1. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    10 Feb '09 15:26
    Originally posted by Ramned
    Ever heard of the water-diamond paradox? Diamonds are incredibly expensive and serve little purpose; water is taken for granted and keeps us alive.

    A man requires 13 gallons of water each day to live. In many areas across, the world, people are struggling to obtain this (1 in 6 people). In the United Kingdom, people take in 70 gallons a day. In the United ...[text shortened]... mes! Your laundry! Reduce spraying your lawn!!! Stop wasting water! Stop taking it for granted!!
    There are some places where there are no water. An some places where it flows more than you can take care of.

    I live near a river with plenty of freschwater. (Göta älv in the west coast of Sweden.) The water we don't use from the river flows down to the sea and gets salty. I certainly don't have to reduce my consumption of water.

    But I certainly sympathize with those who don't have enough water to use. And I can imagine that freshwater will be a cause for wars in the future.
  2. Standard memberRamned
    The Rams
    Joined
    04 Sep '06
    Moves
    13491
    10 Feb '09 22:08
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But I do not live in the Midwest.
    If you truly want to make a difference in the environment and truly want to get the message out then you need to get your facts right and don't make blanket negative statements.
    There are a lot of people who deny global warming or refuse to talk about conservation or green simply because they have been convinced by peop ...[text shortened]... s in place to deal with it.
    In Livingstone as I said, the raw material is not in short supply.
    My argument is totally objective. In fact, in my opinion, we really should stop worrying about the Earth and start caring for our own species. It is un-natural to protect other species. You don't see tigers protecting eagles? We will face a population crash like every other successful species and the Earth will move on as it has faced worse.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Feb '09 05:23
    Originally posted by Ramned
    My argument is totally objective. In fact, in my opinion, we really should stop worrying about the Earth and start caring for our own species. It is un-natural to protect other species. You don't see tigers protecting eagles? We will face a population crash like every other successful species and the Earth will move on as it has faced worse.
    Tigers are not very intelligent.
    We should protect other species because it is beneficial to us to do so.
    We may face a population crash but it will have more to do with farming methods than water. Current farming methods are not sustainable so unless that changes there will be food shortages.
  4. Standard memberRamned
    The Rams
    Joined
    04 Sep '06
    Moves
    13491
    11 Feb '09 21:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Tigers are not very intelligent.
    We should protect other species because it is beneficial to us to do so.
    We may face a population crash but it will have more to do with farming methods than water. Current farming methods are not sustainable so unless that changes there will be food shortages.
    Farming practices effect water MORE than food. The irrigation techniques are not very efficient. The gov'ts need to raise water prices and subsidize conserving water rather than using it for energy. Of course, no matter what they do we will face a population crash when a drought hit the Americas.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Feb '09 08:321 edit
    Originally posted by Ramned
    Farming practices effect water MORE than food. The irrigation techniques are not very efficient. The gov'ts need to raise water prices and subsidize conserving water rather than using it for energy. Of course, no matter what they do we will face a population crash when a drought hit the Americas.
    I am well aware that farming uses more water than anything else, but I don't know what you mean when you say "Farming practices effect water MORE than food". Do you honestly believe that farmers will cause the water to run out and thus cause everyone to die of thirst?

    I also don't know what you mean about "using it for energy". Do you mean they shouldn't use water for energy, or do you mean they shouldn't spend subsidies on energy?

    I rather doubt that a drought in the Americas would result in a population crash in the US. If there is a food shortage it is always the poor who suffer - and the US is not poor.

    It is important to realize that because of all the wastage going on, when there is a drought or something similar it is fairly easy to curb the wastage and thus deal with the problem before it gets too serious. I know of a number of places that have run short of water and although it is annoying not to be able to water your garden I don't think it lead to any deaths.

    Recent high food prices I believe were related to drought in various parts of the world but for the areas that grow their crops using the rain, conserving water makes absolutely no difference.

    If the US runs short of water they can always outsource the farming. We have plenty of land and water in Zambia.

    South Korea recently thought ahead and bought up large parts of Madagascar so that they can use it to feed their nation should their own food supplies run dry.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree