4 ms·

This is why I roll my eyes at alarmist talk of various processes "consuming X zillion gallons of water". Water is much stronger than that. It just passes throu

This is why I roll my eyes at alarmist talk of various processes "consuming X zillion gallons of water". Water is much stronger than that. It just passes through our processes and will outlast us all.

postmodest 3y ago
Your sort of responses to climate alarms are always the most disingenuous. We are consuming water from places where it has been relatively static, at rates far beyond its natural replenishment rate. THAT'S the issue. Yes, this is a closed system, and the human circulatory system is a closed system. But it's bad if you drain the blood from your brain faster than it is replenished.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  It's only bad if there aren't undiscovered sources and/or processes we can use in the future to produce more water. It's technological optimism, not disingenuousness.
  - redundantly 3y ago
    Saying there might be fixes for this in the future is also disingenuous. It's like saying military burn pits are okay because there may be medical advancements in the future that can be used to treat afflicted soldiers.
    - wddkcs 3y ago
      Arguing against optimism is arguing against the history of science. We have cures to diseases that were declared unavoidable divine judgements, we have achieved feats of engineering that would be unimaginable a century ago. I am not arguing for the deapoilation of the planet. We should preserve our resources as best we can. But future growth requires the usage of what resources we do have, in to achieve outcomes and efficiencies far better than we can imagine. I do agree though, if science wasn't verifiable, it would sound like a pyramid scheme.
      - Firaxus 3y ago
        Technological advances are nice, but you can’t just assume they will happen. There’s no law or axiom that says we will discover something new, and certainly not on any time scale that we could plan against to avoid problems we predict today.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        Based on past trends, it's much more likely we will discover new sources and methods of resource generation, than not. Diamonds were rare, now lab created, electricity was once sparse now ubiquitous. The trend is obvious
      - breuleux 3y ago
        Technological pessimism underestimates the rate of progress, but technological optimism routinely overestimates it. In the 50s people thought we would have superintelligent robots, flying cars, moon colonies and cold fusion by year 2000. In the 60s people were optimistic that we would eradicate all diseases in the near future. Right now some people believe the singularity will happen in the next decade. What could possibly happen in the next century that would be "unimaginable" to them? If you showed today's world to an optimist from a century ago they would see many wondrous things they would never have thought of, but they would also fail to see many of their predicted advancements. And I do think that what optimists predict is usually far more impressive than what actually comes to fruition. That's not to say the pessimists are right, but the optimists simply don't have the track record you seem to think they have.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    That sounds like it's beyond optimum into foolishness. I could possibly win the lottery one day, but I'm not going to live my life as if it's guaranteed.
    - wddkcs 3y ago
      Your analogy is an extreme example of the principle I'm referencing. Taken to a similar extreme, your argument is that we should choose who lives and who dies, through the limitation of the resources required for growth.
      - Firaxus 3y ago
        They are just being realistic, their example isn’t extreme (though yours is). It is entirely possible with our current level of technology to adjust to the realities of the physical limitations in the world as we know it, without needing to resort to picking “who lives and dies”.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        If those adjustments are to be made, they should be in increases in supply, not artificial constraints, that's my argument. Winning the lottery is imo more likely than finding a way to limit growth without draconian/totalitarian measures.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  I'm not being disingenuous. I honestly have a different analysis and opinion than you.
redundantly 3y ago
And I roll my eyes at comments like this. There's a huge difference of usability between different water sources. You can't irrigate your orchards with salt water from the ocean. You can't bathe in waste water from most manufacturing plants. You can't drink ground water that has been contaminated by fracking. There is a finite amount of potable water. There is a finite amount of usable water for agriculture. Pointing at all of the water on earth and acting as if it's all immediately usable without significant, costly barriers is silly.
- datameta 3y ago
  I wonder what the economics are of a massive centralized desalination plant in Africa powered by a Sahara mega-array of solar panels. Oil is transported via pipeline, what about water?
quickthrower2 3y ago
“Water” is overloaded. They may mean drinkable water.
globular-toast 3y ago
Yeah man, water your vegetables with sea water, they'll love it.
Firaxus 3y ago
You’re entirely missing the context of what you call “alarmist talk”. The issue isn’t that the water will cease to exist, or that the planet will literally be destroyed. It is that our way of life is unsustainable and actively degrades the future quality of life for us in the future (and our children). You can compare our mindless pumping of water from the ground to the ignorant farming practices that lead to the dust bowl. If we don’t use our knowledge to take steps to avoid running out of usable water by using it less and more intelligently now, we will come to a hard point in the future. Which takes cooperation and empathy for everyone’s situations and the overall reality in front of us.

