Water shortage and overpopulation

[First]

I find that there's a high correlation between libertarian/3rd party nuts and end-of-society/end-of-the-world predictions. The real world is always far less dramatic. Scientists in general aren't worried about overpopulation and water shortages, so it's hard for regular people to be all that worried.

 

[boomerang]

If you live in a desert, you should expect to be thirsty.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Evan
I find that there's a high correlation between libertarian/3rd party nuts and end-of-society/end-of-the-world predictions...

I find many are staunch Republican supporters as well, but you are probably too busy getting you panties in a bunch over Paulbots to notice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: boomerang
If you live in a desert, you should expect to be thirsty.

No reason to if you have solar cells.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: boomerang
If you live in a desert, you should expect to be thirsty.

Most of the Western U.S. (Pacific Northwest Rain Forest excepted) IS a Desert. It also is the source of most of our agricultural bounty. Until you rely on a locally grown food supply (which I am in favor of, by the way) you'd better start thinking like an American, not a provincialist.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The aquifers hold a specific amount of water. If we begin to drain them faster than they replenish, it might take a decide or longer before it runs dry. It means that by the time you suffer consequences you could be decades past the tipping point. In such a case, small amounts of conservation will do nothing, it?ll require dramatic reduction and zero growth in demand.

I don?t believe people are ready to cut back in demand. As evident from the poll, a lot of us don?t think it?s a problem. Can we tell these people to cut back?

Originally posted by: vi edit
Desert locations like Phoenix and Las Vegas that are essentially borrowing water from other places are either going to have to cut down on use, or suck it up and pay A LOT more for the infrastructer to properly deliver it from other areas.

It is sort of my point, will these locations peacefully realize that they can no longer borrow from these water sources? They are facing a shortage right now, and yet the poll here suggests we either don't care or are ignorant of it.

Are they willing to pay higher prices?

I think you're finally realizing that it's not a global issue - it's a regional issue. Allow me to be blunt: If you live in the middle of a fucking desert, you might eventually run out of water. This means you move, or pay more money for improved infrastructure to transport water to you. "But the climate is so niiice here." I leave my garden hose running 24/7. It has absolutely no effect on the water shortage anywhere in the world.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan
I find that there's a high correlation between libertarian/3rd party nuts and end-of-society/end-of-the-world predictions. The real world is always far less dramatic. Scientists in general aren't worried about overpopulation and water shortages, so it's hard for regular people to be all that worried.

Scientists, in general, tend to focus on their own projects. For example, the chemical physicist who studies the collisions of ion beams in vacuum is probably most concerned about energy levels and spectroscopy and probably doesn't have time to give much thought to water shortages.

So, at issue is what scientists who study water supplies think, and not "scientists in general". What do you make of all the news reports about droughts and water shortages in various parts of the country? Are they lies? Could there be some sort of a relationship between population growth and the demand for water in the Southwest and water shortages or at least strain on the water supply in the Southwest?

You really don't need to be a quantum mechanics expert to understand simple Malthusian concepts; you just need some common sense and to not have been taken in by a bright-eyed-politically-correct-benevolent-universe-premise dogma and/or laissez-faire capitalist dogma. Basic logic dictates that when there is a relatively fixed amount of a resource (such as fresh water that can be made potable), as the demand for that resource (population) increases, there will be less of that resource per capita. You don't need to understand nuclear magnetic resonance to figure that out.)

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Desalinization works but it is a very expensive way to get drinking water. Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries have huge plants to produce water, but at a cost.

Current desalination methods consume around 14 kilowatt hours of energy to crank out 1,000 gallons of desalinated water.

I view this much like alternative energy folks view their cause. It is expensive now, but confident given demand more efficient ways can be researched. I have a feeling the way we are draining our fresh water supplies it is going to be a needed technology in the next 100 years.

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Desalination FTW! This would be a good application of offshore wind generation and/or solar. It requires a large initial investment, but things work out pretty well over the long run.

I'm thinking you guys probably don't want to know how water treatment plants actually operate. It might skeer yah.

Desalination processes are in addition to clarification, filtration and treatment. It may become more cost effective in the future but it will never reach the point of the cost effectiveness against traditional treatment.

At this point in time, not only are the capital costs of desalination plants greater. the operating costs are much greater. And without a complete new cost effective technology in the overall treatment process it's really not possible.

'Fresh' water is always going to be cleaner to process than salt water (at least, let's hope so). The current standard in desalination is reverse osmosis. The conundrum is the membranes.

The cleaner the membranes the more efficient the process BUT the more you clean the membranes the more quickly they wear out. Membrane replacement occurs every 2-5 years and is an expensive undertaking.

The other expense and concern: Even after coagulation and flocculation ('clarification' - where the suspended solids are removed) the untreated effluent entering osmosis ain't of the highest quality. After 'processing' through reverse osmosis you are left with a semi-toxic salty concentrated waste caused 'brine' which must be disposed.

You can't really dispose of it on land because of potential groundwater contamination so yah pump it back into the ocean. AIEEEEE!

 

[Jeff7]

Desalination may be an option, but only if cheap, abundant energy were available.
That would require some enormous leaps in fusion power, or else solar cell cost vs efficiency.

Simply put, there are too damn many humans.

