For eons, the earth has had the same amount of water—no more, no less. What the ancient Romans used for crops and Nefertiti drank? It’s the same stuff we bathe with. Yet with more than seven billion people on the planet, experts now worry we’re running out of usable water. The symptoms are here: multiyear droughts, large-scale crop failures, a major city—Cape Town—on the verge of going dry, increasing outbreaks of violence, fears of full-scale water wars. The big question: How do we keep the H20 flowing?
Many large regions are destined for a collapse and loss of livability/farmability worldwide. They don't just dry up overnight, though, so there'll be plenty of pressure to move people/towns/cities...
Many large regions are destined for a collapse and loss of livability/farmability worldwide. They don't just dry up overnight, though, so there'll be plenty of pressure to move people/towns/cities away that steadily grows over the years until there's no one left living there.
This won't have any impact on our food production, water production, or energy production in the long run, though. By the time this is causing massive displacement we'll be using indoor farming (at least a modest 10x yield over outdoor), widespread nuclear energy (which means desalination is so cheap as to be free), and it's likely populations will shift closer together as they are displaced. That'll make getting the food and water to everyone much easier.
Humanity's far future is a number of fully self-sustaining mega-cities scattered across a planet that's turning into a global desert. Any remaining life will have migrated towards the poles where it'll still be a livable temperature.
Not to brush off a serious situation, but I believe we'll be fine as a species. With lower drinkable water supply, the price of water will increase. When there's more money involved, more...
Not to brush off a serious situation, but I believe we'll be fine as a species. With lower drinkable water supply, the price of water will increase. When there's more money involved, more ambitious entrepreneurs will come into the industry, pulling in more innovative geniuses with them. With this, we'll be able to find new ways to produce drinkable water.
Even if we don't find new ways to produce drinkable water, I'm sure there are current systems that aren't efficient enough to use currently because it's not worth it unless the price of water significantly - like converting sea water to fresh water. Think about how the cost of shale oil is more expensive to extract than conventional oil. Once the price of oil reached a certain level, money started swarming into the extraction of shale oil in the US/Canada, among other places.
Shit, I once watched a documentary about how we could literally build a bridge between Russia and Alaska. We have the knowledge and resources to do so. There's just no incentive for it - there's no money in it. When money's involved, we can do great things.
The concern is more that if water becomes scarcer or if the price of water goes up, more people won't be able to get it. Of course we can engineer some drinkable water; it is definitely not...
The concern is more that if water becomes scarcer or if the price of water goes up, more people won't be able to get it. Of course we can engineer some drinkable water; it is definitely not obvious that we would be able to distribute it fairly to everyone who needs it. Where would the money be in that?
You're right. Maybe the masses will riot against unfair water distribution and we'll get it government sponsored, idk lol. It will definitely be a struggle, but hopefully we figure something out.
You're right. Maybe the masses will riot against unfair water distribution and we'll get it government sponsored, idk lol. It will definitely be a struggle, but hopefully we figure something out.
There is not a unified global water market. With less drinkable water, prices in rich countries might stay the same, while poor countries simply run out of water. Have you noticed your water...
There is not a unified global water market. With less drinkable water, prices in rich countries might stay the same, while poor countries simply run out of water. Have you noticed your water prices increasing because of droughts in South Africa or California?
Right. In other words, before we get to the point where there's money in producing water, the highest return on investment would be in capturing the existing water.
Right. In other words, before we get to the point where there's money in producing water, the highest return on investment would be in capturing the existing water.
Sure, water crises are unlikely to make humanity go extinct. But there's a huge range of negative consequences that are worrisome without rising to the level of threatening our species. If 100...
we'll be fine as a species
Sure, water crises are unlikely to make humanity go extinct. But there's a huge range of negative consequences that are worrisome without rising to the level of threatening our species. If 100 million people died as a result of dehydration or starvation caused by droughts, we would indeed be still fine as a species. But 100 million people would be dead.
The comparison between the price of oil and the price of water isn't great...there are large populations of the developing world that cannot afford oil. 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day. Luckily, you don't need oil to survive. Water is a different story.
