They point to population growth as a contributing factor, yet they never suggest anyone do anything about that.
How about free birth control to anyone who wants it? How about permanent birth control to any adult who wants it? I'd say free to anyone below some income level since the middle class can afford it anyway. With increasing productivity we don't have jobs for all the people anyway, why not encourage making less of them?
I'm not talking about mandates or government deciding who reproduces, just having them help folks that would prefer not to have kids to not have them. The solution doesn't always have to be more regulation.
I think one of the keys to "controlling" population growth is to bring people out of poverty. Most studies I read, show dropping birth rates as people/nations climb the economic ladder. Education, and health care also play a big part.
Population growth rates world wide have already plummeted in recent decades and continue to do so as more developing countries industrialize.
Current predictions point to stabilizing world population at 9 billion and the starting to slowly drop. In the most developed countries we have seen lower than replacement rates for a long while now.
"I'd say free to anyone below some income level since the middle class can afford it anyway."
I totally understand you're coming from a good place here, but this is exactly the type of thing that can go all sorts of wrong when implemented by people coming from not such a good place. Also, this could come across any number of ways if you're coming from a different place (socioeconomic wise). For instance. Well off families tend to have less children and are in a position to provide for them. So, if I'm poor and can't afford to take care of my kids properly, you're proposing I just don't have them?
I use that example only to emphasize what I think is already implicit in your comment, that this is a super complex issue. My reaction to the article was similar to yours, just from a different angle. I kept reading "more efficient use of" and thinking, at what point do we realize we need to use less and not just get more out of what we use?
I wonder if there are strategic reasons behind this - do the US and European countries fear a growing China and India and feel the need to compete, for example? Are there military or economic incentives to having a large population today as there used to be a millennium ago? I'm probably going to go with no, but who knows?
...or a global plague... something similar to the black plague, or some of the really bad flu epidemics... without the risks from infectious disease, humans are pretty much un-checked.
I'm not suggesting that we actually engineer such a solution, but the fact is there are too many people on the planet, and the population is only growing... Eventually the real perceived value of life will decrease, and more militant solutions will start presenting themselves.
It's not popular, and my only hope is I don't live to see things get really worse.
Desalinization really should be something under much heavier research than it currently is. As should farming with less water usage, as well as cross-country water pipelines.
Lovely ideas, but very far out of reach. Some of our elected officials would rip apart planned parenthood and impose strict rules on birth control if they could.
When you say free you don't mean free. Free means no one pays for it which means no one spends time making it. If anyone has to spend any time making and/or distributing this birth control it isn't be free by definition.
With all the talk of water running out in CA and the world, I am wondering why desalination is not part of the conversation. According to Wikipedia:
"Supplying all domestic water by sea water desalination would increase the United States' energy consumption by around 10%, about the amount of energy used by domestic refrigerators."
Is this true? If so, why isn't desalination happening on a massive scale in CA?
EDIT: The Wikipedia sentence I quoted was not clearly written. It should have said "supplying all household water" not "supplying all domestic water." Far more water is used by farming.
It is part of the conversation. There was just an NPR Forum segment about it yesterday or so. There are articles about it sometimes (e.g., http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-large...). This solution often ends up not being pursued because it's extremely expensive and energy intensive not only to desalinate but to then pump the water to where it needs to go, and you also have waste product to deal with. So in many cases it has been decided that other avenues, like conservation, are more economical.
As long as it is cheaper to exploit an existing clean water source than to spend the energy, and invest in the massive and in some cases unproven tech and engineering infrastructure to build desalination plants, then that's what will happen.
It's unfortunate, because the cost to future generations, or the biosphere doesn't calculate into our current economic system, and most of the commercial infrastructure is aligned against re-calibration of that kind, because it would cost them dearly.
I live in Florid; we have a large desal plant here as part of our water supply. It took years to get it working well, along with a few lawsuits; they're not easy, or cheap, but well worth it.