postmodest 3y ago

Your sort of responses to climate alarms are always the most disingenuous. We are consuming water from places where it has been relatively static, at rates far beyond its natural replenishment rate. THAT'S the issue. Yes, this is a closed system, and the human circulatory system is a closed system. But it's bad if you drain the blood from your brain faster than it is replenished.

wddkcs 3y ago
It's only bad if there aren't undiscovered sources and/or processes we can use in the future to produce more water. It's technological optimism, not disingenuousness.
- redundantly 3y ago
  Saying there might be fixes for this in the future is also disingenuous. It's like saying military burn pits are okay because there may be medical advancements in the future that can be used to treat afflicted soldiers.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    Arguing against optimism is arguing against the history of science. We have cures to diseases that were declared unavoidable divine judgements, we have achieved feats of engineering that would be unimaginable a century ago. I am not arguing for the deapoilation of the planet. We should preserve our resources as best we can. But future growth requires the usage of what resources we do have, in to achieve outcomes and efficiencies far better than we can imagine. I do agree though, if science wasn't verifiable, it would sound like a pyramid scheme.
    - Firaxus 3y ago
      Technological advances are nice, but you can’t just assume they will happen. There’s no law or axiom that says we will discover something new, and certainly not on any time scale that we could plan against to avoid problems we predict today.
      - wddkcs 3y ago
        Based on past trends, it's much more likely we will discover new sources and methods of resource generation, than not. Diamonds were rare, now lab created, electricity was once sparse now ubiquitous. The trend is obvious
    - breuleux 3y ago
      Technological pessimism underestimates the rate of progress, but technological optimism routinely overestimates it. In the 50s people thought we would have superintelligent robots, flying cars, moon colonies and cold fusion by year 2000. In the 60s people were optimistic that we would eradicate all diseases in the near future. Right now some people believe the singularity will happen in the next decade. What could possibly happen in the next century that would be "unimaginable" to them? If you showed today's world to an optimist from a century ago they would see many wondrous things they would never have thought of, but they would also fail to see many of their predicted advancements. And I do think that what optimists predict is usually far more impressive than what actually comes to fruition. That's not to say the pessimists are right, but the optimists simply don't have the track record you seem to think they have.
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  That sounds like it's beyond optimum into foolishness. I could possibly win the lottery one day, but I'm not going to live my life as if it's guaranteed.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    Your analogy is an extreme example of the principle I'm referencing. Taken to a similar extreme, your argument is that we should choose who lives and who dies, through the limitation of the resources required for growth.
    - Firaxus 3y ago
      They are just being realistic, their example isn’t extreme (though yours is). It is entirely possible with our current level of technology to adjust to the realities of the physical limitations in the world as we know it, without needing to resort to picking “who lives and dies”.
      - wddkcs 3y ago
        If those adjustments are to be made, they should be in increases in supply, not artificial constraints, that's my argument. Winning the lottery is imo more likely than finding a way to limit growth without draconian/totalitarian measures.
BurningFrog 3y ago
I'm not being disingenuous. I honestly have a different analysis and opinion than you.

redundantly 3y ago

And I roll my eyes at comments like this. There's a huge difference of usability between different water sources. You can't irrigate your orchards with salt water from the ocean. You can't bathe in waste water from most manufacturing plants. You can't drink ground water that has been contaminated by fracking. There is a finite amount of potable water. There is a finite amount of usable water for agriculture. Pointing at all of the water on earth and acting as if it's all immediately usable without significant, costly barriers is silly.

datameta 3y ago
I wonder what the economics are of a massive centralized desalination plant in Africa powered by a Sahara mega-array of solar panels. Oil is transported via pipeline, what about water?

quickthrower2 3y ago

“Water” is overloaded. They may mean drinkable water.

globular-toast 3y ago

Yeah man, water your vegetables with sea water, they'll love it.

Firaxus 3y ago

You’re entirely missing the context of what you call “alarmist talk”. The issue isn’t that the water will cease to exist, or that the planet will literally be destroyed. It is that our way of life is unsustainable and actively degrades the future quality of life for us in the future (and our children). You can compare our mindless pumping of water from the ground to the ignorant farming practices that lead to the dust bowl. If we don’t use our knowledge to take steps to avoid running out of usable water by using it less and more intelligently now, we will come to a hard point in the future. Which takes cooperation and empathy for everyone’s situations and the overall reality in front of us.