Population, pollution, and climate put the squeeze on potable supplies – and private companies smell a profit. Others ask: Should water be a human right?
Public fountains are dry in Barcelona, Spain, a city so parched there's a €9,000 ($13,000) fine if you're caught watering your flowers. A tanker ship docked there this month carrying 5 million gallons of precious fresh water - and officials are scrambling to line up more such shipments to slake public thirst.
Barcelona is not alone. Cyprus will ferry water from Greece this summer. Australian cities are buying water from that nation's farmers and building desalination plants. Thirsty China plans to divert Himalayan water. And 18 million southern Californians are bracing for their first water-rationing in years.
Water, Dow Chemical Chairman Andrew Liveris told the World Economic Forum in February, "is the oil of this century." Developed nations have taken cheap, abundant fresh water largely for granted. Now global population growth, pollution, and climate change are shaping a new view of water as "blue gold."
Water's hot-commodity status has snared the attention of big equipment suppliers like General Electric as well as big private water companies that buy or manage municipal supplies - notably France-based Suez and Aqua America, the largest US-based private water company.
Global water markets, including drinking water distribution, management, waste treatment, and agriculture are a nearly $500 billion market and growing fast, says a 2007 global investment report.
But governments pushing to privatize costly to maintain public water systems are colliding with a global "water is a human right" movement. Because water is essential for human life, its distribution is best left to more publicly accountable government authorities to distribute at prices the poorest can afford, those water warriors say.
"We're at a transition point where fundamental decisions need to be made by societies about how this basic human need - water - is going to be provided," says Christopher Kilian, clean-water program director for the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. "The profit motive and basic human need [for water] are just inherently in conflict."
Will "peak water" displace "peak oil" as the central resource question? Some see such a scenario rising.
"What's different now is that it's increasingly obvious that we're running up against limits to new [fresh water] supplies," says Peter Gleick, a water expert and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, a nonpartisan think tank in Oakland, Calif. "It's no longer cheap and easy to drill another well or dam another river."
The idea of "peak water" is an imperfect analogy, he says. Unlike oil, water is not used up but only changes forms. The world still has the same 326 quintillion gallons, NASA estimates.
But some 97 percent of it is salty. The world's remaining accessible fresh-water supplies are divided among industry (20 percent), agriculture (70 percent), and domestic use (10 percent), according to the United Nations.
Meanwhile, fresh-water consumption worldwide has more than doubled since World War II to nearly 4,000 cubic kilometers annually and set to rise another 25 percent by 2030, says a 2007 report by the Zurich-based Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) group investment firm.
Up to triple that is available for human use, so there should be plenty, the report says. But waste, climate change, and pollution have left clean water supplies running short.
"We have ignored demand for decades, just assuming supplies of water would be there," Dr. Gleick says. "Now we have to learn to manage water demand and - on top of that - deal with climate change, too."
Population and economic growth across Asia and the rest of the developing world is a major factor driving fresh-water scarcity. The earth's human population is predicted to rise from 6 billion to about 9 billion by 2050, the UN reports. Feeding them will mean more irrigation for crops.
Increasing attention is also being paid to the global "virtual water" trade. It appears in food or other products that require water to produce, products that are then exported to another nation. The US may consume even more water - virtual water - by importing goods that require lots of water to make. At the same time, the US exports virtual water through goods it sells abroad.
As scarcity drives up the cost of fresh water, more efficient use of water will play a huge role, experts say, including:
- Superefficient drip irrigation is far more frugal than "flood" irrigation. But water's low cost in the US provides little incentive to build new irrigation systems.
- Aging, leaking water pipes waste billions of gallons daily. The cost to fix them could be $500 billion over the next 30 years, the federal government estimates.
- Desalination. Dozens of plants are in planning stages or under construction in the US and abroad, reports say.
- Privatization. When private for-profit companies sell at a price based on what it costs to produce water, that higher price curbs water waste and water consumption, economists say.
In the US today, about 33.5 million Americans get their drinking water from privately owned utilities that make up about 16 percent of the nation's community water systems, according to the National Association of Water Companies, a trade association.
"While water is essential to life, and we believe everyone deserves the right of access to water, that doesn't mean water is free or should be provided free," says Peter Cook, executive director of the NAWC. "Water should be priced at the cost to provide it - and subsidized for those who can't afford it."
But private companies' promises of efficient, cost-effective water delivery have not always come true. Bolivia ejected giant engineering firm Bechtel in 2000, unhappy over the spiking cost of water for the city of Cochabamba. Last year Bolivia's president publicly celebrated the departure of French water company Suez, which had held a 30-year contract to supply La Paz.
In her book, "Blue Covenant," Maude Barlow - one of the leaders of the fledgling "water justice" movement - sees a dark future if private monopolies control access to fresh water. She sees this happening when, instead of curbing pollution and increasing conservation, governments throw up their hands and sell public water companies to the private sector or contract with private desalination companies.
"Water is a public resource and a human right that should be available to all," she says. "All these companies are doing is recycling dirty water, selling it back to utilities and us at a huge price. But they haven't been as successful as they want to be. People are concerned about their drinking water and they've met resistance."
Private-water industry officials say those pushing to make water a "human right" are ideologues struggling to preserve inefficient public water authorities that sell water below the cost to produce it and so cheaply it is wasted - doing little to extend service to the poor.
"There are three basic things in life: food, water, and air," says Paul Marin, who three years ago led a successful door-to-door campaign to keep the town council of Emmaus, Pa., from selling its local water company. "In this country, we have privatized our food. Now there's a lot of interest in water on Wall Street.... But I can tell you it's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to privatize water. It's a mistake."
Water and war: Will scarcity lead to conflict?
Cherrapunjee, a town in eastern India, once held bragging rights as the "wettest place on earth," and still gets nearly 40 feet of rain a year. Ironically, officials recently brought in Israeli water-management experts to help manage and retain water that today sluices off the area's deforested landscape so that the area can get by in months when no rain falls.
"Global warming isn't going to change the amount of water, but some places used to getting it won't, and others that don't, will get more," says Dan Nees, a water-trading analyst with the World Resources Institute. "Water scarcity may be one of the most underappreciated global political and environmental challenges of our time." Water woes could have an impact on global peace and stability.
In January, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cited a report by International Alert, a self-described peacebuilding organization based in London. The report identified 46 countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion people where contention over water has created "a high risk of violent conflict" by 2025.
In the developing world - particularly in China, India, and other parts of Asia - rising economic success means a rising demand for clean water and an increased potential for conflict.
China is one of the world's fastest-growing nations, but its lakes, rivers, and groundwater are badly polluted because of the widespread dumping of industrial wastes. Tibet has huge fresh water reserves.
While news reports have generally cited Tibetans' concerns over exploitation of their natural resources by China, little has been reported about China's keen interest in Tibet's Himalayan water supplies, locked up in rapidly melting glaciers.
"It's clear that one of the key reasons that China is interested in Tibet is its water," Dr. Gleick says. "They don't want to risk any loss of control over these water resources."
The Times (London) reported in 2006 that China is proceeding with plans for nearly 200 miles of canals to divert water from the Himalayan plateau to China's parched Yellow River. China's water plans are a major problem for the Dalai Lama's government in exile, says a report released this month by Circle of Blue, a branch of the Pacific Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
Himalayan water is particularly sensitive because it supplies the rivers that bring water to more than half a dozen Asian countries. Plans to divert water could cause intense debate.
"Once this issue of water resources comes up," wrote Elizabeth Economy, director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Affairs, to Circle of Blue researchers in a report earlier this month, "and it seems inevitable at this point that it will - it also raises emerging conflicts with India and Southeast Asia."
Tibet is not the only water-rich country wary of a water-poor neighbor. Canada, which has immense fresh-water resources, is wary of its water-thirsty superpower neighbor to the south, observers say. With Lake Mead low in the US Southwest, and now Florida and Georgia squabbling over water, the US could certainly use a sip (or gulp) of Canada's supplies. (Canada has 20 percent of the world's fresh water.)
But don't look for a water pipeline from Canada's northern reaches to the US southwest anytime soon. Water raises national fervor in Canada, and Canadians are reluctant to share their birthright with a United States that has mismanaged - in Canada's eyes - its own supplies. Indeed, the prospect of losing control of its water under free-trade or other agreements is something Canadians seem to worry about constantly.
A year ago, Canada's House of Commons voted 134 to 108 in favor of a motion to recommend that its federal government "begin talks with its American and Mexican counterparts to exclude water from the scope of NAFTA."
© 2008 The Christian Science Monitor
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
198 Comments so far
Show All"You still haven't explained to me how a supposed herbivore can naturally produce so little taurine that it would be permanently impaired by the lack of it were it not for dietary supplements? "
This question was completely answered above. If you were a scientist, you could have read that answer and understood it. Most lay people could read it and understand it.
At this point, I am left to conclude that you have entirely misrepresented yourself and your only point is to discredit those who offer info in conflict with corporate/military spin.
This is certainly not the first time I have been attacked by a lame soldier of the Corporate Info Wars.
"I have a very good grasp on what I work on it — I WORK on it, remember?"
You have proven beyond any doubt that you are a spin doctor not a scientist. In as much, you have No grasp on reality just like your misguided colleagues and those you serve.
Oh, come on! These replies are not even original. YOu're not debating, you're just making dogmatic declarations. You offer no evidence to support your claims, yet you keep repeating them. You still haven't explained to me how a supposed herbivore can naturally produce so little taurine that it would be permanently impaired by the lack of it were it not for dietary supplements? Please answer this question. If I don't have a capability for omnivory, them also explain to me why in the last few days I have eaten beef, chicken, fish, fruits, leafy vegetables, beans, seeds, and nuts, all of which were quite effectively digested by my system? If you can't explain this, you lose this argument. Further, if you WON'T explain it, you forfeit this argument.
I have a very good grasp on what I work on it -- I WORK on it, remember? I think you NEED to be right just as much as everyone else does. Problem is, you aren't right. Can't you just accept that? I debate people like you all the time -- hot house flowers who wilt when the going get tough. We live in a period where wide spread bullshit threatens to overwhelm us. Global warming deniers, people who want to dispute the science of evolution, opponents of genetic research, people who believe in angels or ghosts, people stuck in New Age fantasies, homeopaths, etc. etc. On both teh political left and right, I see people who simply cannot look at the world the way it really is. These people are opposed to the light of knowledge, and currently, YOU are standing with them. Carl Sagan once said that we live in a demon-haunted world. Unfortunately, the 'demons' are winning, hands down. Look at our current White House -- filled with people who would rather twist the facts to suit their world view than courageously confront reality. I will continue to aggressively confront bamboozlers and bullshitters whenever I encounter them, because to not do so is to surrender to the forces of ignorance that are currently sweeping over us.
"it was to point out the natural capability of humans for omnivory!"
There is no capability for omnivory (as fully indicated by our anatomy and physiology and by the number of diseases produced by it; cancer, arthrosclerosis, diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's, kidney diseases, developmental disorders, etc.) and as stated above, this is not the truth of your intention.
You have a competition problem: Win at all cost; whether that cost is truth, the health of other people, or the lives of other sentient creatures and the habitats required to support all of us… no matter. Right?
Are you military or ex-military? You need to get a grip. People like you cannot learn. And, insofar as people such as yourself determine policy in any field... our culture cannot progress/learn.
Even many infectious diseases, such as chicken pox, are rooted in meat-eating. Did you even know that? Do you have any idea how many infectious diseases are related to meat and dairy consumption? Did you know that we have a form of hoof and mouth disease affecting children now in the US?
Do you have any idea at all about anything you say you are working on? Don't answer. I am really tired of wasting time on egomaniacs who NEED to be right and don't care what the costs are to others.
"Truth is the enemy of the state." Goebbels.
And the state of Argentina is entirely in the hands of our CIA, military and friends. I guess your style of deception really boosts their efforts at deception… not only do you lie, most of what you believe is a lie…
"My argument about b-12 was not to suggest that Vegans are unhealthy, it was to point out the natural capability of humans for omnivory!"
Dishonest, like all the rest of what you have written. Your point was to indicate that without animal foods, obtaining taurine and b-12 was difficult. And that point was refuted. But, you are too deceitful to admit it.
"Natural systems frequently show state transitions..."
The subject was not about natural developments (not even from quantitative to qualitative) but man-made interferences/destructions.
And, my point (I am sure you understood) is that man-made catastrophies do not precipitate state change enabling greater liveliness. The state changes (such as desertification) occur in reaction and generally confirm destruction and chaos.
"Early humans were hunters and gatherers — omnivores. YOu can choose to ignore this, but it's still the truth."
This is a cultural myth. Without evidence and there is plenty of evidence to prove that it is untrue.
Your 'truth' is part of your 'religious' training/dogma...
I keep telling myself that I'm going to quit this argument, and your outrageous sttements keep pulling me back in.
I am in Argentina to consult with NGOs on how to reduce the association between land cover change and disease. Thanks to my team, incidences of life-threatening infectious diseases have reduced 30% in the infected areas, and we are working to increase this.
Your analysis of the article is fanciful, at best. Juxtaposed means "occuring together or in association."
Early humans were hunters and gatherers -- omnivores. YOu can choose to ignore this, but it's still the truth.
Congratulations! You can copy from Wikipedia. You've reached the level of scholarly ability equal to the students in my freshman courses. But understand that I have real, live training in this stuff. You know, classes, exams, that sort of thing.
Natural systems frequently show state transitions. If you were up to date on modern science, you'd know this. Think about the Younger Dryas episode, a classic example of a phase shift in the low frequency dynamics of planetary boundary waves, resulting in a persistent alteration of global temperatures lasting several thousand years.
As far as I can tell, your role here is to be a gadfly, a poser, and a source of false information, as well as an interesting combination of intelligence, ignorance, and arrogance.
My argument about b-12 was not to suggest that Vegans are unhealthy, it was to point out the natural capability of humans for omnivory! (Can't you even follow a simple argument?) There are many natural sources of it, but the best are animal proteins. Humans are well-equipped to handle these foods, as well as a wide variety of vegetable based food. My entire point is that humans are equipped to handle all types of food, and handle them quite well. The archaeological evidence suggests that humans have always been omnivores, the physiological evidence agrees. Heck, I've read article in vegetarian magazines that agree that humans are omnis.
And despite you cut and paste of wikipedia, you still didn't explain how and in what quantities human synthesize taurine, and what this means about the human diet. I can draw a diagram of the molecule from memory, you don't even know how the stuff works without a web search, and you want to lecture me? Arrogant!
"Sorry, this is very hard to believe. You sound more like a propagandist being tutored and nonetheless getting all the facts wrong. (see below… Maybe you should consult some better sources. I am available:)"
A consultant is someone who understands a subject. YOU should be consulting ME :)
You remind me of those people on the extreme left and extreme right who try to use science to support their political views. Global warming skeptics, anti-GM'ers, intelligent design proponents, flat earthers, etc. etc. All of you want so desperately for the real world to conform to your politics or belief systems that you come to actually believe your own BS. Sorry, babe, science is above politics and above belief systems.
Until next time! Seriously, please write some more. I can always use a good laugh! At first, you sort of irritated me, but now I'm enjoying the hell out of this! You remind me of debating my niece, who's going through her Ayn Rand phase right now. Not that you are a Randroid, but you and she share the same sort of serious, intense devotion to dogmatic fantasies. :)
In regard to NIH directors.
These statements are from EarthSave (http://earthsave.org) resources that were published in the early-mid nineties.
These publications are not online as far as I know but you can certainly contact John Robbins and ask him or his staff to track down references for you.
This is the text for your link:
"The importance of meat-eating in human evolution has long been a controversial subject1−4. The best available evidence of hominid activities between 2 and 1.5 Myr ago is the archaeological record from two East African localities, Olduvai Gorge5, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora6, Kenya, which consists of scattered stone artefacts and fragmentary animal bones. The question7,8 of functional association between juxtaposed artefacts and bones would be largely settled if hominid-induced modifications were present on some bones. Comparative analyses of archaeological bone assemblages from Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora and of various modern bone assemblages with known taphonomic histories reveal direct evidence of early hominid butchering and marrow-processing activities."
My analysis says that:
**Tools and bones were not spatially associated.
**Nonetheless, there was a determination to find a causative association...
"The question7,8 of functional association between juxtaposed artifacts and bones..."
**The operative word here is 'juxtaposed'.
In other words, animal fossils are found. And, tools are found. And that folks is all we have. This is about as deterministic as a raccoon dying 1000 feet from my kitchen sink! And, the time periods are not even certain… in other words, the raccoon may have died 1 million years ago and my kitchen sink may have been thrown out, five years after!
This is precisely what I mean when I say pseudo science. There is a need to find a validating history for man the hunter, or man the early meat-eater... but
No such validation exists... so unrelated things are associated after several careful and correct (or plausible) statements... and the reader assumes intellectual responsibility on the part of the writer... when it is simply a set-up to associate what one is 'selling' with what can be scientifically determined.
BTW, are you also in Argentina to generate a pseudo scientific argument for 'environmental reset' to facilitate lucrative resource pilfering (of Andean water) by the US military (and friends) following the collapse of the peso (orchestrated by a low-intensity warfare plan of US military retiree, Jim Sass.)?
Finally, IF there were any validity to early, widespread, and continuous meat-eating, would it not be apparent in changes (at least some, at least some minor ones) to our physiology and/or anatomy in order to accommodate it?
Given that there are simply NO physiological adaptations to support any amount of meat-eating and that All necessary nutrients for human survival are more easily obtained from a pure plant based diet which is also much easier to obtain, does anything that you are saying even have a rational or logical base?
Very funny, very informative: http://youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q
Please admit, I at least stick to logic!
The conclusion at the end of the above quoted text is spurious indeed and hardly the only example of culturally induced non-science in texts of this sort. I have found the same in biochemistry, public health, etc.
It's shameful and also why Monsanto (and others of this ilk) gets away with murder!
I want to address (undress) the false histories generated by corporate meat-eating interests and the pseudo scientists it employs, but I am having a number of connectivity problems, so I will try to do it this evening if not sooner.
"FBI infiltrated vegan groups this year to try to get information on radical animal rights terrorists who were known to be planning to attack researchers."
Sounds like the perpetrators set the stage to have an excuse to infiltrate and use entrapment schemes (I have been the vicitm of these operations, and yes, they are run through pseudo-animal rights groups such as "Silicon Valley In Defnese of Animals")
Let's get real. What was COINTELPRO (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html ) in the sixties and seventies is MUCH more invasive, robust, extra-legal, and technologically and deceptively sophisticated today.
"My particular interest is in how complex systems approaches can be used to define event thresholds that result in system resetting themselves to notably different behaviors."
Sorry, this is very hard to believe. You sound more like a propagandist being tutored and nonetheless getting all the facts wrong. (see below... Maybe you should consult some better sources. I am available:)
I am going to give a very simple example. You have said you are an 'earth scientist'... so, one would assume that, since you raised the subject, you had investigated it... it is, after all, a very simple matter... one that assuredly has been over-used by propagandists but also one that MOST serious investigators/scientists would quickly have understood quite differently than you have presented it:
(Since you won't take my word for it, I'll quote from others, but first your completely pseudo-scientific manipulation)
"Also, can you tell me what the source of taurine and vit b-12 in these diets, considering the extreme inefficiency of the human gut for extracting/synthesizing these crucial nutrients."
*Taurine, or 2-aminoethanesulfonic acid, is an organic acid. It is also a major constituent of bile and can be found in lower amounts in the tissues of many animals including humans. Taurine is a derivative of the sulfur-containing (sulfhydryl) amino acid, cysteine. Taurine is the only known naturally occurring sulfonic acid.
** Cysteine (abbreviated as Cys or C) is an α-amino acid with the chemical formula HO2CCH(NH2)CH2SH. It is not an essential amino acid, which means that humans can synthesize it.
(excerpts * & ** from Wikipedia)
So, taurine IS synthesized by humans (and other herbivores) from the nonessential amino acid, cysteine. What extreme inefficiency?
--- Now B-12
"In 1996, Victor Herbert determined that B-12 deficiency is
rare among vegans, even though most do not take supplemental
B-12. His landmark work was published in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 59(suppl), pp. 1213S-
1222S. Herbert wrote:
"To a great extent, B-12 is recycled from liver bile in the
digestive system...The enterohepatic circulation of vitamin
B-12 is very important in vitamin B-12 economy and
homeostasis...bodies reabsorb 3-5 mcg of bile vitamin B-12.
Because of this, an efficient enterohepatic circulation
keeps the adult vegan, who eats very little vitamin B-12,
from developing B-12 deficiency disease..."
Despite real science, the B-12 myth continues. If you feel
that you must eat B-12 (which is produced by bacterial
action), then buy organic carrots and be sure to eat the
unwashed roots. Washing will kill the bacteria, rich with
Vitamin B-12."
(above from http://notmilk.com/vitaminb12.html )
The key to a rich natural source of B-12 turns out to be the herbivore diet… go outside, pick some berries! (and ONLY grow organic to protect the soils.)
"…that result in system resetting themselves"
This is something of a deception don't you think (Or… RANK pseudo-scientific BS)?
How often do systems 'reset' in earth sciences as compared to simply becoming less and less vital (at least regarding this topic of discussion, human biosphere interactions) and more and more chaotic? I think you really do not have a clue about this area in which you claim expertise. Sorry, you lose credibility again. My fees for consulting are reasonable. You might wish to inquire.
As for respecting me, my job here (self-appointed to be sure) is to share what understanding I have been able to develop and help as many as possible see how seriously mistaken the assumptions are that are currently guiding military/corporate decisions. So, respect is not the end goal. Understanding is, and if we must, we can start with your particular form of the art of deception; why you practice it, why you think you can benefit thereby, etc.
dgoodin,
There has been a consistent attack on indigenous peoples the world over. This attack is entirely motivated by a desire to obtain power over the resources they are using and them.
Writing this, an example came to mind of a region of Aregentina considered 'underpopulated' but nonetheless, bereft of wildlife... and a man involved in the fairly recent wildlife eradication program (sport) there informed me of the reason...
"As for our culture having no science, does this mean that we are erroneously assuming that their is a link between bacteria and disease?"
No, it means that corporate culture determines what of observable phenomena is allowed to become part of the lexicon. It also means that much of what is taught is simply invented to cover-up that which is not being allowed to become part of the culture. (e.g. Man has always eaten meat. Milk is a good source of calcium. Humans need a certain number of nutrients from animal food.)
Such politicizing of scientific inquiry (and 'education') means that most of what is being taught, especially if it affects corporate policies, must be invested with a serious dose of skepticism. So, we do not have science. We have a program to invest unworkable elitist precepts with pseudo-scientific validity and to shore these up (credible by association) with some verifiable facts and laws.
"Natural law CANNOT be violated!"
Agreed. I think this is the sum of my points.
And this is the reason for biosphere failure whether it is due to the building of gargantuan dams that prevent water from reaching plains...
or creatures (such as humans) trying to eat that for which they are not ecologically adapted and causing untold destructions in the course of this effort...
or clear cutting forests and pouring diesel all over the devastation to inhibit future growth... that results in pollution and causes a number of successive affects.
But, remember, all things in this universe do not have the same period. If I feed you a virus… how long before you feel its affects? What about induce you with stomach cancer (yes, it can be done and a Nobel Prize was given to the first person to do it). How long will it be before you die?
What if I just feed you cholesterol which will cause ALL herbivores to contract some degree of artherosclerosis but not natural carnivores or omnivores?
The problem here is that you need to realize that a biosphere is a complex system. You must think in terms of systems theories. Not unnaturally isolated phenomena. And, you must consider that affects cannot be understood until the periods in which those affects have meaning is grasped.
"Humans are omnivores" NOT!
Our dietary tracts are of the same proportion to body length as other herbivores.
Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
"What do you mean by dietary law?"
A subset of natural law but regarding diet.
"What do you mean by 'natural law'?"
Those laws that are observable and required for life (including of a specific community, bioregion, individual) to continue.
"Yes, but that the proximate cause. The ultimate cause, the reason why those forests were cut, was to accommodate the needs of a population that had overrun its resource base."
Most commonly, resource depletion is a policy of empire (or conquest) that facilitates control of populations by destroying the resource base upon which they depend.
This policy was pursued in the Americas, in Vietnam, Iran last century and before, etc., etc. So, to blame 'population pressure' is misleading and historically improbable. Also, it is well known that the population of Easter Island was racially and probably socially dichotomized.
I have written an essay in regard to this matter posted here: http://allinharmony.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&id=399737&pageid=155
i'm for getting water right. i live in a basin (great lakes basin) that contains 20% of earth's fresh water supplies. we don't want any las vegas or even new mexico people getting ideas about how to use the water where WE LIVE! if we were for selling it, the whole state should become wealthy quickly, but WE DON'T WANT TO SELL IT! we want other people to use some sense about THEIR water supplies.
no golf courses in arizona! no fountains in las vegas! (read dune) even here in michigan wells have begun to go dry because of gravel pits and ridiculous pumping of aquifer water. why would a crop in michigan need to be irrigated? techno-agriculture has gotten out of control.
let the farms raise the animals they can become personally familiar with. no corporate animal feeding projects, with their toxic waste water! i was friends with our dairy cows. i would expect no less from modern dairy operations. same with hens. know them by name, or don't keep them.
What happened to the serious water issue? Or is everyone gonna commit suicide, or explain how deer battle, how to public protest, or maybe Hillary and Obama?
Yeah, I've seen deer fights on the animal channels. Bears, lions, hippos, dogs and cats fight too.
replies to IANWO:
"We already covered this. You are incorrect."
No, "we" didn't cover anyting. YOU made a dogmatic statement, which doesn't necessarily match the evidence.
"The main problem was a policy of resource destruction, namely deforestation…"
Yes, but that the proximate cause. The ultimate cause, the reason why those forests were cut, was to accommodate the needs of a population that had overrun its resource base.
"since we see that occurring in many other places and being continuous up to today, on what basis is this even disputable?"
Depends on what you consider the object of dispute. Yes, deforestation is happening at an alarming rate, although slower than we believed it was when I wrote my dissertation in the 1980s. My most recent research has looked at the effect of deforestation on disease processes, so I'm pretty familiar with this literature. Again, in most cases that I am aware of, the forest is being cut to accommodate the resource needs of an expanding population. You can deny this all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. Read Eric Lambin's work for a modern perspective, or William Lee Turner for a historical view of the problem, or for that matter go back and critically read Jerod Diamond. Charles Mann's excellent popular book is also a good one to look at.
"Oh wait, don't tell me… pseudo scientific invention, Right?!"
No, astrology is a pseudo science. I'm talking about ecology -- which is the real thing, and not so much invented as discovered through pain staking work by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years. A tradition that I am absolutely thrilled to be a small part of.
And referring to your earlier comments:
"!! HUMANS ARE HERBIVORES !!
