous basis. The global warming enthusiasts tell us that glaciers are melting and oceans are rising. This should make water more plentiful.

But, as they say in the real estate business – Location, Location, Location. Freshwater shortages in the wrong places could have calamitous consequences to those regions, worldwide commodity prices, the economic future of nations with water shortages and possible war. Regional water scarcity means water usage exceeds the annual natural replenishment from the water cycle. The impact of water scarcity can be far reaching. It can lead to food shortages, famine, and starvation. Many nations, regions and states have mismanaged their water resources, and they will have to suffer the long-term consequences.

According to the United Nations, by 2020 water use is expected to increase by 40% to support the food requirements of a worldwide population that will grow from 6.7 billion people to 7.5 billion people. The U.N. estimate is that 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with extreme water scarcity. Even though 70% of the globe is covered by water, most of it is not useable because it is saltwater. Only 2% of the earth’s water is considered freshwater. Most of the freshwater is locked up in glaciers, permanent snow cover and in deep groundwater.

Desalinization is a process that can convert saltwater into freshwater, but it is only practically useful on the coastlines and it is 15 times more expensive. The middle of the United States is considered our breadbasket, where the majority of our food is grown. Drought and/or over-consumption of existing sources of water in this sensitive area would have worldwide implications, as the U.S. is a huge exporter of wheat, soybeans, rice and corn. The United States exported $115 billion of agricultural products in 2008 while importing $80 billion, according to the USDA. This is one of the few remaining businesses where the U.S. is a net exporter. Population growth and water shortages could change that equation.

The major challenges regarding freshwater are:

Tremendously uneven distribution of water on earth.
The economic and physical constraints of tapping water trapped in glaciers.
Human contamination of existing water supplies.
The high cost of moving water from one place to another.
Regional scarcity is not easily solved. Once the extraction of water exceeds the natural rate of replenishment, there are only a few options.

Reduce demand to sustainable levels.
Move the demand to an area where water is available.
Shift to increasingly expensive sources, such as desalinization.

None of these options is available for many areas in the Southwest U.S. The cities of Las Vegas, and Phoenix were built in the middle of the desert. The Hoover Dam, built on the Colorado River near Las Vegas during the Great Depression, created Lake Mead, the country's largest artificial body of water. The lake provides water to Arizona, California, Nevada and northern Mexico - but after several recent years of drought, on top of ever-growing demand, it's dangerously depleted. Housing developments on the outskirts of these towns have been stopped dead in their tracks by lack of water supply. The growth of these major U.S. metropolitan areas is in danger of going into reverse if their long-term water supplies are not secure.

Potential Impact on Commodities

The United States, for better or worse, is a sprawling suburban dominated country with large supplies of freshwater in some regions and limited amounts in other regions. Suburban sprawl has put intense pressure on local water supplies. The millions of acres of perfectly manicured green lawns and millions of backyard “cement ponds” require vast quantities of water to retain that glorious green hue. The Ipswich River near Boston now "runs dry about every other year or so," according to Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project. "Why? Heavy pumping of groundwater for irrigation of big green lawns." In drought years like 1999 or 2003, Maryland, Virginia and the District have begun to fight over the Potomac -- on hot summer days combining to suck up 85 percent of the river's flow. With 67 million more people expected to inhabit the United States by 2030, these water shortages will only become more severe.

Complete article-: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13046.html

[wildfirepower]

The problem is "peak world population" and not "peak water".

Mother Earth does not have the resources to support 7 billion people/ population.

[Anti Federalist]

More Malthusian nonsense.

[awake]

So what can be done? Do we wish a central board of experts to decide the optimal population of the Earth and the allocation of resources ? When any one raises the issue of peak anything, they raise the question, unconsciously, of who and how should we deal with the 'problem'. Who should solve this 'problem'?

Government or free markets?

This is the choice and I am interested in which direction the problem needs to be addressed.

[Anti Federalist]

So what can be done? Do we wish a central board of experts to decide the optimal population of the Earth and the allocation of resources ? When any one raises the issue of peak anything, they raise the question, unconsciously, of who and how should we deal with the 'problem'. Who should solve this 'problem'?

Government or free markets?

This is the choice and I am interested in which direction the problem needs to be addressed.

I'm hoping your question is rhetorical, because it's certainly been made clear what the "solution" will be.

The fact that the "problem solvers" blame the free market for the creation of the problem should make it obvious.

Government will solve the problem using what will amount to a worldwide "final solution".

[awake]

My question is to the original poster. He has raised the problem, I wish to hear his solution.

[orafi]

The problem is "peak world population" and not "peak water".

Mother Earth does not have the resources to support 7 billion people/ population.

Yes it does. It just doesn't have the resources to support all the degenerate effects on societies, ethics, morality and logic of government subsidies and controls.

[james1906]

The free market should work to build efficient desalinization plants.

[wildfirepower]

My question is to the original poster. He has raised the problem, I wish to hear his solution.
I do not see any solution for "peak water" as long as world population is rising.

The "peak world population" is the root cause of "peak Oil", "peak water", "peak food".

Basically now it is "peak resources"

[stag15]

The strong US dollar allows Americans the ability to eat like kings. When our dollar collapses, this will no longer be. Americans will start eating like our grandparents during the great depression. No, we won't starve to death. But we will learn how ration and be frugal. This will push peak food, peak oil, peak population out a little bit further until the BRIC countries start becoming more industrialized.

Peak population is a problem, but a free market will figure out a way (consume less, increase efficiencies, etc.).

[wildfirepower]

The global financial crisis 2008 & 2009 was a result of all-time high prices for Crude oil, Real estates, commodities & others.

The prices reached all-time high in 2008 due to massive demand from China and India since their population got richer and they started consuming more & more.

Now China & India economy is prospering where as USA amd Europe are collapsing. They have made a meal out of them.

[pcosmar]

It seems someone is buying into the Agenda 21 bullshit.

I am in a low population area, very rural, and only a few miles from the Great Lakes.
There is NO shortage of water here, however they want to put meters on my private well. :confused:

It makes no sense to me that someone would build in a desert and then complain that they don't have water.

[MelissaWV]

Desert communities, with the notable and problematic exception of Las Vegas, are learning to not expect perfect lawns and whatnot. When it becomes too expensive to upkeep golf courses and fountains and such, they turn to local plants and rocks for their landscaping. Most of the new homes in the area have that kind of landscaping now, it seems.

The trouble isn't people flushing their toilets or watering plants so much as those big resorts and fountains and water just for show. It's stupid.

Having said that, the market would fix it, but the Gov will ride in on their white jackass first.

[jmdrake]

The problem is "peak world population" and not "peak water".

Mother Earth does not have the resources to support 7 billion people/ population.

The problem isn't "peak water" or "peak oil" or "peak world population" or peak anything but "peak power". Some people have a lot of power and they want even more of it. Locally our water rates are going up for "water run off" fees. In other words we're getting taxed for rainwater! And worse we are getting hit with this EVEN IF WE HAVE OUR OWN SPEPTIC TANKS! Global warming, peak oil, peak "water", peak "population", the "global war or terror", the swine flu scare, it's all about getting us to give up more power to "them".

[wildfirepower]

The problem is "peak world population" and not "peak water".

Mother Earth does not have the resources to support 7 billion people/ population.

Basically now it is "peak resources"

Just imagine if there are 7 billion elephants, 7 billion grizzly bears, 7 billion lions and tigers, 7 billion for each of herbivorous animal species. Where will the food and water come from?.

Only humans beings have a population of 7 billion. As per Mother nature's rule no animal species is supposed to have 7 billion population because of lack of resources.

[pcosmar]

Just imagine if there are 7 billion elephants, 7 billion grizzly bears, 7 billion lions and tigers, 7 billion for each of herbivorous animal species. Where will the food and water come from?.

Only humans beings have a population of 7 billion. As per Mother nature's rule no animal species is supposed to have 7 billion population because of lack of resources.

:confused:
Wow.
that statement is completely void of logic or reason.

If there are no resources they will die off.
If they exist then there ARE resources.

[MelissaWV]

There are obviously not 7billion ants.

Obviously.

Or plankton.

Nope, there's no other species that outnumbers humans.

Please pass whatever it is that you are smoking.

[erowe1]

The problem is "peak world population" and not "peak water".

Mother Earth does not have the resources to support 7 billion people/ population.

Hogwash! Where are you learning this garbage? The more time passes and the larger the population of the earth becomes, the more technological advances decrease the amount of land needed to provide for all of them. The capacity for the planet to add more people is higher now than it's ever been and it only keeps going up. I don't know what the ultimate limit will be, or if there ever even will be a limit, or we'll keep innovating ways to get more for less, but if there is going to be one, it will be well over 100 Billion people easily.

[driller80545]

No need to worry about over population. Just like with the grizzlies, coyotes, rabbits, etc. man is subject to the laws of nature. Nature will take care of the problem in the end, you can count on it. Depleted resources, famine, disease - nature is brilliantly efficient in maintaining its balance through the ages. I think that nature is slowly but surely creating a totally nuts human population that will exterminate itself. What a magnificent mutation. Mother Nature has my complete admiration.