 

[IronWing]

I'm not worried about water too much, even though I'm one of those idiots living in a major urban center in the middle of a desert. Oil will run out before water and that will solve the overpopulation problem and the water shortage that goes with it.

If there were truly a water crisis in the western US we wouldn't be using more than 50% of the water out here to grow feed for cattle (Cadillac Desert puts the number at 70% but the book is a bit dated so I lowered the estimate to account for urban growth since the book was written).

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Evan
I find that there's a high correlation between libertarian/3rd party nuts and end-of-society/end-of-the-world predictions. The real world is always far less dramatic. Scientists in general aren't worried about overpopulation and water shortages, so it's hard for regular people to be all that worried.

Scientists, in general, tend to focus on their own projects. For example, the chemical physicist who studies the collisions of ion beams in vacuum is probably most concerned about energy levels and spectroscopy and probably doesn't have time to give much thought to water shortages.

So, at issue is what scientists who study water supplies think, and not "scientists in general". What do you make of all the news reports about droughts and water shortages in various parts of the country? Are they lies? Could there be some sort of a relationship between population growth and the demand for water in the Southwest and water shortages or at least strain on the water supply in the Southwest?

You really don't need to be a quantum mechanics expert to understand simple Malthusian concepts; you just need some common sense and to not have been taken in by a bright-eyed-politically-correct-benevolent-universe-premise dogma and/or laissez-faire capitalist dogma. Basic logic dictates that when there is a relatively fixed amount of a resource (such as fresh water that can be made potable), as the demand for that resource (population) increases, there will be less of that resource per capita. You don't need to understand nuclear magnetic resonance to figure that out.)

I'm not sure why you still reply to my posts when we've established you're not interested in research or peer reviews. Let me know if you want to debate based on hard data.

And yes, population growth does strain water supply, but it also doesn't mean water is going to run out. They're two different problems believe it or not, and I can't help you wrap your head around it.

 

[DrPizza]

You can't really dispose of it on land because of potential groundwater contamination so yah pump it back into the ocean. AIEEEEE!

With absolutely no overall affect on the ocean.

 

[SirStev0]

Could you add to the last question "Half the country will continue to deny its existance;therefore refusing to do anything and the other half will just talk about it a lot but still not actually do something."

Since that will actually be what happens.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Desalination may be an option, but only if cheap, abundant energy were available.
That would require some enormous leaps in fusion power, or else solar cell cost vs efficiency.

Simply put, there are too damn many humans.

Well, if our society gets to the point that we need to use Desalination, the obvious power source would be the one that is right there, the power of the tide.

 

[Exterous]

I, for one, welcome water shortages. With Michigan being surrounded by lakes we can finally jump start our economy by over charging the golf courses in Arizona on water to water their grass with. I knew there was a reason I stayed here in spite of our horrible economy. Our time will come - so be nice to us!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EvanI'm not sure why you still reply to my posts when we've established you're not interested in research or peer reviews. Let me know if you want to debate based on hard data.

As I've said before, I'm sure I could go find my own hard data to back up my side of these issues if I wanted to and I take your potentially hand-picked "hard data" with grains of salt. I respond because your alleged "hard studies" often appear to defy economic logic.

And yes, population growth does strain water supply, but it also doesn't mean water is going to run out. They're two different problems believe it or not, and I can't help you wrap your head around it.

Care to elaborate? I'm glad you agree with me that, ceteris parabis, population growth strains the water supply. Do you think it's possible that "water might run out" in the Southwest?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper


As I've said before, I'm sure I could go find my own hard data to back up my side of these issues if I wanted to and I take your potentially hand-picked "hard data" with grains of salt. I respond because your alleged "hard studies" often appear to defy economic logic.

They don't defy logic whatsoever, and I again defy you to have a debate about it. Of course, you won't, which makes it all the more strange you respond with replies like these despite admitting you're not aware of opposing studies (as "I'm sure I could find my own hard data" clearly shows), in addition to generally admitting that your posts here are more curiosity and broad questions than serious posts asking for debate.

Care to elaborate? I'm glad you agree with me that, ceteris parabis, population growth strains the water supply. Do you think it's possible that "water might run out" in the Southwest?

No, it won't run out anytime soon because we haven't yet seen population growth outlast technology. The current trends don't project population growth to pose significant long term consequences on water supply. When you consider the high odds of being able to desalinize water at low cost due to improving tech and economies of scale sometime in the near future, it's quite likely this planet will never run out of usable water. There is more water on this planet than we could ever dream of realistically using, the issue is purification and cost, nothing more.

 

[Jaskalas]

These people see the well running dry, and are trying to curtail water usage. This is a policy that could work in the short term, but long term their population (and thus consumption) continues to rise indefinitely.

It should be fairly basic that an infinitely growing consumption of a finite amount is not going to last.

Schwarzenegger declares Calif. drought emergency
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday because of three years of below-average rain and snowfall in California, a step that urges urban water agencies to reduce water use by 20 percent.

"This drought is having a devastating impact on our people, our communities, our economy and our environment, making today's action absolutely necessary," the Republican governor said in his statement.

Mandatory rationing is an option if the declaration and other measures are insufficient.

The drought has forced farmers to fallow their fields, put thousands of agricultural workers out of work and led to conservation measures in cities throughout the state, which is the nation's top agricultural producer.

Agriculture losses could reach $2.8 billion this year and cost 95,000 jobs, said Lester Snow, the state water director.