Discussion on:

Why we're running out of water

There are no such independent events as pollution, water
shortage, over fishing, mass extinction. They are the
consequences of over breeding.

All we do when we reduce consumption is make it lower the cost
of people elsewhere (and who often despise us) to breed
beyond the planet's productive capacity. It looks by the numbers
that 1B is a very nice and tidy number of human beings for a
planet this size. It looks like 8 or 12 Billion means that cities are
destined to become vast urban slums - large ghettos of
corruption poverty, disease, and lawlessness. And there is no
evidence to the contrary.

Jarred Diamond is wrong. The reason civilizations die, is
because they breed beyond the environment's capacity, not
because people destroy the environment.

Mathus wasn't entirely incorrect. We can overpopulate and
starve the world quite easily even if technology has given us a
temporary respite from the vicissitudes of nature.

The problem is over breeding. If there is a place for government,
that place is mandating one-woman-one-child policy.

Much of the problem is people living in areas where they've got no business being. And that's not just with water. Large cities or farms in deserts, relying on aquifers. Cities built below sea level, in known hurricane areas. Housing developments built on flood plains, on barrier islands, on steep hills, etc. Governments need to stop subsidizing bad risks.

The point is clear that water is a major issue. However, this interview was terrible! Does the interviewee really speak that way? Her responses were very poorly composed, as though she was highly distracted. If she communicates that way all the time, she may not get the reception she's looking for. I hope the book does a more clear job of conveying the message.

A huge problem with all population reduction schemes is that everyone wants OTHER people to reduce THEIR population. You can't keep cheaters from benefiting at everyone else's expense unless you've got a despotic government willing to engage in forced abortions and forced sterilization. You have to see famines, epidemics, wars, and disasters as wonderful opportunities to cull the herd. And, let's face it, the human race would be better off in the long term if some people weren't allowed to breed at all. Genetically, we're not all created equal.

These are issues that ZPG proponents need to address, and not just at the surface level.

The horny human animal is on a self-destruct course that today is irreversible. We will not get to 8 billion as we are already underfeeding around 1.1 billion of these very dumb animals. In the book "True Freedom - The Road to the First Real Democracy" the new approach necessary to deal with the horny human animal is laid out and unfortunately even if this is followed it is going to be very difficult for the human animal to seemingly move into a better world for some time. We on all on a course of overconsumption of that which is needed for us to survive, at least when dealing with the better life styles most of us are now experiencing and there is little doubt that Mother Nature is going to come calling soon. She has put the writing on the wall of the Planet Earth itself but we being such a poorly educated animal seem to think that Her competitors, you know all of those other gods which are supposedly out there somewhere, will be the real winners and they will come back to save us. However, based upon human history none of these gods have ever appeared to deal with the very basic animal instincts which have driven us to overproduce that which will most likely kill us off sooner. And you thought that another comet would be the next thing to once again reorganize that which is known as life on this planet.

California has several different industries that need lots of water. The farms call for more available water and when they get it the rivers don't have enough water for salmon to breed. I heard that a lot of the big farms get a quota of water for their crops. The problem with the quota system is that if the farmer does not use all the water in his quota then his next year's quota is reduced. The suggestion was to make the quota system more flexible so that the farmers could cut back on water use without being forced to have a smaller quota the next year. The unused farm water would be redirected to the breeding streams for salmon.

This is a simplified version of the water usage but it shows the politics as well as the lack of incentives.

What a load of errors. Just where are San Francisco, Boston and New York getting this water that hasn't been used before anyway? Soda straws to nearby comets?
While beef production does indeed "use" water, that water doesn't go away. Tree's "use" water too and so do the oceans, if you look at it that way. Anyone want to reduce the number of trees or oceans? But the water is still there for reuse. Yes, it may need some energy and effort to reuse that water but it doesn't go away, it is still useful. And iIt may fall on your roof tomorrow for free. If the government allows you to use it, (sorry Colorado you can't).
We are running short of CHEAP, clean water, yes. But that is much different from the alarmist tone and misleading message given here. Reading the other posts, is anyone in favor of humans anymore? Lots of humans mean lots of smart humans, who make stuff that make life a lot more comfortable, and healthy. Who wants to reduce inovation that comes from future smart humans? All these folks who complain about overpopulation are still eating food and using energy, they just don't want others to have those same blessings.

I've been and worked on water projects in developing countries, so I know there are costs to getting clean water. But it is worth it.

Overcrowding is not the problem. In fact population models illustrate a huge disparity between the elderly on Social Security and young workers who feed the system. And lack of resource is not the problem. It is more like the lack of access and availability of the resource. Specifically, our problem lies in EPA regulations. For over a decade our City has been attempting to get approval from the State Division of Water and the Army Corps of Engineers to expand the local water reservoir. At every hoop and turn they have shut down our project and we do not know where to turn. This time it is because of 'bug larvae' at the downstream.