[erowe1]

Thanks for making this thread. This woke me up to the fact that the overpopulation myth is still powerful. So I just joined the Facebook group, Overpopulation is a Myth:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=111779065924

It's connected with this website:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
which I notice has some interesting stuff in it that would be worth a read for those who are skeptical.

[Johnnybags]

It seems someone is buying into the Agenda 21 bullshit.

I am in a low population area, very rural, and only a few miles from the Great Lakes.
There is NO shortage of water here, however they want to put meters on my private well. :confused:

It makes no sense to me that someone would build in a desert and then complain that they don't have water.

Colorado Water Law requires that precipitation fall to the ground, run off and into the river of the watershed where it fell. Because rights to water are legally allocated in this state, an individual may not capture and use water to which he/she does not have a right. We must remember also that rain barrels don’t help much in a drought because a drought by its very nature supplies little in the way of snow or rain.

[tmosley]

Reverse osmosis both cleans and desalinates water. We've been working with a Civil and Environmental Engineering group to produce a non-fouling RO membrane (which we have), which means that the maintenance cost for RO systems will drop to near zero. This means that the marginal cost of water from any source (whether brackish or waste water) will be dependent only on the cost of energy. Combine with solar power, and you create a situation where you have water production facilities that will only need 1-2 employees that can produce enough water for 10,000+ people, with only those salaries and a few supplies as marginal costs.

Within ten years, water will no longer be a limiting factor on human growth, so long as there is access to some source, no matter how salty or contaminated.

[Imperial]

It seems someone is buying into the Agenda 21 bullshit.

I am in a low population area, very rural, and only a few miles from the Great Lakes.
There is NO shortage of water here, however they want to put meters on my private well. :confused:

It makes no sense to me that someone would build in a desert and then complain that they don't have water.


Move to Texas then. We have a water crisis... even in areas that once were plentiful.

[torchbearer]

Move to Texas then. We have a water crisis... even in areas that once were plentiful.

yeah, the earth has a shortage of H2O. :rolleyes:
Maybe i'm biased. I live in a state where we can't maintain roads because of the water in the ground. The dirt is not firm.

We can always desalinated the oceans water.

[jmdrake]

Move to Texas then. We have a water crisis... even in areas that once were plentiful.

Or why don't you move to Tennessee? :rolleyes: Right now we have an overabundance of rainfall and we're being charged more for the water company processing the runoff even if we have a septic tank and they don't process any of our runoff. There have always been areas of the world suffering drought and areas of the world suffering flooding. The overall amount of water has remained constant and there's no reason to expect that to change. That's part of the reason why world populations have migrated over the millenia.

[Anti Federalist]

I do not see any solution for "peak water" as long as world population is rising.

The "peak world population" is the root cause of "peak Oil", "peak water", "peak food".

Basically now it is "peak resources"

Nonsense.

Paul Ehrlich predicted the same doom in 1970. Every prediction he made about scarcity of resources based on the "population bomb" was wrong.

I just got back home from work, part of which consisted of providing offshore support for the drilling project that has now been announced as one of the largest finds in US, possibly world, history. (BP/Amoco's "Tiber" project in Keathly Canyon 102).

That find would not have been possible just 10 years ago.

Due to water coverage and legal restrictions, roughly 3/4 of the earth's surface has not been explored or produced oil or gas.

But leaving all that aside, let's assume you are correct, how do you then enforce population controls?

Forced sterilization?

Government sanctioned eugenics, infanticide and euthanasia?

[Anti Federalist]

Move to Texas then. We have a water crisis... even in areas that once were plentiful.

A drought in a semi arid area is not really surprise.

[jmdrake]

A drought in a semi arid area is not really surprise.

Well the government supposedly needs to redistribute healthcare dollars and "carbon footprints". I guess the government needs to redistribute water too. Giant pipelines need to be built to move the precious resource from "water rich" areas to "water poor" areas. Screw all of those boaters and fishermen in the Great Lakes regions. Texas need your fresh water!

[Anti Federalist]

Well the government supposedly needs to redistribute healthcare dollars and "carbon footprints". I guess the government needs to redistribute water too. Giant pipelines need to be built to move the precious resource from "water rich" areas to "water poor" areas. Screw all of those boaters and fishermen in the Great Lakes regions. Texas need your fresh water!

