This is just a rant. A rant about people and how they (we) live their (our) lives.
I remember hearing this summer about a drought in Texas, farm animals were starving to death because there were no crops. If we suppose this is an act of global warming and we can link it to human activity, I wonder how many people affected by the drought changed their way of living.
Did any of them drive their car less? Did any of then consume less junk that they do not need anyhow just for the benefit of reducing factory emissions, or did they continue their consumer happy, greedy, lifestyle?
Did anyone in Texas think "Whoa this is getting worse, gotta do something."? Probably not.
A lot of people only live for the here and now, I want this, I want that, they do not think of long term implications such as destruction of the planet used to make the item, waste, or even debt.
The same thing is true of family planning, or more correctly, lack of family planning. "I want a kid" is the thought, never mind if the person is ready (financially, emotionally) to be a parent, or if the planet even needs more kids. All that matters to a person is that they want a baby, then another, and another. The next thing you know they are complaining about how tired they are, how much work three kids are and how they have no money.
How is this connected to the drought in Texas? I almost forgot. I guess what I am saying is that if we are having more weather problems, and if they are related to human activity, why would anyone who is so concerned continue to pump out children? If thousands of cattle are dying because we cannot feed them, what are we going to feed our people if we have drought after drought knocking off cattle, and more and more people wanting to be fed?
It's a no brainer really, less people equals fewer problems, but most of us will be dead before the real crisis hits, it will be felt by our kids and grandkids - and the more of them we have made, the sooner the real problems will be realized...
In this blog we shall cover topics of human overpopulation and the problems of having too many people on one planet.
Showing posts with label livestock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label livestock. Show all posts
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Will Water be More Valuable than Gold?
Have you ever wondered what substance
on earth is the most valuable? Is it oil, is it uranium, is it gold
or diamond? The things we value today will not be what we value in the future, because in the future there is one substance that will very likely
be more valuable than oil, uranium, gold, or diamonds, and that substance is water!
If you think we can rely on streams,
and rivers to continue to supply us with our water, think again.
Thanks to global warming glaciers are melting at alarming rates, this
includes glaciers in mountain ranges. Snow fall is less and less,
and drought is more and more common. Eventually the streams and
rivers will run dry for most of the year. Some of our world's
glaciers have already vanished, others have shown great rates of
retreating since 1980.
Although we often think our planet will
never fail to provide us with enough drinking water, this may not be
true, at least not if we continue adding people and polluting our
water. Even today some people pay more for bottled water than they
do for gas for their car.
It's not just drinking water we need,
we also use water in agriculture; to grow plants, and for our
livestock animals. As we add more people to what many would say is
an already overpopulated planet, we will continue to require more
fresh water.
How Much Fresh Water is there?
About 98% of our water is in the
oceans, leave 2 % as fresh water, of which 1.6% is frozen in icecaps
and glaciers. 0.36% is ground water, leaving only 0.036% available
to us in our rivers, lakes, and streams. Other water is in cloud
form, or actually in the bodies of animals, and in plants.
Many people look naively at the oceans
and think we have an unlimited amount of water. Even those that are
smart enough to realize our fresh water resources are at risk
sometimes are ignorant to the risks that our oceans face, and the
problems of relying on ocean water to solve the impending crisis of
not having enough fresh drinking water. In other words desalinization
plants may not be the answer if we continue to add to the population
at the rate we currently are.
The Water Crisis will be Fueled by Human Overpopulation
Today we live in a paradox, we are
finding ways of bringing fresh, safe, drinking water to more people,
but industrialization is resulting in more and more chemicals finding
their way into streams, rivers, and eventually the ocean. More
people means more demand for fresh water, and it means more people
polluting the water we have.
People in some nations (such as El
Salvador) are spending over 10% of their total income on safe
drinking water. In a world with a growing population and increased
pollution, water is becoming a premium resource. For now it might
seem that we are improving the supply of fresh water to people who
have not had it in the past, but at the same rate we keep adding
people to the planet, and making demands of a valuable resource.
Terra Nova got it Wrong
If you have been watching FOX network
(American TV) show Terra Nova, you will have seen an overpopulated,
over polluted planet in the year 2149. The show is fun to watch but
has some flaws, one flaw being that while the people in 2149 live in
domed cities and require masks to breath the air they sent people
back into the past (through a portal in time to the time of the
dinosaurs) to rape the planet for minerals. It seems far more likely
to me that the resources they would most want would be fresh drinking
water and perhaps even a few dinosaurs to feed all the people.
A Wake Up Call
I just know somebody who is reading
this is probably thinking: “What about desalinization?”, Sure we
can remove salt from the sea, but desalinization plants cost money
how far inland will we pump the water, how much will it cost the
consumer, will coastal countries pump water inland to countries that
do not have coastlines?
![]() |
photo source - Whitechuck glacier, Washington - 1973 |
The images shows an area of the Whitechuck Glacier, that has retreated more than 1.2 miles (1.9 kilometers) between the times these two photos were taken.
![]() |
photo source - Whitechuck Glacier - 2006 |
Have you ever heard of the Aral Sea?
If you haven't it is probably because the sea barely exists anymore
compared it to what it was years ago. Although it is in a
state of recovery now (due to pressure to save the Aral Sea) it was
almost gone, due to water being diverted from it for agricultural
purposes. It is still mostly too salty for life (having become salty
due to the lack of fresh water reaching it for years). It is
alarming that so few people have even heard of it since, at one time, the
Aral Sea was one of the four largest lakes in the world.
As such I suggest that the most
valuable substance on earth is not oil, uranium, gold, or silver, but
is one thing we take for granted: Fresh water.
Labels:
agriculture,
crops,
drinking,
fresh,
glacier,
how much,
livestock,
overpopulation,
people,
pollution,
retreat,
water,
whitechuck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)