Of course, the price of shale oil extraction is considerably less than the true cost of shale oil extraction. The benefits are dubious as those resources would probably be better spent on finding...
Of course, the price of shale oil extraction is considerably less than the true cost of shale oil extraction. The benefits are dubious as those resources would probably be better spent on finding ways to avoid using oil.
The market is somewhat useful in pricing current conditions, but lousy about predicting the future or equitably or efficiently allocating future resources against future needs.
I feel like in order for a market economy to really work sustainably, you'd need to empower some sort of board of market externalities, that takes into account things like environmental damage and...
I feel like in order for a market economy to really work sustainably, you'd need to empower some sort of board of market externalities, that takes into account things like environmental damage and resource scarcity and adjusts prices accordingly. Otherwise you just get too many problems with people treating what's essentially a closed system like it's open.
Many large regions are destined for a collapse and loss of livability/farmability worldwide. They don't just dry up overnight, though, so there'll be plenty of pressure to move people/towns/cities away that steadily grows over the years until there's no one left living there.
This won't have any impact on our food production, water production, or energy production in the long run, though. By the time this is causing massive displacement we'll be using indoor farming (at least a modest 10x yield over outdoor), widespread nuclear energy (which means desalination is so cheap as to be free), and it's likely populations will shift closer together as they are displaced. That'll make getting the food and water to everyone much easier.
Humanity's far future is a number of fully self-sustaining mega-cities scattered across a planet that's turning into a global desert. Any remaining life will have migrated towards the poles where it'll still be a livable temperature.
Not to brush off a serious situation, but I believe we'll be fine as a species. With lower drinkable water supply, the price of water will increase. When there's more money involved, more ambitious entrepreneurs will come into the industry, pulling in more innovative geniuses with them. With this, we'll be able to find new ways to produce drinkable water.
Even if we don't find new ways to produce drinkable water, I'm sure there are current systems that aren't efficient enough to use currently because it's not worth it unless the price of water significantly - like converting sea water to fresh water. Think about how the cost of shale oil is more expensive to extract than conventional oil. Once the price of oil reached a certain level, money started swarming into the extraction of shale oil in the US/Canada, among other places.
Shit, I once watched a documentary about how we could literally build a bridge between Russia and Alaska. We have the knowledge and resources to do so. There's just no incentive for it - there's no money in it. When money's involved, we can do great things.
The concern is more that if water becomes scarcer or if the price of water goes up, more people won't be able to get it. Of course we can engineer some drinkable water; it is definitely not obvious that we would be able to distribute it fairly to everyone who needs it. Where would the money be in that?
You're right. Maybe the masses will riot against unfair water distribution and we'll get it government sponsored, idk lol. It will definitely be a struggle, but hopefully we figure something out.
Ideally we could use democratic action to obtain fair water distribution policies, rather than having to riot. It shouldn't be a struggle.
Ideally. I didn't really mean it would come to a riot, I was just listing it as a possibility, an extreme possibility but still possible.
There is not a unified global water market. With less drinkable water, prices in rich countries might stay the same, while poor countries simply run out of water. Have you noticed your water prices increasing because of droughts in South Africa or California?
Right. In other words, before we get to the point where there's money in producing water, the highest return on investment would be in capturing the existing water.
Sure, water crises are unlikely to make humanity go extinct. But there's a huge range of negative consequences that are worrisome without rising to the level of threatening our species. If 100 million people died as a result of dehydration or starvation caused by droughts, we would indeed be still fine as a species. But 100 million people would be dead.
The comparison between the price of oil and the price of water isn't great...there are large populations of the developing world that cannot afford oil. 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day. Luckily, you don't need oil to survive. Water is a different story.
Of course, the price of shale oil extraction is considerably less than the true cost of shale oil extraction. The benefits are dubious as those resources would probably be better spent on finding ways to avoid using oil.
The market is somewhat useful in pricing current conditions, but lousy about predicting the future or equitably or efficiently allocating future resources against future needs.
I feel like in order for a market economy to really work sustainably, you'd need to empower some sort of board of market externalities, that takes into account things like environmental damage and resource scarcity and adjusts prices accordingly. Otherwise you just get too many problems with people treating what's essentially a closed system like it's open.