Why are we doomed, oil? Food and water?

[Denny Crane!]

Not many on these boards, only one I know of, will remember back in the 1960's a raging debate about how we would feed the worlds rapidly expanding population. They predicted quite accuratly the trends in population and the massive growth we would experience, the panic died away as the problems took care of themselves. Hybrid and high yield crops were brought into use and many countries intensified there agriculture and started producing vast quantities of food.

How I hear you cry was this wondrous achievement possible, how do they grow such crops where before there was only subsistence farming and tribal existence. Well in the last half century the phenomenon of aquifiers, boreholes creating water brought up to the surface by powerful diesel pumps. So when I rant on about oil powered agriculture I do not merely refer to the fertilisers, pesticides and combine harvesters FYI. The sighs of relief are audible from you, for with such devices we can create vast amounts of food. Like India, china and the USA who account for over half the worlds grain harvest. They do this by pumping vast amounts of water from the ground, more than is actually replaced by precipatation and the worrying thing is; demand is growing exponentially for more water.

Population growth is the main problem. Secondary to this issue is the commercialisation of large populations across the world, increasing demand for products means industry which needs water. The world has a huge water defecit, using data on overpumping for China, India, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and the United States, Sandra Postel, author of Pillar of Sand, calculates the annual overpumping of aquifers at 160 billion cubic meters or 160 billion tons. Using the rule of thumb that it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce 1 ton of grain, this 160-billion-ton water deficit is equal to 160 million tons of grain—or half the U.S. grain harvest. That is enough grain to feed 480 million people which is nearly one 12th of the worlds population per year that is unsustainable.

Now at this point I imagine thoughts will be running through some heads along the lines of, "this is madness the earths surface is 2/3rds water and this lunatic thinks we are running out. Send for the strait jacket!" Time for some facts and figures thanks to the beeb:

2.5% of the worlds water is freshwater

66% of that is located in the icecaps

20% of that 33% is in remote areas

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of the rest will be lost in monsoons, floods and other wasted precipatation.

Good news is on the horizon, global warming means a wetter climate. The dark edge to this cloud of thunderous hope is that this rain will become more destructive and useful in nature with climate change, arriving in heavy downpours. In our future climate we will either have to much or to little at various times, neither is condusive towards good agriculture or good life.

Current solutions of efficient irrigation systems using prospective groundwaters have massive environmental consequences needless to say none of them are good. The current emphasis to try and make up the grain defecit of 83 million tons is to get more per drop per acre. A laudable plan if not taken in context with a looming oil crisis and rising temperatures. Consider the size of the worlds population before intensive agriculture and consider what it will be again should the intensive agriculture be removed.

So in conclusion are we up the creek with plenty of paddles but we can feel the river bed scraping our hull like God has just pulled the plug on our earth sized bathtub and we can see the water slipping away.

“We stand now where two roads diverge. But unlike the roads in Robert Frost's familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road / the one less traveled by / offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”

Peter
TWC's resident pessimist, doom and gloom merchant, proclaimer of apocalypse'

[Ahlerich]

if water is running out ill just drink stronger coffee

[Farnan]

As I said we're all doomed because the Manbearpig will get us unless we listen to Al Gore...

[Denny Crane!]

This is not really a case of we are all doomed scenario as it very likely will not kill us. It is a serious issue though, and one that we should be considering especially the fact that the world cannot cope with an ever expanding population, or even a static population.

“History is a race between education and catastrophe"

No spam please this was intended as a serious topic despite the colloqial language of the post.

Peter

[Farnan]

Well mine is serious. The Manbearpig represents all the over-hyped "catastrophes" which will end civilization as we know it.

[Justinian]

The nice thing about mankind is that we always overcome. Need to move faster? Someone thinks up the wheel. Someone thinks up the internal combustion engine. Need to move even faster? Someone invents the airplane.

I'm not worried.

[Denny Crane!]

Well mine is serious. The Manbearpig represents all the over-hyped "catastrophes" which will end civilization as we know it.

Then please tell me why do you think this or others are overhyped.

There is no intimation that it will end civilisation but there is implications of very bad times for hundreds of millions people. Do you disagree with this?

EDIT: The catastrophes you speak of are possibly labelled such in tabloids, in the serious media they tend to give very accurate predictions of what will happen with evidence of the whys and wherefores. The inspiration for this article comes from new scientist which did much the same thing and it was written by very authoritave people.

Peter

[Sétanta]

I see the world taking care of itself again, in the form of massive starvation among the people to poor to keep their crops growing...an Ethiopia on a a massive scale. Who knows how many people would die, surely enough to make a sizable dent in the population. Of course the more developed countries would try to help at first but later they would need to keep the food/water to themselves. The US and Canada would keep their crops in the US and Canada, Chinese Crops for the Chinese, Indian crops for Indians. Nations that couldn't afford food or couldn't grow enough would suffer. Hundreds of millions of deaths in Africa and Asia. Europe would do fine, because they can afford food, and South America can grow their own for the most part. But hundreds of millions would die, all around the world, not just in Africa.

[Ifinius Flaminius]

Troll removed_Garb.

[Justinian]

El Guapo, heres my advice to you

He's a year younger than you...

[Ifinius Flaminius]

even more scary

[Justinian]

even more scary

You don't find it at all strange to patronise him and consider him "too young to worry" when you are in fact older than him by a few months?

[Denny Crane!]

even more scary

Ah so because I write a post concerning water tables I am obviously single and spend my nights worrying about it. God forbid I should post current events and problems on a current events forum of course.

I am so pleased you evaluated me.

Peter

[Ifinius Flaminius]

Troll removed-Garb.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Well, humans have a tendancy to start solving problems once they start to feel it in their wallet. There needs to be a short-term economical justification before politicians can try to do whatever is needed to solve the issue. Right now the US and China are the worlds biggest polluters and even if they would sign the Kyoto agreement and do stuff like that it may already be too late anyway. Well, perhaps it's time to buy a little house on Iceland... It's a long-term investment, prices may skyrocket there in 40 years.

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

Back to topic, do you people think the problems adressed in the first post will be solved if the political wil exists?

[Denny Crane!]

Back to topic, do you people think the problems adressed in the first post will be solved if the political wil exists?

No I do not. This is not a case like oil where we merely trade of one source of energy for another. There is no solution out there for replacing aquifiers, they are a bank account we withdraw faster than we invest and we are rapidly heading for overdraft.

In the western world we require no education, we are already experiencing static or negative population growth. This is where it gets morally ambiguos. The fastest growing populations in the world need education and masses of birth control, we need to stabilise population growth and reduce it if at all possible. We live in a world with finite resources that must be accepted.

Unfortunatly what I say sounds a little to much like an old chinese political policy.

Peter

[Garbarsardar]

Please stay on topic-This is not a chat room. If you cannot engage in meaninful conversation, don't even bother...

[Mad Guitar Murphy]

No I do not. This is not a case like oil where we merely trade of one source of energy for another. There is no solution out there for replacing aquifiers, they are a bank account we withdraw faster than we invest and we are rapidly heading for overdraft.

In the western world we require no education, we are already experiencing static or negative population growth. This is where it gets morally ambiguos. The fastest growing populations in the world need education and masses of birth control, we need to stabilise population growth and reduce it if at all possible. We live in a world with finite resources that must be accepted.

Unfortunatly what I say sounds a little to much like an old chinese political policy.

Peter

Imposing birth control on second and third world countries is politically and perhaps morally dangerous, so is voicing this intent probably dangerous for a politition. Does this mean the scenario Mudd outlined is inevitable?

ps: I'm of to bed

[Denny Crane!]

Imposing birth control on second and third world countries is politically and perhaps morally dangerous, so is voicing this intent probably dangerous for a politition. Does this mean the scenario Mudd outlined is inevitable?

ps: I'm of to bed

I was thinking education more than enforcement though how effective education would be even with free birth control available I don't think it would stem the tide.

Is it inevitable?

Water tables have dropped significantly with a population of 6.1 billion and estimated forecasts predict rises of up to 12 billion in the next four decades so yes it is inevitable. We cannot survive on groundwater alone, desalinisation plants are an option for coastal communities and there relative counties but there are inherent difficulties with transporting water over long distances in any kind of volume.

Edit: I.F I am not going to engage in a flame war give it up.

Peter