Water shortage and overpopulation

[Jaskalas]

Link to story
Even before the now decade-long drought began punishing Las Vegas, people used more than 75 percent of the water in northern Africa and western Asia that they could get their hands on in 2000, according to the United Nations.

In 2002, 8 percent of the world suffered chronic shortages. By 2050, 40 percent of the projected world population, or about 4 billion people, will lack adequate water as entire regions turn dry, the UN predicts.

?We can no longer assume that cheap water is available,? says Peter Gleick, editor of The World?s Water 2008-2009 (Island Press, 2009). ?We have to start living within our means.?

What I believe this article is dealing with, is the simple fact that the earth is overpopulated. Proof of concept is a lack of resources, and the single most important resource we need to utilize is water.

I?ve created a poll to gauge how serious we take this matter, and if you believe in my diagnosis. I mean, the first question is a no brainer so it is only a matter of when this happens, not if it happens. So then I wonder how we will respond to it, and if we will succeed at all?

Our current efforts are, at best, paltry. Parlor tricks compared to the very real problems we face. The reservoirs and aquifers we tap into are being drained dry. We have already gone past their rate of replenishment, now it?s only a question of how long it takes to suck this resource dry. All the while our population, and thus demand, continues to grow.

Civilization has saved many lives, compared to how humans lived thousands of years ago. Yet all this peace and prosperity has created a population boom. This increase in population leads to an increase in consumption. Thus, our peace and prosperity by itself is inevitably going to lead to a lack of resources, and a collapse of society.

What say you? Please read, or at least skim through most of the article above.

 

[Modelworks]

It really isn't a problem of there not being enough water, it is that we need more efficient means to get it from the places that have it to the places that need it.

 

[dullard]

There is plenty of water, always will be. There will, however, be an end to virutally free water. Yes, we'll have to pay a little bit for it in the future - for purification or for transport. This isn't much of a big deal. It just increases our use of energy a bit.

And as soon as there is a significant cost associated with it, there will be reductions in demand. It is basically self-balancing. Locally, there will be battles, but there is no global problem.

 

[PingSpike]

I have tons of water up here...my well just keeps pumping away.

Edit: And can't you just distill sea water?

 

[JS80]

lack of resources? last time i walked into a supermarket it was fully stocked.

But if you guys are really worried about water shortages, buy stock in ERII.

 

[StageLeft]

Not really overpopulate so much as big loss of quality of life. I'm not worried about water. I know desalination is possible. This issue is off the radar to me in regard to importance.

Sounds about right that transport of it is the problem. Africa has no infrastructure. It sucks IN ALL WAYS, whether it's water or food or whatever. The US is mostly fine for water. It has occasional problems, and frequent problems in silly cities like vegas, but many people live actually quite close to huge natural water supplies.

 

[Genx87]

I think there is potential for spot shortages in this country. The SW can only supply itself off the Colorado for so long. Also the aquifer in the midwest is down about 40 feet. There have been rumblings of building pipelines from the great lakes to the SW.

In Russia they drained lake Baikal(sp) for argiculture under the communists.

But I dont believe it is all doom and gloom. I see oceans as untapped potential. Desalinaztion plants could be big business in the next 100 years.

 

[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.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Link to story
Even before the now decade-long drought began punishing Las Vegas, people used more than 75 percent of the water in northern Africa and western Asia that they could get their hands on in 2000, according to the United Nations.

In 2002, 8 percent of the world suffered chronic shortages. By 2050, 40 percent of the projected world population, or about 4 billion people, will lack adequate water as entire regions turn dry, the UN predicts.

?We can no longer assume that cheap water is available,? says Peter Gleick, editor of The World?s Water 2008-2009 (Island Press, 2009). ?We have to start living within our means.?

What I believe this article is dealing with, is the simple fact that the earth is overpopulated. Proof of concept is a lack of resources, and the single most important resource we need to utilize is water.

I?ve created a poll to gauge how serious we take this matter, and if you believe in my diagnosis. I mean, the first question is a no brainer so it is only a matter of when this happens, not if it happens. So then I wonder how we will respond to it, and if we will succeed at all?

Our current efforts are, at best, paltry. Parlor tricks compared to the very real problems we face. The reservoirs and aquifers we tap into are being drained dry. We have already gone past their rate of replenishment, now it?s only a question of how long it takes to suck this resource dry. All the while our population, and thus demand, continues to grow.