That is talking about the water you use in your household. But that is a tiny faction of all water used in total. Industry and farming absolutely dwarf household consumption.
A ton of water is used to grow Alfafia. There is no way it's profitable if you had to desalinate it first.
The cost to build desalination plants to service millions of residents would be BILLIONS. Tens of Billions. Money that is available, just being spent on other things...
The issue is the waste... the salt that's left over. What happens to it? In the Persian Gulf (I think...) they have basically killed everything in the water from the abundance of salt that's been put back into the sea water.[1]
There is a theory that if we continue making the Gulf warmer by putting so much salt in, it could be a catalyst for plunging the world into an ice age. Who knows if that's true.
Already here in New Zealand we are exporting some of our fresh water to very rich people over in Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries. Can't link the source, it was a court news article about some guy who assaulted someone. He was exporting prime NZ lambs, and water tankers...
Something that bears mentioning when you read this type of report:
If something is 10-20 years in the future in these types of models, this has:
a) Already happened
unless
b) there are major changes / interactions that scientific models have not had factored in
while
c) Anthropic actions cannot change this, but it can change x+n where X is original time and n is the 'down ramp' from your curve.
For instance: if your Co2 is 400ppm now, then the effects have already happened 20-50 years into the future. It can be made much much worse through events before you hit that time (let us say either Yellowstone or the entire of India / China buying a car per family) but your actions in the interim are merely altering the effects after time X.
In the case of water we can say: model presents X+n time > if action: such as massive investment in desalination and/or new osmosis materials (positive to time change) minus climate impacts we've not noticed yet (negatives to time change) where n is less than continued effect without any other imputs.
This is a rather loopy way to say:
People think of these types of announcements as future based predictions: they're not, they're present events if (and only if) your models don't change.
[Note: this isn't to say they're scientifically incorrect - but this inability to understand time in these types of reports fuels a lot of ignorance from both "sides" of Climate / Ecological debates]
I wonder if the software running those models has finally been corrected[1] to use floating point properly. Giving different results from the same data+software when run on different hardware suggests rounding wasn't being handled properly[2].
As these models are already so sensitive to initial conditions that "ensemble prediction" are necessary to avoid chaotic results, mishandling floating point rounding could completely destroy the results.
I bet they've got their finger right on a set of great solutions: (1) more money for the UN, (2) more sovereign power handed over to the UN, (3) more money from the UN to fund more studies on why more money should be given to the UN, (4) more posh conferences for UN and UN-related bigshots in exotic locales, (5) annihilate Israel, (6) new Nobel prizes to be handed out to UN-grant-funded researchers promoting increased funding of the UN at UN-sponsored conferences...
With the rising sea levels (due to global warming), wouldn't now be the best time to figure out how to pipe that desalinated water all over the continents?
I don't think we'll be able to desalinate all that water, but figuring out an affordable pumping solution to combat sea level rise would be worthwhile, nonetheless. It's a "pipe dream" (sorry) at this point, but who knows what kind of energy technologies might make this doable someday. And if we have the affordable energy to achieve that, then I think we'll have a lot of options. Not buying Florida beach-front property any time soon though.
If our weather is getting more unpredictable due to climate change why don't we get better at capturing the heavy rain we experience in some parts of the world and allowing it to sink in to the ground rather than running off into rivers.
Particularly thinking of some of the flooding in UK and Europe over the last decade.
If the ice caps melt due to rising temperature surely this means more water in the atmosphere and more rain in some places?
This might work in the UK. There is no national water infrastructure, so although it rains a lot, there are regular droughts - especially in the South East where most of the population lives.
There's been some noise about fixing this, but after privatisation there's no commercial interest in taking on national-scale projects without government subsidy.
Somewhere like CA is largely desert anyway, and there's no obvious wet climate area to collect water from.
So practically, only draconian conservation laws and perhaps a huge string of desal plants can save CA. I guess neither of those are likely. And then you get a repeat of what's happening in Sao Paulo and Rio in Brazil, where there's no water for days on end.