Humans are omnivores. Meat is a natural part of the human diet. HUmans are physiologically suited to eat a very wide range of foods. If we were strictly herbivores, our GI tract would be much longer. The fact that it is short relatively to our herbivore ape cousins is the reason why many humans (myself among them) cannot eat a strictly vegetarian diet -- it makes us sick. It also explains why meat is a better source of many nutrients -- it digests faster in our system.
"This culture has NO science. It has corporate massaged complicity with erroneous assumptions; especially in regard to human nature and its ability to find support, guidance and reasonable boundaries of expression by respecting natural law, especially regarding human dietary laws (fully indicated and inscribed in/by our anatomy and physiology)."
This is just out-and-out nonsense. What do you mean by 'natural law'? What do you mean by dietary law? How do you explain the fact that throughout history, humans have eaten meat? Natural law CANNOT be violated! Try violating Newton's law sometime -- can't do it. The fact that I ate a tuna sandwich for lunch means that there is no natural law against it. As for our culture having no science, does this mean that we are erroneously assuming that their is a link between bacteria and disease? Or that the universe is expanding? Or that complex systems organize themselves in ways that cannot readily be predicted? Or that the DNA molecule encodes the information needed to make a living thing? All of these are true. All of these are science. All of these are beautiful concepts related to a world and universe that is mysterious and beautiful beyond any possible words that I can come up with. An NONE of these require any mysticism or quackery to explain.
Oh an in reply to Kem Patrick:
Deer fight by rearing up and striking with their front hooves. They can hit with devastating force. It's been a long time since I took wildlife biology, but the operative hypothesis then was that the battles were over territory and the harems went along with the territory. Contemporary thinking could be very different. And no, this has nothing to do with water -- the topic came totally out of left field.
I may be wrong but…
Life seems like a river. A conscious river; or a river of consciousness...
It moves in wave form sometimes above the horizon and sometimes below...
When we are 'above' (in the region of the manifest), we appear, and when we are 'below' (in the region of the unmanifest) we are in a state of unrealized conscious potential.
So, buffalo_ken, I do agree with you... in part.
The part in which we are in agreement is that something is always around the bend (or under the horizon). The part in which we differ is the one wherein I recognize a natural and critical rythmicity, and you do not seem to.
Death at one moment... is part of the natural process where we finally meet the horizon again and move below it... in another, it's an unfortunate (and untimely) tragedy of unknown proportion.
Such is my theory. (I can't guarantee it is correct.)
Here's a link to an essay I wrote (pure stream of consciousness) on this subject: http://allinharmony.com/index.cfm?id=399729&fuseaction=browse&pageid=124
i realize that michigan is a special case, but also in new jersey, wetlands are nature's water treatment system.
boys, quit fighting! you are not rutting bucks.
That sounds like the message "Reverand" Jim Jones gave.
Ya think so, you ever tried it? Tell that stupidity to the innocent children of the world.
I'm not trying to be flippant, but death is not as bad as you might think.
At least then it is over...your blood is spilled on the ground and will lead to something new....
"OK then if you don't want Gov control over water do something about it. Move out to the country like I have. Use a well and cistern for water."
We have done this. The story...
remember how it was when Blacks used to try to move into white neighborhoods? In some areas where the KKK was active, they would respond... ?
same story for vegans-go-to-the- (meat-eating)country... maybe it was the bumper sticker that said, "Love animals don't eat them."
Maybe it was just our obvious love of the outdoors in a community where most drank heavily and gathered around the barbeque... or maybe it was that we didn't show up at the local bar and get smashed on cue... who knows...
After the smashed porch light in the middle of the night, the tracking device that suddenly fell off the underside of our car, the guard dogs (and cop owners) that would surprise us on the trail…
When we finally drove away for the last time, a cop was parked in a lot across from us glaring... and I was afraid if my husband ventured back into that town, they would kill him.
New World Order = Nazi World Order - Natural World Order
(A note on posting... the object is info sharing. If the info is not fully understood, further explanation may be offered/attempted. And, it seems appropriate to attempt to info share where others have already focused on a subject to which the info is germane. I do this for the sake of all. I have done many many things with the same motivation… when one activity fails, I await the next inspiration and try try again... because the lives at stake (all lives actually) matter.)
BTW, I have organized a number of protests including against war and aerial spraying. But, giving as many people as possible the tools to uncover their own capacity for natural reason and connection could easily end the need to protest by curtailing the stupidities upon which such travesties as elitist monetary/military policies rest.
Over and out.
P.S. - "Hollow point"
awesome name
You know I tried to edit the above 9:52 am entry many times. Each time something different came out, but now it is what it is even though that is not what I wanted it to be. Hm. Funky.
That is why I ascribe to keeping things local as much as possible. It is so much easier to be aware of what seems to be going on locally when all of the senses can be engaged. If you know what I mean.
Locally we can make all the difference.
that is the whole point. I have asked in other postings, and others as well who has been part of a protest or done something to try to make change besides posting on a web site? I saw one person say they have been on a protest march ( other than myself) then I say the rest are just killing time on a web site. I was not trying to jump on the bloger It's a Naziworld, but when a person posted 1 in every 8 postings or 12.5% of all the postings on this one story screaming for change that not everyone agrees with. Then I have to ask that same question. If the honest answer yes I have been part of and support protests then OK. blog on
But of coure, who are any of us to judge?
Just be the change you want to happen. Sound like good counsel to me.
Peace,
"buffalo_ken"
Just a little side note. I've read many here state that "just talking on the blogs ain't going to make no difference". I disagree. I know it has made a difference for me.