Civilization has saved many lives, compared to how humans lived thousands of years ago. Yet all this peace and prosperity has created a population boom. This increase in population leads to an increase in consumption. Thus, our peace and prosperity by itself is inevitably going to lead to a lack of resources, and a collapse of society.

What say you? Please read, or at least skim through most of the article above.

The USA sits on one of the world's largest aquifers. Our planet's surface is ~70% covered by water. To claim that water access is proof of overpopulation is beyond rational comprehension. It is far more a result of a lack of technological homogeniety across the globe, peace, and civilization.

Final thought - if I'm wrong, and this is a problem, then biofuels are going to kill us all far quicker than oil ever would. We'd do well not to rely on them and focus on other methods of achieving energy diversification and independence.

 

[StageLeft]

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 pay $.10 per killowatt, so that's $1.40. I cannot remember how much water I go through a month. Many thousands but not sure.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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 pay $.10 per killowatt, so that's $1.40. I cannot remember how much water I go through a month. Many thousands but not sure.

That really doesn't sound like it adds much to the bottom line at all.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Skoorb

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 pay $.10 per killowatt, so that's $1.40. I cannot remember how much water I go through a month. Many thousands but not sure.

That really doesn't sound like it adds much to the bottom line at all.

At first it seems like it wouldn't be. But then you have to figure out how much a plant has to produce for a city, millions of gallons + drain on power grids that are already overloaded. Plus that cost doesn't include the later steps of filtering + treatment, people that work and run the plant, etc . That is just the amount of electricity it takes to remove the salt.

It is not a cost effective method , that is why they use every other means first.

 

[Zebo]

Way overrated issue.

Drinking Water can be made, we have oceans of it.

We can feed the whole world from Ca. and probably put then all in it too.

Besides, I never underestimate humans capacity for war, a big one as we get too crowded.

 

[sandorski]

Over-population is an issue, but a larger and more appropriate issue to Fresh Water availability is Climate Change.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
It really isn't a problem of there not being enough water, it is that we need more efficient means to get it from the places that have it to the places that need it.

:thumbsup:

 

[JS80]

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.

ERII

Kind of expensive right now, but if desalination takes off this is a 10 bagger.

 

[squirrel dog]

Well done on the poll.

 

[vi edit]

The water we "waste"...which is a bit of a misnomer is pretty freaking ridiculous. Washing our cars weekly, watering our lawns daily, using golf courses, water parks, swimming pools, extra long showers, ect are all luxuries. If it truely were scarce or expensive, we'd either pay more for it, or cut down on our luxuries.

And it's not like we "waste" it and it's gone forever. It ultimately runs back or evaporates back to some originating point. I'm sure there's some loss that's unrecoverable, but last time I checked there's still about 70% of the globe covered by it that still makes it's way to us through one form or another.

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.

 

[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?

 

[SMOGZINN]

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.

Solar thermal collector plants can desalinate water pretty cheaply, it is just a matter of having a need to build them.

 

[sandorski]

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 recently watched something, on ForaTV IIRC, that talked about the US's aquifer and how it is depleting fast.

 

[soccerballtux]

I enjoyed taking your poll.

I believe this is "not a problem" to "only a minor problem" because we've already solved it-- we just need cheaper energy. The extra cost of the electricity used in desalinating the water could just be factored into the cost of water.

I think we can overpopulate the earth, but I think it will be beyond the next century.

We still have plenty of empty land all over the place. Once we figure out how to make sunlight ourselves, we can just move all our food production underground-- this will have an added benefit of enabling us to produce pesticide-free produce.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
I enjoyed taking your poll.

I believe this is "not a problem" to "only a minor problem" because we've already solved it-- we just need cheaper energy. The extra cost of the electricity used in desalinating the water could just be factored into the cost of water.

I think we can overpopulate the earth, but I think it will be beyond the next century.

We still have plenty of empty land all over the place. Once we figure out how to make sunlight ourselves, we can just move all our food production underground-- this will have an added benefit of enabling us to produce pesticide-free produce.

Already done. It makes more sense to move People Underground though. Let Nature dominate the Surface, except for Agricultural needs and the numerous access points we'll need. Hell, imagine how big a yard the average Home would have.