The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    David Seaton's picture

    Life can be very simple...

    By David Seaton on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:22pm |

    Sometimes the most important things in life are so simple that people hardly ever think about them. Human beings get out of bed and before they are even half awake they take a pee and a drink of water and rarely think that if there were no water to drink, there shortly would be nothing to pee, and if this state of affairs continued for even a few days they would simply dry up dead and blow away.

    Like I say, sometimes life is very simple.

     

    With that simplicity in mind, read this snippet from BBC News:
    About 80% of the world's population lives in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure, according to a new global analysis. Researchers compiled a composite index of "water threats" that includes issues such as scarcity and pollution. The most severe threat category encompasses 3.4 billion people. (...) The analysis is a global snapshot, and the research team suggests more people are likely to encounter more severe stress on their water supply in the coming decades, as the climate changes and the human population continues to grow. "It's not about the future, but we would argue people should be even more worried if you start to account for climate change and population growth. (...)"Climate change is going to affect the amount of water that comes in as precipitation; and if you overlay that on an already stressed population, we're rolling the dice."
    I bring this up, because we are seeing more and more warnings like this, of climate change and the increasing scarcity of resources, like oil to run the economy or like this one of water to drink. All of these point in the direction of the "zero-sum" world that I wrote about in a previous post.

    We can contrast the snippet from the BBC with the following one from Martin Hutchinson at Prudent Bear:
    Commodities, derided for decades as unimportant, have become scarce resources, to be guarded and managed with the utmost care. Conversely human labor and skill, on the basis of which the glories of human civilization were built, is entering into a state of gigantic glut.(...) In summary, in today’s world, commodities have become scarce and labor has become commoditized, unless fenced in by artificial restraints. With the global supply of commodities finite, this problem can only worsen if population is allowed to continue growing. A world with 10 billion people, all able to compete on an equal basis in a globalized labor market and desiring commodity-intensive modern mechanical marvels, would be a world of ever-increasing scarcity and impoverishment, besides its adverse environmental effects. Hence population reduction programs, aiming to reduce global population to a level at which labor once more becomes more valuable than commodities, should be given the highest priority at a global level. Otherwise, with the labor supply unlimited and the skills supply nearly so, and commodities supply relatively restricted, the only wealthy people will be those who own mines or oil wells. Martin Hutchinson - Prudent Bear
    Between the two snippets we have the political situation, in America and in the world, in a nutshell.


    I often read and enjoy the blogs of "doomsters" Dimitri Orlov and James Kunstler, but I find their view of a future, where people will live simple, self sufficient lives, growing their own vegetables and weaving and sewing the clothes they wear  a tad naive. The future I imagine is more like today's slums of Calcutta or Lagos Nigeria or Mexico City, or the favelas of Rio de Janeiro... miserable, stunted, short lived people crammed together, hungry, without education or health, while rich people and their bodyguards fly overhead in helicopters, hopping from one gated community to another. I don't think these people are ever going to run out of oil or air or water.... ever.

    Cross-Posted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com

    Comments

    Like it or not, the water and sanitation problem is one of the Gates Foundation's favorite things.

    It's one of those things that politics doesn't seem to do well--nobody wants to be on the town sewer or water committee, they get no thanks or glory for it after they do it. Like you said at the beginning of your post, once accomplished, it quickly becomes an expectation without thought.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 12:59pm

    I know the Clinton Global Initiative pushes the issue too, here's an example:

    .Clean Water and Sanitation

    Diseases borne from dirty drinking water are the number one killer of young Africans today. CHDI is investing in infrastructure improvements that will help schools, hospitals and entire communities access clean water and sanitation systems

    and though not as much of a priority as Gates puts on it, I believe I've seen the two Bills talk on it together.

    I believe it's just the kind of thing you need philanthropy to do, I just don't ever see much potential for politicians doing it or promoting it, unless it's a dictatorship situation. Look for example at Mexico, tourists always just adjused to "Montezuma's revenge," they don't get mad and say "why hasn't someone done something about this," it's just fodder for jokes and it never stopped them from visiting Mexico, while a drug war that is probably not going to affect them if they visited has done exactly that.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 1:13pm

    In an earlier post I made clear that Gates, Soros and Buffet have a more realistic and responsible idea of wealth than your general run of billionaires do, I think the Koch brothers are much more typical of the breed than they are.