Jeez, don't give them any ideas.:rolleyes:

[erowe1]

Jeez, don't give them any ideas.:rolleyes:

They already have the idea. When I was a civil engineering student at the U. of Michigan way back in 1993 I recall a group project I had to do researching ideas about how to get water from the Great Lakes to the Southwest states. There were major studies that had already been done on it by that time, and I'm sure the idea hasn't been entirely scrapped. The Great Lakes states were all against it, and whatever remuneration they thought they stood to get in any potential arrangement wasn't going to be enough. But I can imagine with migration trends that have resulted in the Midwest getting smaller and the Southwest getting bigger, and further erosion of state sovereignty, it seems within the realm of possibility to me.

[andrewh817]

I'm hoping your question is rhetorical, because it's certainly been made clear what the "solution" will be.

The fact that the "problem solvers" blame the free market for the creation of the problem should make it obvious.

Government will solve the problem using what will amount to a worldwide "final solution".

The way I see it free market solution will be dwindling resources, extremely limited space for agriculture (especially in over-industrialized countries like the US), and eventually more deaths than births. All these things will happen even if the government intervenes, we will just lose a lot more freedom.

[erowe1]

The way I see it free market solution will be dwindling resources, extremely limited space for agriculture (especially in over-industrialized countries like the US), and eventually more deaths than births. All these things will happen even if the government intervenes, we will just lose a lot more freedom.

That might happen eventually, centuries from now, after the earth's population peaks in the hundreds of billions. Who knows? We're nowhere near it, and know where close to having any way of even guessing in what ways the planet's capacity to sustain human life will continue to grow. Over the course of the decades that overpopulation scares have been propagated we've seen the amount of farmland required/person get cut down to a tiny fraction of what it was before. As you correctly implied, the threat of the state "protecting" us from this distant possibility of harmful effects of overpopulation is far more imminent and serious than those effects themselves.

[pcosmar]

Jeez, don't give them any ideas.:rolleyes:

They already have those ideas, And those up here are ready to fight it.
Great Lakes Water Resources Compact
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-10-great-lakes-debate_x.htm

[Johnnybags]

http://www.zanaqua.com/ZANAQUA-ELEMENT.html



Reverse osmosis both cleans and desalinates water. We've been working with a Civil and Environmental Engineering group to produce a non-fouling RO membrane (which we have), which means that the maintenance cost for RO systems will drop to near zero. This means that the marginal cost of water from any source (whether brackish or waste water) will be dependent only on the cost of energy. Combine with solar power, and you create a situation where you have water production facilities that will only need 1-2 employees that can produce enough water for 10,000+ people, with only those salaries and a few supplies as marginal costs.

Within ten years, water will no longer be a limiting factor on human growth, so long as there is access to some source, no matter how salty or contaminated.

[SevenEyedJeff]

The free market should work to build efficient desalinization plants.

James, I think you are one of the smartest people on this forum.

[torchbearer]

The sun desalinates the ocean normally also.

[BenIsForRon]

James, I think you are one of the smartest people on this forum.

That comment is hardly smart. He has no idea how expensive desalinization plants are. Especially ones required for millions of people to drink.

Why don't you ask the question "Why don't people in Liberia or Sudan have desalinization plants?" Because its too fucking expensive.

Seriously guys, the free market only works within the bounds of reality, its not magic. Humans have to learn to better conserve water, this is the only solution.

[torchbearer]

That comment is hardly smart. He has no idea how expensive desalinization plants are. Especially ones required for millions of people to drink.

Why don't you ask the question "Why don't people in Liberia or Sudan have desalinization plants?" Because its too fucking expensive.

Seriously guys, the free market only works within the bounds of reality, its not magic. Humans have to learn to better conserve water, this is the only solution.

you know how much energy is required for a solar vaporizor?
none. the sun does all the work.
the free market has the incentive to try to get it done cheaply, and it is decentralized enough to allow many ideas to arise.. and a merit system based on performance that allows for success to be naturally rewarded.
A government could rarely get it done cheaply or efficiently.

[BenIsForRon]

you know how much energy is required for a solar vaporizor?
none. the sun does all the work.
the free market has the incentive to try to get it done cheaply, and it is decentralized enough to allow many ideas to arise.. and a merit system based on performance that allows for success to be naturally rewarded.
A government could rarely get it done cheaply or efficiently.

Can they be built large enough to support 2 liters for every person as well as supporting agriculture? I doubt it, though I do believe solar vaporizers will play a crucial role in the future.

I see two steps for people with water shortages to take:

1. Move to an area without significant water shortages
2. Conserve water

[Mini-Me]

That comment is hardly smart. He has no idea how expensive desalinization plants are. Especially ones required for millions of people to drink.

Why don't you ask the question "Why don't people in Liberia or Sudan have desalinization plants?" Because its too fucking expensive.
Correction: The people in Liberia and Sudan don't have desalinization plants because, at the moment, it's still more expensive than alternative ways of obtaining water. As preexisting fresh water resources gradually become scarcer, they will become more expensive as well, making desalinization more economical in comparison. Of course, that's not even considering improvements in desalinization technology or eventual access to cheaper energy for desalinization purposes.



Seriously guys, the free market only works within the bounds of reality, its not magic. Humans have to learn to better conserve water, this is the only solution.
It's as simple as this: People only have to conserve water when they can't afford to waste it. Other than obtaining air to breathe, obtaining drinking water is the single largest economic priority there is. It's a matter of survival. As supply goes down and demand goes up, price goes up. This will incentivize people to conserve more water and be less wasteful, reducing demand. If prices remain high or continue to climb, desalinization technology will suddenly be very profitable, incentivizing the market to increase the supply of drinkable water (and making it feasible to do so). This is how the free market works, Ben. The economic viability of desalinization is not absolute; it's relative to the price of water.

[torchbearer]

Can they be built large enough to support 2 liters for every person as well as supporting agriculture? I doubt it, though I do believe solar vaporizers will play a crucial role in the future.

I see two steps for people with water shortages to take:

1. Move to an area without significant water shortages
2. Conserve water

I wouldn't freak out over lack of fresh water. An ice age would give us a shortage of water. If cap and trade actually worked, it was cause widespread drought.
During warmer periods, our earth gets cloudy and wet because the heated oceans are producing a lot of water vapor.

[BenIsForRon]

The economic viability of desalinization is not absolute; it's relative to the price of water.

I agree that desalinization would become more profitable, but that doesn't mean it would become affordable. If people can't afford shoes, how could they afford water provided by complex plants that use a lot of energy?

I think a lot of free-market folks also have a lot of faith in science and technology. I think that faith is unfounded, considering how little technology has done for countries with limited natural resources.

[Vessol]

The world DOES have too many people on it.

However, it isn't up to humans to solve that.

Nature solves that if it becomes a problem. Famines, droughts, pandemics.

[Reason]

its not my fucking fault no one is building nuclear powered desalinization plants....

[Mini-Me]

I agree that desalinization would become more profitable, but that doesn't mean it would become affordable. If people can't afford shoes, how could they afford water provided by complex plants that use a lot of energy?
What do you mean, it wouldn't become affordable? If you're saying building the plants wouldn't be affordable, you're contradicting your agreement with the economic fact that desalination would become profitable as water prices increased. If you're saying buying the water wouldn't be affordable for consumers, you're quite mistaken. Yes, water from desalination plants costs somewhat more than water that's not from desalination plants, and that's why desalination is so unprofitable at the moment (it's unprofitable while cheaper water exists)...but that doesn't mean desalination costs hundreds or thousands of times as much or anything!

For that matter, it's not going to cost even three or four times as much (read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics...and continue to read past the opening paragraphs).* Even if it did, most of the people screaming for conservation would probably wet their pants in glee at that idea anyway, because then people would be given a new incentive to conserve...problem solved, at least given the current population. :rolleyes:

Ultimately, desalination is the way of the future. On the downside, future generations will pay slightly more for water than we always have. On the upside, once fresh water prices reach the point where desalination is competitive, desalination technology will be able to almost limitlessly increase the supply of free water with the addition of more desalination plants to meet demand. The reason is, once fresh water becomes expensive enough that the cost of water from rivers (etc.) reaches parity with the cost of water from desalination plants, the further expansion of fresh water supply will pretty much be limited only by the amount of available coastline and the amount of salt water on Earth. That would keep future water prices relatively constant, and that's assuming no further progress in the efficiency of the technology itself.

*Here's an excerpt:

Poseidon plans to sell the water for about [US]$950 per acre-foot [1200 m³]. That compares with an average [US]$700 an acre-foot [1200 m³] that local agencies now pay for water." [4] $1,000 per acre-foot works out to $3.06 for 1,000 gallons, which is the unit of water measurement that residential water users are accustomed to being billed in.
That's not so bad, is it? Sure, there's the environmental issue to worry about, but judging from what I've read, it doesn't seem insurmountable (even if solving it would increase cost somewhat). You might say that we have to figure in transportation costs for anyone living far away from oceans, but we already have to figure in transportation costs for anyone living far away from freshwater sources anyway, so it's no major paradigm shift.