Leal mentioned agriculture as a major user of water. While it's true, agriculture is among the most efficient users of water. Because water is so scarce, and yet such a big part of agricultural production, farmers in the US learned decades ago how to minimize its use.

The one way agriculture can greatly reduce its water use is by not producing meat. And because the world population growth will increase by about 50% by 2050, that's the only way we will be able to feed them all. Instead of feeding four pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, we will need to use that four pounds of grain to feed four people, and that will decrease overall water use by agriculture significantly. But even in the US get used to having meat only two or three times a week.

Also, there's no way the world can survive unless we come up with much cheaper energy. Wind and solar won't cut it without some new major technological improvement. Probably it will take developing fusion. So if we survive, we will have cheap enough energy to make desalination economically feasible.

I'm all for recycling water.

What I don't understand is why she allowed the water supply in
San Francisco to be fluoridated??? Why add chemicals that are
NOT NECESSARY!!

Hydroelectric projects adds water storage which would allow
better management for ourselves AND nature. What happens to
fish when a long drought takes away their habitat by drastically
raising temps of the smaller flow?? Lotsa dead fish.

I hope the book is better written than this article. The grammar and content were so atrocious and convoluted I had trouble following what she had to say.
It seems to me all she is doing is crying the sky is falling. How about some research and discussion on effective and long term solutions. Don't bore me old had descriptions of chicken farms recycling waste. The big corporate farms figured this out years ago. Tha't why there is cheap food! Vertical integration in the industry has change livestock farming forever.

It occurs to me that if everyone believes Al Gore's contention that the ocean is rising, than we need to channel the water inland, and de-salinate it.

John Childress,
Linden, In.

Overcrowding is not the problem. In fact population models illustrate a huge disparity between the elderly on Social Security and young workers who feed the system. And lack of resource is not the problem. It is more like the lack of access and availability of the resource. The problem lies in EPA regulations. For over a decade our City has been attempting to get approval from the State Division of Water and the Army Corps of Engineers to expand the local water reservoir. At every hoop and turn they have shut down our project and we do not know where to turn. This time it is because of 'bug larvae' at the downstream.

Overcrowding IS the problem. There were no problems with
water availability 200 years ago. Anyone who claims overcrowding is
not the problem probably have 4-5 children of their own. Shame on
You for making the world uninhabitable for others. The "one child"
policy of China is something all countries should follow. "Free
condoms for everyone" could be another. We can cut down the
earths population by 50% in fifty years if we want to. Or we can
complain about "EPA regulations" and die of thirst.

It rains plenty in the ocean, what a waste of fresh water. Put a large, many square miles, tarp over the ocean with flotation around the edges. Catch rain water and pump it into tankers for on shore use. It would be easy to catch billions of gallons of fresh water on the oceans from storm water.

Ok, I do have a disagreement with her stating that "It?s the same amount of water [on Earth] since the beginning of time." While every drop of water on earth has been through an animal or plant via the biosphere recycling it (yes, both salt and fresh water as where do you think the fresh water ends up at eventually?? The Oceans of course). There is a continuous amount of water being brought into the atmosphere by comet dust/out gassing that the earth travels through and other items from space such as meteorites coming into the atmosphere. While it is minuscule, it does count toward the overall water being added to our planet.

First off, water has always been a critical issue for all living things. Without it, stuff dies, plain and simple. We DON'T need another cabinet member or organization to deal with water. We already have programs/rules/laws in place and if they are not working, fix that rather than adding another broken cog to the wheel.

Through natural availability and technology, those of us in 1st and 2nd world nations typically have access to useable water sources and outside of disasters, spikes in the prices of certain agricultural products due to drought, or not being able to keep our yards green because of local laws, we rarely face noticeable shortages in our day to day lives. So yes, based on that, there is a lack of public awareness when it comes to the long term availability of that water. Make sure to add water awareness in the school curriculum. Educate our youth to how much water they use, what a water table is, and the estimated levels of those water tables. Expose them to sustainability projects like those of Pepsi Co. Basically get them involved and you'll start to see change.

Absolutely agree that lack of investment in infrastructure is one of the biggest issues we have. Elected leaders would rather have their name on a park than a new sewage facility. Infrastructure has largely been ignored for the past half a century in the U.S. and that is now biting us in the butt. People need to demand that their local government concentrate on those less glamorous but more important endeavors, that they were established to take care of in the first place. I live in Hawaii and we're a prime example of these issues. We are surrounded by sun, water, and wind, but we are dealing with water and energy shortages, not to mention excessive costs for those resources, but instead of stronger solar incentives, desalinization plants, or large wind and water turbine farms, we are going to build a multibillion dollar commuter train.