Now, if all you do is talk on the blogs. Well, then I agree.
I'm investing in Fremen stillsuit production, and then when the deserts begin I'll make a killing reclaiming water from Elites. :-P
Naz world: read in full
OK then if you don't want Gov control over water do something about it. Move out to the country like I have. Use a well and cistern for water. I am 100% in charge of my own water. I can even pump it by hand if there is a power out. I use rain water or ground water to top up my swimming pool or water the garden. Hell I was so sick of America I even moved out of the country. Maybe spend less time whining about and name calling other people postings and the Gov and failed healthfood stores and get on with you life. There is no prize for having the most postings on a web site that isn't going to change a thing, plus most of what you say is common knowledge and people still have not changed. peace and don't get arrested at the next protest you attend
"Deer kill each other over territory" Is that a fact? If that is a fact, does it have anything to do with our serious water issues, which is the subject matter at hand? Do the deer bite and kick each other, or do they just butt heads?
From what I've read deer seldom kill each other and they fight over sexual control of female deer during their rutting season. Pretty normal behavior for all animals, including male and female humans. Humans also fight over, gold, oil, territory, religious beliefs, political arguments and WATER rights and they often kill one another, which is human. Other type animals are more civilized.
"Easter Island? The main problem was overpopulation and resource depletion, "
We already covered this. You are incorrect.
The main problem was a policy of resource destruction, namely deforestation... since we see that occurring in many other places and being continuous up to today, on what basis is this even disputable?
Oh wait, don't tell me... pseudo scientific invention, Right?!
"I used to have a whole herd of them living (literally) in my back yard."
Me too. We witnessed the exact opposite. I don't believe you. Sorry.
"I am defining 'nature' here as a big picture phenomenon, not as the individualized behavior of any particular animal. My point was made in context of an earlier insinuation that somehow the earth will protect and nurture us as long as we behave in some prescribed way."
Here's a challenge for ya, Mr. Science. Try behaving in that prescribed way (humans are herbivores)... then decide.
The earth can only nurture those it is designed to nurture and that means those who respect behavioral parameters as they have been designed to express.
For such a man of science, why is this such a stretch? Or are we all the way back to another point I get tired of repeating...
This culture has NO science. It has corporate massaged complicity with erroneous assumptions; especially in regard to human nature and its ability to find support, guidance and reasonable boundaries of expression by respecting natural law, especially regarding human dietary laws (fully indicated and inscribed in/by our anatomy and physiology).
So, you are a religious nut (your religion being pseudo science) proven by the fact that you just went hiking and came back and told us that 'nature is neutral'.
Pseudo scientists think so. It is a preconditioned response and if believed in strongly enough, will prevent the indoctrinated from perceiving any of the vibrancy, subtleties, and conscious and cooperative intelligence in all of nature... such is the power of culture, even pseudo scientific culture.
(BTW, it was a buck who appeared for me in my 'hour of need'. I have yet to this day to see such deep understanding and compassion in any human in any circumstance with anyone. And, the question remains, how did he know.
I'll leave it to you to tell me I was anthropomorphizing but then, you are brainwashed and I am no longer... or not quite so extremely brainwashed as I once was which is closer to the truth... we are all affected by these artificial and bogus cultural precepts, that tell us other animals are not considerate of us or not intelligent enough to understand our predicaments.)
~ROCYAHOLE~ I am FULLY aware that water can be distilled by the means of solar radiation. I also am aware that my vehicle's engine runs better during very humid weather.
What I suggested, was doing the same thing on a MASSIVE scale, that our Navy does to produce fresh water from ocean water for their ship's crews. The Navy does not produce thoudands ofgallons of fresh water daily to supply 7,000 sailors daily, by hanging plactic tubes or sheeting all over an aircraft carrier and wait for the sun to distill it. They use electrical power.
The reason I suggested using clean renuable energy to accomliish that, by use of solar, or wind, or wave, or tidal energy, or a combination of any two, is because it's clean, does not pollute our atmosphere and since there is no cost for fuel, it would be an afforadable way to desalt (millions of gallons) of sea water every day with only one facility. We could have many, 50 or 100 or more near our thousands of miles of coastlines.
You came back and explained to me in a gentle manner, as if you are talking to a six or seven year old, how solar energy can do the same thing. We alredy know it can in a far- far- far- far- very far slower manner. So tell us sir teacher, how much plastic tubing would one require to de-salt millions of gallons of sea water daily? Another question is, would the platic contaminate the water in any manner?
What you are talking about ~Rockahole~, is normally an emergency method used to have clean and safe drinking water and the method is taught to Cub Scouts and Brownies. I know that because I was once a Cub Master and my wife was once a Brownie.
What I was talking about here and asked if any 'intelligent' scientists could assist with my thinking on the subject, is having vast quantities of fresh water produced at an affordable cost and that fresh water used to replinish our dwindling water supplies. It's a bit different than your lengthy blog, which was of no use to me. Thank you anyway for nothing of use.
Order:
Wow, that was a couple of long and rambling responses. I just got back from a lovely weekend of backpacking in an incredibly good mood, so good in fact that I was almost ready to let it go, until I read this:
"They are responding to life. I am sorry but you are way out of your league. You sound like a programmed religious nut. These ideas you are expressing are not YOUR ideas and were not developed by interactions in a natural context… this is the rubbish you learned sitting in a box… and it is worth as much as what someone who has never ventured outside the box (and this does include those who travel through space while firmly held within the cognitive limitations created by the box's 'nature estrangement programming' (the temple paradigm in which all must support a supremacist worldview)) can contribute to an understanding of what occurs there."