I think a lot of free-market folks also have a lot of faith in science and technology. I think that faith is unfounded, considering how little technology has done for countries with limited natural resources.
Frankly, I think technology will take us a hell of a lot further than mere conservation ever will. You can only conserve so much before you're not consuming anything at all, but the Earth (and solar system, etc.) has a hell of a lot of untapped resources, which become more and more economical to harness the more and more they're needed to support growing populations. Desalination is just one example, and I really hope I've convinced you on this one.

Granted, you can't make something out of nothing. If a country has limited natural resources, it has limited natural resources. It's up to them to make something of what they have or move elsewhere, just as it's always been. If some third world country's rivers aren't supplying enough water for their population, they can either conserve themselves or import...as has always been the case. Unless imperialists go and hijack their rivers, creating problems where there otherwise were none, I'm not seeing why their problems are ours to solve for them.

Besides, when it comes to third world countries, what do you even suggest? Considering the way they've been mistreated by imperialists, I'd suggest trading with them and otherwise leaving them alone (i.e. not subjugating them). Do I have faith they'll eventually catch up? Yes, I do...but even if I didn't, do you have a better solution for what they should do or how we should treat them? (These questions are more hypothetical than anything else...I don't really want to derail the thread.)

[Mini-Me]

The world DOES have too many people on it.

However, it isn't up to humans to solve that.

Nature solves that if it becomes a problem. Famines, droughts, pandemics.

I'm going to do some math here.

Earth land area = 57,470,000 square miles
Earth population = 6,783,000,000

If you were to evenly distribute the Earth's human population over its landmasses, that's 188 people per square mile, or 236,257 square feet per person. Granted, that's including Antarctica and such, but the point is, that's still a hell of a lot of room for each person.

What about arable land? There are currently about 12,000,000 square miles of arable land, which means about 565 per square mile of arable land, or ~49,342 square feet of arable land per person. That's a bit over an acre of arable land per person. How much do you eat in a year? How much must you eat in a year to survive?

Conclusion: The world is not currently overpopulated. :p
(In addition, population growth is only rampant in poor countries, and this is a general economic trend. Wealthy countries like the US reproduce at approximately replacement levels after discounting immigration. In time, the rest of the world will become industrialized...and as that happens, population growth will taper off.)

[erowe1]

The world DOES have too many people on it.



Where are you people getting this? It's ridiculous. Just pay attention to what you see out the window next time you go on a long drive. We're nowhere close to using up all the space we have.

[Johnnybags]

It does take energy but it is free. I did a test with 6oz's of water. 1 in a black container and one in a white container. The black evaporated the 6oz's in 5 hours, the white about 3.5oz's. I used tap water and what was left in the black container was all the crap in it, minerals,flouride etc as a powdery substance on the bottom. One can easily solar distill a few litres of water, preferably filtered rain in a day. I believe Las Salinas, Chile had the worlds biggest solar distillation plant back in the day for mine workers and animals. A black bottom, glass top and a trough to collect it as it drips down the angled glass is all you need. The UV rays help kill any bacteria etc as it is heating up to evaporate. Of course if you use plastic it has a plastic taste.





you know how much energy is required for a solar vaporizor?
none. the sun does all the work.
the free market has the incentive to try to get it done cheaply, and it is decentralized enough to allow many ideas to arise.. and a merit system based on performance that allows for success to be naturally rewarded.
A government could rarely get it done cheaply or efficiently.

[InterestedParticipant]

“It should be obvious from simple arithmetic that population growth is on a direct collision course with increasingly scarce resources.”
Jeremy Grantham

According to the United Nations, by 2020 water use is expected to increase by 40% to support the food requirements of a worldwide population that will grow from 6.7 billion people to 7.5 billion people. The U.N. estimate is that 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with extreme water scarcity. Even though 70% of the globe is covered by water, most of it is not useable because it is saltwater. Only 2% of the earth’s water is considered freshwater. Most of the freshwater is locked up in glaciers, permanent snow cover and in deep groundwater.

Jeremy Grantham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Grantham) is part of the British establishment


Does anyone here seriously trust anything from the United Nations.


The Club of Rome told the public that they were going to create artificial water shortages, environmental issues, and fake external enemies in order to get the public to go along with their plans for one world government. This has been published... and Grantham is just following orders.

[Elwar]

Worse than running out of water, what about hunting grounds for people to go out and hunt for food? You need at least 100 square miles of hunting land for animals to roam to support a small tribe of 20.