The terrifying thing about climate change is that it's literally making some areas uninhabitable. Large parts of FL have less than fifty years, CA and NM are drying out, the East Coast will become more prone to flooding and perhaps also to extreme winters.
Europe is going to have similar problems as flooding becomes common. There are already places in the UK where buildings insurance is no longer affordable.
At some point the economics stop making sense. Not long after that people either leave or become homeless.
It would have been smart to avoid these outcomes, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
This is a non issue, provided that economic growth continues. That 10% of energy costs which desalination would add, we just choose to spend it on things not as vital. With economic growth, we just spend more and more of the new wealth on building desal infrastructure. If we're able to add nuclear to the mix, it lowers our total energy cost freeing up some additional room for desal. Fusion will definitely make this a non issue.
As more of the world becomes middle class, there is more demand for meat protein. This is a problem since it takes about 10 times the water (and also energy) to support non-vegetarian diets.
Introducing Aquabob! Imagine: a dome that collects condensation (think morning dew). It waters your greenhouse, and leaves you with plenty to water down for those midnight cocktails
phkahler|11 years ago
How about free birth control to anyone who wants it? How about permanent birth control to any adult who wants it? I'd say free to anyone below some income level since the middle class can afford it anyway. With increasing productivity we don't have jobs for all the people anyway, why not encourage making less of them?
I'm not talking about mandates or government deciding who reproduces, just having them help folks that would prefer not to have kids to not have them. The solution doesn't always have to be more regulation.
josefresco|11 years ago
ido|11 years ago
Current predictions point to stabilizing world population at 9 billion and the starting to slowly drop. In the most developed countries we have seen lower than replacement rates for a long while now.
systemtheory|11 years ago
I totally understand you're coming from a good place here, but this is exactly the type of thing that can go all sorts of wrong when implemented by people coming from not such a good place. Also, this could come across any number of ways if you're coming from a different place (socioeconomic wise). For instance. Well off families tend to have less children and are in a position to provide for them. So, if I'm poor and can't afford to take care of my kids properly, you're proposing I just don't have them?
I use that example only to emphasize what I think is already implicit in your comment, that this is a super complex issue. My reaction to the article was similar to yours, just from a different angle. I kept reading "more efficient use of" and thinking, at what point do we realize we need to use less and not just get more out of what we use?
makmanalp|11 years ago
tracker1|11 years ago
I'm not suggesting that we actually engineer such a solution, but the fact is there are too many people on the planet, and the population is only growing... Eventually the real perceived value of life will decrease, and more militant solutions will start presenting themselves.
It's not popular, and my only hope is I don't live to see things get really worse.
Desalinization really should be something under much heavier research than it currently is. As should farming with less water usage, as well as cross-country water pipelines.
edkennedy|11 years ago
techaddict009|11 years ago
eikenberry|11 years ago
FilterJoe|11 years ago
"Supplying all domestic water by sea water desalination would increase the United States' energy consumption by around 10%, about the amount of energy used by domestic refrigerators."
Is this true? If so, why isn't desalination happening on a massive scale in CA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Considerations_and...
EDIT: The Wikipedia sentence I quoted was not clearly written. It should have said "supplying all household water" not "supplying all domestic water." Far more water is used by farming.
needacig|11 years ago
tehchromic|11 years ago
As long as it is cheaper to exploit an existing clean water source than to spend the energy, and invest in the massive and in some cases unproven tech and engineering infrastructure to build desalination plants, then that's what will happen.
It's unfortunate, because the cost to future generations, or the biosphere doesn't calculate into our current economic system, and most of the commercial infrastructure is aligned against re-calibration of that kind, because it would cost them dearly.