As for the ZPG proponents, if you don't like kids, don't have any. If you want to hand out condoms, please put your money where your mouth is and do so. Reproduction is natural and needed and I feel saddened that your lives have been so tainted that you wish to take the most fundamental aspect of humanity away from others. Anyhow, industrialized nations aren't able to maintain their populations as is, so we don't need a Chinese one child policy. The problem lies more in the welfare state of the entire world. We tend to want to help our fellow humans by giving them the basic resources that allow for life, such as food and water, which then promotes population growth in areas that already cannot sustain that level of life. In industrialized nations, welfare is creating new and larger generations of welfare recipients that are displacing the more affluent portions of the population. There needs to be a refocusing of our efforts through education and enabling people to be self reliant. A recent example is rather than sending mosquito nets to Malaria infested countries, charities are helping those impacted establish that industry within their own nations. That in turn creates jobs, better education, less reliance on large families, etc. That will lead to smarter usage of resources such as water.

Bit off topic here, but maximum supportable population keeps coming up in this forum. As for what population the world could sustain, based off of currently available technology (assuming it was evenly distributed around the world and fully incorporated), I would be willing to surmise that the Earth could support three to four times more people than we have now with a quality of life that second world countries currently have. Not saying it would be pretty, or that I would want a world covered in human hives, but it is in the realm of possibilities.

Sorry that was all over the place, but I was trying to cover the broad responses that I was reading above. Anyhow, these are just my opinions and my intention isn't to anger anyone else on here but to further discussion of what I think we believe are important issues.

We never will run out of water. the planet will run out humans.

OMG! Everything is a global crisis!

I'm so glad I don't have to live under the constant stress caused by yet another arrogant delusion.

Doolittle, you're the chief idiot. Start living in reality and check the facts.

The population explosion is a big problem, but this idea of water being 'used' is an outright lie. It seems to me that those people behind this idea want to get everyone, not just bought into, but actively seeking for a price to be put on water, the same way we are now going to face taxes on carbon. There is no good reason to tax carbon, we all already pay a high price for our energy use, but that's life - isn't it? The only water that can be classed as 'used', is the water we have shot into space. Apart from that the water is still here. Perhaps the next book will be titled 'Running Out of Air'? If it is I want royalties.

What's next... "The Sky is Falling" ? Yet another alarmist, half baked article preaching gloom and doom. Why am I reminded of Al Gore? Someone sees a potential way to scare the public through scientifically inconclusive data, then makes billions simply by spreading the word (fear?).

If the article had at least been titled "Why Susan Leal and Peter Rogers think we're running out of water", it may have been more respectable. As long as individuals stand to gain large profits from their message, I have to consider the fact that they are trying to sell me snake oil.

Lots of talk about "we" can do this and "we" can do that. No, "we" can't, because "we" people in the developed countries who have money give it to the poor starving masses in the less developed countries, which is a "nice" thing to do, but there's a catch-22. Among the world's billion-plus-in-population-and-growing-astronomically-Islamic-culture/religion/law-countries, "our" foreign aid goes to governments who pay their families to have AS MANY CHILDREN AS POSSIBLE. Demographics overrules democracies. So cheap immigrant labor is sent to democratic countries who use the BC pill because those countries on the pill can't function with just their own population. Our social security payments will be paid by future foreign immigrants who may turn around and abolish soc sec for non-Moslems, democratically of course. Sharia law for all is the agenda of Islam and all Moslems have no right to question it once it is in power, and at this (birth)rate it will be.

no, the article never said water gets used up.
The article did say that clean water that is where it is needed is limited. The gallons that are "used" in making a pound of beef, are turned into wastewater and water vapor. Much of the water vapor falls into the ocean, the waste tends to pollute other fresh water.

Desalination will be the ultimate solution to having unlimited fresh water, but currently it is hugely expensive. It takes so much energy to remove the salt from seawater it's hard to believe. The most efficient ways, involve prefiltering, then forcing the water through expensive reverse osmosis filters at hundreds of psi. It takes a lot of electricity to get that pressure, and a byproduct is the high salt brine that then has to be diluted with more salt water, and pumped out into the ocean to a distance that it will not have a noticeable effect on wildlife. If fusion power is ever developed on a scale that has been promised for many years, the issue will be over, along with the energy problems etc. The problem is it seems to always be X years in the future, where X never gets smaller.

It seems to me that a real disaster will occur when the aquifers run dry and energy is too dear for desalination. How can aquifer water ever be replaced?

Stop subsidizing it. Most of our resource allocation problems are
the result of subsidies.

When I first started researching this issue 25 years ago, farmers in
California were growing rice in the desert! Probably 98% of it was
lost to evaporation. Why? Because water was so cheap to them
that it didn't matter how wastefully it was deployed.

I agree wth over-population being the real issue... real problem is that the only ones willing to do self-controlled population growth are usually the intelligent ones. We continue to support the growth of populations of people that are unwilling to help themselves