World (Over)Population

[iNow]

Pop some solar panels on top of them. Next challenge?

[SkepticLance]

Actually solar panels won't do it, since the power demands are way, way greater than that. The logical method of setting up desalination plants is to do it close to coastal cities, where the demand is, and set up a nuclear power station at the same time, to provide the electricity needed for both desalination and city needs.

 

We cannot solve global water shortages with desalination. The best is to use this technology for solving local problems of water shortage. However, there are a large number of other methods of increasing the water supply.

 

Another palliative technique I forgot to mention is increased irrigation efficiency. 80% of fresh water needs in most countries are for irrigation, and mostly they waste 90% of the water being used. Such techniques as trickle feed irrigation can cut this dramatically, and effectively double the world's fresh water supply.

 

Most predictions of increasing problems do not take into account improving technology, and increasing investment in fresh water provision, whatever the technique. As I said before, we are unlikely to solve the problem to the degree that water shortages go away, but there is every probability that we will keep pace, so that the per capita shortage will not increase.

[iNow]

Actually solar panels won't do it, since the power demands are way, way greater than that.

Greater than what? Solar can be scaled up to nearly any application or wattage requirement. I fail to see the problem you are suggesting.

 

Can you do it with the solar that goes on a wrist watch? No, of course not.

Can you do it with a large collection of high-efficiency panels directed to a central storage medium? Absolutely.

 

No problem. Next challenge?

 

 

We cannot solve global water shortages with desalination.

Again, why not? You've simply asserted your opinion here, and I happen to disagree with it. It's a matter of scale.

 

Your comment is equivalent to someone in the early 1900s saying that it would be impossible to make more than 10 cars a week.

 

Guess what? Then came the assembly line method of manufacturing.

 

No problem. Next challenge?

 

 

 

Another palliative technique I forgot to mention is increased irrigation efficiency. 80% of fresh water needs in most countries are for irrigation, and mostly they waste 90% of the water being used. Such techniques as trickle feed irrigation can cut this dramatically, and effectively double the world's fresh water supply.

That's a good idea, and I definitely agree that it would help. Many people use those drip systems here in Texas, and they're phenomonal.

 

 

Most predictions of increasing problems do not take into account improving technology, and increasing investment in fresh water provision, whatever the technique.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Nobody has cited any predictions here. We've identified a problem, and proposed some ideas on fixing it. Some challenges to those ideas are under discussion, but I'm still not sure what you're referring to with your "most do not" comment above, nor how that even comes close to the threshold of relevance.

 

 

As I said before, we are unlikely to solve the problem to the degree that water shortages go away, but there is every probability that we will keep pace, so that the per capita shortage will not increase.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see, eh?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Solar panels share a problem with wind power. That is, it requires substantial acreage to generate a lot of ergs. Fine if you are in a desert. However, the need for power for desalination is most likely for a coastal city, where land is at a premium and expensive. You can generate your power further away and pipe it in, and that just adds cost and wasteage. A nuclear station next to a desalination plant has the added advantage that it generates heat as well as electricity, and heat can be used for desalination.

 

When I said we cannot solve the world water problem with desalination, I meant any time in the near future. The sheer volume of fresh water needed combined with the current very high cost of desalination makes it impossible. Sure, some time in the more distant future, some genius may discover a way of desalinating vast amounts of water very cheaply, but that is not a part of today's reality, or any reality in the foreseeable future.

 

 

My comment about predicting future freshwater supply came in response to a quote posted by doG (why cannot he reverse his name and show his delusion more clearly?).

[iNow]

I understand you comments and tone, Lance, I just think you drastically underestimate the ability we have to scale up solar. Placing a few panels on one roof doesn't give enough, you're right. Placing panels on many roofs, on the parking garage, on the stores, on open land... this can all be done on a single street and result in megawatts.

 

It doesn't have to be a desert, it just has to be smart and coordinated.

 

I recognize and accept the challenges you suggest, I just disagree with your conclusion of impossibility. I think you are thinking too small, and giving up FAR too easily.

 

It's a challenge, yes, but it is not any where close to insurmountable.

[Rev Blair]

I understand you comments and tone, Lance, I just think you drastically underestimate the ability we have to scale up solar. Placing a few panels on one roof doesn't give enough, you're right. Placing panels on many roofs, on the parking garage, on the stores, on open land... this can all be done on a single street and result in megawatts.

 

If you look at suburban North America, we have a huge resource available. Look at all of those suburban rooftops. There is also a prety big resource in all of those rural yards that are suitable for small-scale wind power.

 

What we are lacking is a way to install the technology. Most homeowners can't afford the expense.

[doG]

If you look at suburban North America, we have a huge resource available. Look at all of those suburban rooftops. There is also a prety big resource in all of those rural yards that are suitable for small-scale wind power.

 

Me thinks those rooftops might see more sun than wind....

[Rev Blair]

Yeah, I could have worded that better. Hell, I should have worded it better. The suburban rooftops are good for solar, the rural yards for wind.

 

Suburbia is kind of different for that. In the cities, a lot of rooftops never see the sun. Similarly, rural yards on the Canadian prairies and the American Mid-West lack the obstructions that make wind power problematic in more densely populated areas.