    Also, if and when they have the people behind them, politicians can make a difference, a huge difference. FDR springs instantly to mind, but there have been many others. Hammering home the idea, day after day and year after year, that the government is the problem and not in any way the solution has been one of the major tasks of the Friedmanite, Thatcherite, Reaganite, right. Which as you can see better than many, has been extremely successful.

    As to Mexico... its problems will have to be solved by the Mexicans themselves, certainly not by the tourists. It would help them a lot if the USA would outlaw the sale of automatic weapons and legalize the possession of drugs.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 1:36pm

    AIUI, automatic weapons have been outlawed domestically in the US since 1986, but some semi-auto rifles can be converted to automatic. I wonder though if US mfrs are selling automatic, hence military grade, weapons to the cartels?


    by Donal on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 1:48pm

    I think you put your finger on it, a semi-automatic assault rifle can be converted to full rock and roll by any gunsmith in a short time. That is what the cartels are buying. We are playing Pakistan to Mexico's Afghanistan.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 2:16pm

    The map demonstrates stress even where I reside?

    We are the Land of Ten Thousand Lakes for chrissakes!!!

    And to the east there are the single greatest reservoirs of fresh water in the world.

    I have to reexamine all this.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 4:59pm

    David, I'm not sure your vision is any more plausible than Kunstler's.  Wealth doesn't just exist in a vacuum.  You seem to recognize sustainability issues in the current regime, but how would the world you describe sustain itself?  Unless the super-wealthy have found some other planet to inhabit, they will be subject to the same environmental changes as everyone else.

    Similarly, none of the impoverished regions you mention exist in a vacuum.  Being a billionaire would mean very little in a world without water.  The key here is understanding marginal utility.


    by DF on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 5:54pm

    The problems with water:

    First, potability.  The Pacific Ocean is incredibly large, though I would not advise drinking it unless death is a desirable outcome.

    Second, distribution.  There is going to be a massive wildcard in play quite soon - the climate change we are seeing is causing change in rainfall patterns and glacial meltoff.  Peolpe have always lived near water and now the water may no longer be where some very large numbers of people have lived for generations.

    Third, pollution.  Of the relatively small percentage of fresh (non-saline) water in the world, much of it is not clean enough to use for cooking or drinking. 

    All is not lost, though.  As to the Pacific (or Atlantic, or Indian - or Arctic, for that matter!) Ocean, desalination, while not cost-effective today, may be - if there is the will to work on creating scalable technologies.  These technologies will not remain where they are today - no technology ever does. 

    Solar stills might be a workable option in most places other than the polar regions.  They will be expensive to build, yet with few moving parts and a solar energy source, operating expenses can be loewr than most other alternatives over time.

    And it's not like water is giong anywhere.  For these purposes, Earth is functionally a closed system.  Cleaning it and keeping it clean is the next issue.  We can - and have to - do better than we have.

    As for distribution, I have no answer for the people in the Indus or Ganges watersheds, who stand to lose their water sources soon enough. 

    I do have an answer for those who would take Great Lakes or Canadian water and try to pipeline it to the otherwise-uninhabitable areas of the American Southwest.

    No.  You knew you were building in a desert.  Time for you to learn from your mistakes at your own expense.

     


    by Austin Train on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:15pm

    Who is advocating piping the Great Lakes and/or Canadian water to the American Southwest? 

    I live in the American Southwest, and while sorting out the 'true meaning' of the historical Interstate Water Compact is an extremely thorny issue, I haven't heard of this notion..


    by we are stardust on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:56pm

    I think you are correct that it all comes down to population control/reduction.  Without that, we're always going to have stressed resources, a labor glut, and depressed wages, (worldwide).  It's no surprise that the rise of a middle class/labor/guilds was subsequent to the black death wiping out as much as a third of Europe's population.  This in turn seems to hinge on education, something missing from religious fundamentalist ideology regardless of the religion in question.  Not sure how we accomplish that worldwide.  Perhaps the internet might play a role here, but of course that would require an investment in something other than armaments, and risk polarizing someone's "base".


    by miguelitoh2o on Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:25pm

    Super comment compai Cool


    by David Seaton on Sat, 10/02/2010 - 8:43am