CapitalistCartr|11 years ago
http://www.tampabaywater.org/tampa-bay-seawater-desalination...
uptown|11 years ago
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0320-drought-e...
rhino369|11 years ago
A ton of water is used to grow Alfafia. There is no way it's profitable if you had to desalinate it first.
brianbreslin|11 years ago
veb|11 years ago
There is a theory that if we continue making the Gulf warmer by putting so much salt in, it could be a catalyst for plunging the world into an ice age. Who knows if that's true.
Already here in New Zealand we are exporting some of our fresh water to very rich people over in Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries. Can't link the source, it was a court news article about some guy who assaulted someone. He was exporting prime NZ lambs, and water tankers...
A previous comment I made, with quote from National Geographic about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2094701
[1] http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/environment/waste-dump-threaten...
Lethe101|11 years ago
If something is 10-20 years in the future in these types of models, this has:
a) Already happened unless b) there are major changes / interactions that scientific models have not had factored in while c) Anthropic actions cannot change this, but it can change x+n where X is original time and n is the 'down ramp' from your curve.
For instance: if your Co2 is 400ppm now, then the effects have already happened 20-50 years into the future. It can be made much much worse through events before you hit that time (let us say either Yellowstone or the entire of India / China buying a car per family) but your actions in the interim are merely altering the effects after time X.
In the case of water we can say: model presents X+n time > if action: such as massive investment in desalination and/or new osmosis materials (positive to time change) minus climate impacts we've not noticed yet (negatives to time change) where n is less than continued effect without any other imputs.
This is a rather loopy way to say:
People think of these types of announcements as future based predictions: they're not, they're present events if (and only if) your models don't change.
[Note: this isn't to say they're scientifically incorrect - but this inability to understand time in these types of reports fuels a lot of ignorance from both "sides" of Climate / Ecological debates]
pdkl95|11 years ago
I wonder if the software running those models has finally been corrected[1] to use floating point properly. Giving different results from the same data+software when run on different hardware suggests rounding wasn't being handled properly[2].
As these models are already so sensitive to initial conditions that "ensemble prediction" are necessary to avoid chaotic results, mishandling floating point rounding could completely destroy the results.
[1] http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.ht...
[2] http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/07/28/137209/same-progr...
rootedbox|11 years ago
Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.
systemtheory|11 years ago
mercnet|11 years ago
joeclark77|11 years ago
nobleach|11 years ago
webXL|11 years ago
youngtaff|11 years ago
Particularly thinking of some of the flooding in UK and Europe over the last decade.
If the ice caps melt due to rising temperature surely this means more water in the atmosphere and more rain in some places?
TheOtherHobbes|11 years ago
There's been some noise about fixing this, but after privatisation there's no commercial interest in taking on national-scale projects without government subsidy.
Somewhere like CA is largely desert anyway, and there's no obvious wet climate area to collect water from.
So practically, only draconian conservation laws and perhaps a huge string of desal plants can save CA. I guess neither of those are likely. And then you get a repeat of what's happening in Sao Paulo and Rio in Brazil, where there's no water for days on end.
The terrifying thing about climate change is that it's literally making some areas uninhabitable. Large parts of FL have less than fifty years, CA and NM are drying out, the East Coast will become more prone to flooding and perhaps also to extreme winters.
Europe is going to have similar problems as flooding becomes common. There are already places in the UK where buildings insurance is no longer affordable.
At some point the economics stop making sense. Not long after that people either leave or become homeless.
It would have been smart to avoid these outcomes, but that doesn't seem to have happened.
_abattoir|11 years ago
Over about 20,000 years of the water cycle, yeah.
Ideally we'd want a water solution that didn't involve carting incalculable amounts of rainwater across the countryside...
webXL|11 years ago
mark_l_watson|11 years ago
niche|11 years ago
jug5|11 years ago
[deleted]
guyzero|11 years ago
tomjen3|11 years ago
unknown|11 years ago
[deleted]
civilian|11 years ago
evo_9|11 years ago
And these things always come true exactly as predicted because, you know, progress doesn't continue along, Moore's Law doesn't continue along.
delecti|11 years ago