 

There is a lot of opportunity there.

[CaptainPanic]

I think we're going towards a dog eat dog world, which is why all countries and even regions are increasingly thinking about energy independence and making alliances with resource-rich neighbors. Energy independence can be achieved in any climate, with the right technology. Water is scarce in some regions, so for water, we will need to cooperate (or regions need to desalinate the water, which is quite costly).

 

I think that the problem will eventually sort itself out, whatever the cost. The question is whether we sort it out soon, at a low cost, or sort it out later at a much higher cost.

 

Population control is one of the biggest no-no's in the world. Imho, this is because of religious reasons. Many religions say: "make babies", and "don't use any form of anti conception". And for a politician to go against the mainstream religion is political suicide.

[doG]

Population control is one of the biggest no-no's in the world. Imho, this is because of religious reasons. Many religions say: "make babies", and "don't use any form of anti conception". And for a politician to go against the mainstream religion is political suicide.

 

Eventually population control will become necessary for survival if the population overwhelmes the resources to support it.

 

Also, religion is not a good reason for anything. IMO religion is the source of many of the world's divisive problems.

[iNow]

I posted this in another thread last night, as I'd forgotten about this one. However, this hour video talk on Bloggingheads is definitely more appropriate here:

 

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12309

[pioneer]

The irony about water is 2/3 of the earth is covered with it. We should try to genetically alter food plants so they can use brackish water. There are many plants that can already do this so we need to transfer some genes. This allows us to stretch the water for irrigation and open new farm land.

 

Maybe we can try to genetically alter humans to drink brackish water. This may require a third kidney or something. Implants. Have they ever tried to implant a desalination device in an animal? Salt water drinking cows.

[Edtharan]

In a discussion with a few friends (over a few beers ) about this subject, we thought how governments might control population in a way that is not too hard on the population's rights.

 

My suggestion was to introduce a "Baby Credit". This "Credit" entitled a person to have a child and raise it to reproductive age (legally adult or they/partner become pregnant).

 

This credit could be transferred from person to person (hence why it is a credit instead of just a right) so that people who can't or don't want a child can sell their child credits on an open market (so if you want more children you can buy the right to have them).

 

As an example (numbers are just for example and not a suggested value):

 

If each person was entitled to 0.75 Baby Credit (BC), then a couple would have a total of 1.5BCs.

 

They could then have a child leaving them with just 0.5BCs.

 

If they wanted another, they could buy 0.5BCs in the market to raise their total up to 2. However, if they didn't want to have a second child, then they could sell their 0.5BC (or part there of) to couples that wanted more children.

 

Of course, if the child died before they reached reproductive age, they would be refunded their BCs and be entitled for an other (this way if in the unfortunate event that a child dies, the couple is not denied a child or have to go to great expense to regain their right for a child).

 

In the case of a divorce or other split, the remaining BCs of a couple would be shared equally (a default situation) or they could negotiate it as part of the settlement.

 

It is a bit clinical, but the scenario was for a world where population control was a necessity.

[scotchlady]

"The irony about water is 2/3 of the earth is covered with it. We should try to genetically alter food plants so they can use brackish water. There are many plants that can already do this so we need to transfer some genes. This allows us to stretch the water for irrigation and open new farm land.

 

Maybe we can try to genetically alter humans to drink brackish water. This may require a third kidney or something. Implants. Have they ever tried to implant a desalination device in an animal? Salt water drinking cows."

 

Pioneer,

 

Genetically altering food plants to use brackish water is probably not a good solution as the GM plants that are already out there have failed to live up to the promises...

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html

[SkepticLance]

Edtharan

 

That banging noise is my head against the brick wall! Why do people like you come up with extreme and unnecessary suggestions?

 

As I have said before, there have been a number of surveys in developing nations that show clearly that women will use birth control if it is available. You don't need extreme measures or measures that take away people's freedom of choice. All you need is birth control.

 

Simply make birth control freely available to all the women in an impoverished third world nation and the birth rate will drop. The problem is poverty. Those poor women cannot obtain the birth control they need. Provide it freely through foreign aid and the population growth will slow dramatically, and possibly even reverse.

[immortal]

 

Simply make birth control freely available to all the women in an impoverished third world nation and the birth rate will drop. The problem is poverty. Those poor women cannot obtain the birth control they need. Provide it freely through foreign aid and the population growth will slow dramatically, and possibly even reverse.

 

Actually poverty plays a very important role in increasing the population, espescially in third world countries. Women will prefer to produce more offsprings so that they can send their children to work in hotels and garrages so that they can earn for their living. This in turn leads to child labour, unemployment, food crisis etc.

 

We have to either eliminate them or improve them. If we don't do either of them then their population will go on increasing making their impact on the whole nation and eventually on the entire globe.

[SkepticLance]

Immortal

 

I don't think you are entirely correct. Poverty is key to overpopulation, yes. However, it is not due to people wanting more children to carry out money earning activities. Quite the contrary. Putting children to work is REQUIRED to feed them. People in poor situations would rather not produce the children in the first place.

 

Repeated surveys of women in third world countries has returned a result showing that women do NOT want lots of children. Quite the reverse. Each new child, while loved, is an economic curse. If these women had birth control, they would use it.