If the population rises above two million we're all screwed.

As an aside...I live on the gulf, I've been keeping an eye on craigslist and ebay for a cheap used water distiller that would produce enough water from the salt water in my back yard to provide my home with pure H2O.

[wildfirepower]

The capacity for the planet to add more people is higher now than it's ever been and it only keeps going up. I don't know what the ultimate limit will be, or if there ever even will be a limit, or we'll keep innovating ways to get more for less, but if there is going to be one, it will be well over 100 Billion people easily.

If the human population reaches 15 billion or 20 billion there would be no animals left on this planet. Only humans beings will walk on planet earth.

Already animals are getting extinct with human beings population of 7 billion.

If animals died out, human being will also be extinct. Both need each other for their survival.

[Original_Intent]

If the human population reaches 15 billion or 20 billion there would be no animals left on this planet. Only humans beings will walk on planet earth.

Already animals are getting extinct with human beings population of 7 billion.

If animals died out, human being will also be extinct. Both need each other for their survival.

Where do you get these numbers? From your spirit guide, your animal totem, or from your local Zero Population chapter? It's complete hogwash.

[erowe1]

If the human population reaches 15 billion or 20 billion there would be no animals left on this planet. Only humans beings will walk on planet earth.

Already animals are getting extinct with human beings population of 7 billion.

If animals died out, human being will also be extinct. Both need each other for their survival.

More hogwash. I just read an article a couple days ago about literally dozens of new species found recently in a valley in Papua New Guinea. And guess who found them. Yep, human beings. And when animals are useful to humans who kill those animals, that is when their survival as a species is most secure. You won't see cows and chickens going extinct any time soon.

And where did you get that number 15-20 billion? It's like you pulled it out of a hat. I suppose if humans were now using a full third of the earth, and if we were to assume that as we continue to multiply we will continue to require the same amount of land per person, then you might be justified in thinking that when the human population is 3x what it now is, then other species will be crowded out. But both of those assumptions are absolutely fallacious. Humanity is using far less than a third of the earth now. And it's inevitable that as humanity multiplies it will continue to use land more and more efficiently. And it will use some of that land for the animals that humanity needs and wants to keep around.

[InterestedParticipant]

If the human population reaches 15 billion or 20 billion there would be no animals left on this planet. Only humans beings will walk on planet earth.

Already animals are getting extinct with human beings population of 7 billion.

If animals died out, human being will also be extinct. Both need each other for their survival.
Here's the keyword..... "If"

They either give you bogus models, like in the case of "Climate Change," or they try to scare the crap out of you with extremist futuristic views prefaced by "If".

The good news is that all of these techniques can be traced back to source documents, where elite assholes created all of these Nazi-wet-dreams.

[erowe1]

Here's the keyword..... "If"



That's not the key word. There's no "if" about it. The human race will easily reach 20 billion and keep growing far beyond that without facing any overpopulation problems.

[Original_Intent]

That's not the key word. There's no "if" about it. The human race will easily reach 20 billion and keep growing far beyond that without facing any overpopulation problems.

Absolutely. For one thing, the amount of land required to feed one person on a primarily MEAT diet can support 20 people living on a primarily grain diet. I'm a meat eater, I am just saying even a slight switch from a mostly meat diet to a bit mroe grains could make a HUGE difference in how many people could be supported.

Then consider that in many areas, we have build up cities on the most farmable land. I f that land was returned to productive state and people migrated to build homes in less productive areas, that is a lot more food.

Not to mention increased efficiency, our ingenuity and finding new ways to desalinate water cheaply, find ways to use less water for other things such as steel production, oil production etc. And we have not even scratched the surface of what we could do with the oceans - yes we harvest what naturally grows there, but we are effectively at a hunter/gatherer phase of utilizing the oceans.

Then consider all the resources that we absolutely waste currently. Probably a billion people could be supported on just what is carelessly wasted now.

People who preach the overpopulation either have an agenda like Algore, or are just plain uninformed or have drunk the Koolaid that Algore and friends are peddling.

[InterestedParticipant]

That's not the key word. There's no "if" about it. The human race will easily reach 20 billion and keep growing far beyond that without facing any overpopulation problems.
Perhaps I misread your post or you misinterpreted mine. What I am trying to say is that the proponents of scarcity use the word "if" to create all sorts of ridiculous hypotheses.... like "if" too many people water will run out, or "if" we exhale too much the seas will rise and cover all of our skyscrapers. It's part of their fear campaign.

Irrespective of whether the world can handle 20 million people or not, I've actually seen studies that show that population, on a global level, has almost stabilized. In some regions it continues to grow, in other regions it declines. The problem is the elite, thru the UN's Agenda 21 plans, are herding us all into habitat areas (ie cities), so it feels a lot more crowded.

The bottom line here is that the elite want a smaller population, and they'll sell the public any BS they can come up with to get us to agree to limit our child birth or kill ourselves early.

[Brian4Liberty]

Do we wish a central board of experts to decide the optimal population of the Earth and the allocation of resources ?

Hell no.


Who should solve this 'problem'?

The "should" is complex. This is one of those few situations where the actual outcome is easy to predict. Mother Nature will "solve" the problem.



Peak population is a problem, but a free market will figure out a way (consume less, increase efficiencies, etc.).

Peak population will be a problem at some point. Free market should be able to delay the inevitable.


I am in a low population area, very rural, and only a few miles from the Great Lakes.
There is NO shortage of water here, however they want to put meters on my private well. :confused:

We all tend to judge the world based on our immediate surroundings. In my area, it is overcrowded, with shortages of everything. And the percentage of people actually born in the US is probably around 20%.


If there are no resources they will die off.
If they exist then there ARE resources.

That is the basic fact!

--

I know a pyramid scheme when I see one. The Oligarchy profits and thrives on an ever increasing human population. An ever-growing parasite needs an ever-growing host. Certainly they may express the sentiment at times that they would like to thin out the dirty, overpopulated peons or thin them out for the "good of humanity" (such benevolence :rolleyes:), they still know where their profits lie.

[Brian4Liberty]

The bottom line here is that the elite want a smaller population, and they'll sell the public any BS they can come up with to get us to agree to limit our child birth or kill ourselves early.

Are you sure about that? Perhaps they just want you to think that.

Yes, they talk about population control in their benevolent :rolleyes: think tanks and endowments. But in reality, they profit from ever-expanding populations.

What they really want is less free thinking, "uppity" people. They want more easily manipulated slaves though.

[InterestedParticipant]

Are you sure about that? Perhaps they just want you to think that.

Yes, they talk about population control in their benevolent :rolleyes: think tanks and endowments. But in reality, they profit from ever-expanding populations.

What they really want is less free thinking, "uppity" people. They want more easily manipulated slaves though.
Yes, I am certain about this.

Not only is this view supported by elite think tanks, but it is also supported by cybernetics theory (ie. systems theory). In cybernetics view of the world, you and I are just nodes in a large system (ie global society). To maintain order, one must be able to develop feedback-control techniques that accounts for every node in this system, resulting in each node being "predictable" and therefore "controllable." However, each additional node in this society presents the risk of it being an anomaly... something that is not predictable and therefore not controllable by existing feedback-control techniques. Hence, to reduce the risk of an out-of-control condition, one must reduce the number of nodes in the system thereby reducing the risk of a system anomaly.


“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Chapter V - The Vacuum
First Global Revolution
Club of Rome (1991)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution


“Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

Club of Rome


http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." They decided to employ a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' in order to terrify their followers and achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, with the real ultimate enemy being humanity, which would be portrayed as man himself. Are you not noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath. Quotes from the Club of Rome follow:

“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised."



“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."

- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

[Justin D]

After some thinking, I came to the conclusion that we are pressured to subdivide land because of increased property taxes. In places with low property taxes, the actual piece of real estate is bigger per owner and population density is lower. If real estate owners didn't have to worry about property taxes or fees for their property, they would be more likely to keep it and pass it from generation to generation without subdividing and selling it off.

I think that there would be a smaller population because more owners would keep thier land, rather than downsize.

[Brian4Liberty]

resulting in each node being "predictable" and therefore "controllable."


We agree that it is about control. They profit from the human pyramid scheme as long as they can control it.


However, each additional node in this society presents the risk of it being an anomaly... something that is not predictable and therefore not controllable by existing feedback-control techniques. Hence, to reduce the risk of an out-of-control condition, one must reduce the number of nodes in the system thereby reducing the risk of a system anomaly.

Not all nodes are created equal. Some nodes are much easier to control. The ease of control is also a factor in determining the number of nodes that can be controlled.

For instance, discouraging the growth of the domestic population, while actively and massively increasing the imported (and easier to control) population would allow for (profit) growth and increased control at the same time...

[LibForestPaul]

Not sure, but Saudi Arabia has little natural fresh water. Wonder how they are surviving in a desert.
Physical Economy,
Mankind progress,
Human resourcefulness and innovation.

Or do they have some board saying, hey lets move.