You are totally barking up the wrong tree here. I am actually a science nut, not a religious one -- didn't my earlier statements about there being 'no god' clue you in to this? I'm an agnostic whose belief system is atheist. As for where my ideas were developed, there were developed by a lifetime spent carefully observing the natural world. There was no bod involved, literally or figuratively, just eyes, ears, and that most wonderful development of the human intellect, science.
Once again, I also think you've missed my point. I am defining 'nature' here as a big picture phenomenon, not as the individualized behavior of any particular animal. My point was made in context of an earlier insinuation that somehow the earth will protect and nurture us as long as we behave in some prescribed way. My point was that 'nature' is an entirely neutral force. There is no benevolent earth mother, space father, god uncle, etc., watching over us. Nature is gravity -- you can believe or not believe in it as you see fit, but whether you believe or not, you are still subject to it. Period. We are all subject to the laws of nature, the most important of which is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which among other things tell us that sooner or later everything gets used up. Given that reality, our most rational course of action is to conserve every resource as much as we can. It sounds from your post like you agree with this fundamental concept, so I ask -- why not just drop all the metaphysical nonsense and save yourself some work? (Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your statements here?)
"or when deer kill each other in combat over territory (something I've seen with my own eyes),"
"Really? Under what sort of contrived circumstances? I find this VERY hard to believe!"
I used to have a whole herd of them living (literally) in my back yard. The 'contrived' situation was called winter time. Lack of resources, not much food, violence, death. See a pattern? Just like humans...
I don't think I ever assumed you were anything. If I was going to take you to a restaurant, I'd probably ask you what type of food you like, as any considerate host would.
Hmm, what else? Easter Island? The main problem was overpopulation and resource depletion, coupled with an inadequate system of social organization based around a religious belief system. Again, overbelief in sky daddies (or earth mommas) can be ruinous to your culture.
Well, I'm just finding it too hard to respond to all of this. I actually agree with you on a lot of things, although I vehemently disagree on others.
If you search on youtube for browns gas you should find a video of a tutorial how to go about making it. It's fairly simple and only a little dangerous.
If you goto http://water4gas.com there's a product for sale there that tells you how to run your car partly off browns gas. It doubles your vehiles fuel efficiency, smoothes and strengthens the engine and makes your exhaust smell like a freshly chlorinated pool.
I invite all manner of correspondence:
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
Dan
Thanks Kem Patrick for inspiring this idea.
"not to use solar power as a distillary..."
Clean water and electricity:
Clear plastic tube column lets in the sunlight, sits over ocean water; water evaporates and rises to condenser canopy which is a cone on top, with a tube around the base that runs the clean water to one side, dropping it past a turbine on the opposite side of the light trapping column as the suns position.
BTW Kem water as gas is HHO, better known as Browns Gas. You can run it through your vehicles engine to increase performance.
Also BTW, it makes little sense to run sunlight across a photovoltaic circuit to then run the electricity generated across an electric circuit to power a heating element to make water less gaseous (due power lost to resistance) than you could by just applying the sunlight to the water.
This gets filed under KISS (keep it simple stupid). BTW I in no way mean to offend you and am certainly not calling you stupid. You admittedly don't know much about engineering. You ask good questions which is by far more commendable than being an engineer.
"YOU ARE AGAINST GOV CONTROL.."
I am against violence. And today's governments are in the business of violence almost exclusively.
I am for structures that enable more fulfilling experiences for all. I am for everything that enhances individual freedoms but the most freedom we can ever have, communally and individually, is full spectrum access to all potential ecological niche experiences...
Believe it or not, humans exist within a less than 10% band of their total experiential design capabilities.
I propose respect for natural laws to enable MORE life, not less and to enable MORE freedom (for all), not less.
Men who think good presidents drop napalm on children are seriously lacking in wisdom-developing, natural experiences... and that is just another reason to respect human ecology... humans are severely and cognitively and emotionally stunted by a culture designed to do just that, eclipse the maturation of natural wisdom and expression.
A naturally developed mind could not possibly make these sorts of moronic, actually OX-Y-Moronic mistakes. McCain says it all. Let's be ruled by the dumbest answer imaginable… when in doubt… bomb someone!
"YOU ARE AGAINST GOV CONTROL BUT NOW YOU POST CONTROL OVER WHAT PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO GROW, EAT."
What I oppose is institutionalized stupidity.
If that is government to you, McCain definitely supports this continuation...
What I PROPOSE is allowing the facts of human ecology to be told and allowing sustainable communities to form.
Meat-eating is a critical fundament of a dominator (elitist) society which is based upon violence (against other animals first and humans second) and deception to conceal the reasons behind these violent and controlling paradigms.
The truth is critical here. And the truth will lead to the obvious realization that meat-eating is behind so many crimes against the earth and its creatures. Any fully informed and responsible person would ban its practice just as cannibalism has been banned or dumping poisons in a community well.
Frankly, if everyone were fully apprised of ALL the facts, few (possibly no one) would eat meat ever again.
____________
TWO former heads of the NIH are on record stating that they were told to NEVER advocate eating less meat as a means to becoming healthier no matter what the scientific findings were.
The control that is going on in society to protect this brutal lifestyle (and promote it) is not seen by very many people... because if the corruption that allows meat-eating to continue were exposed, no one would support it… not even you.
My new home in Canada I look at a small lake and Lake Ontario. A ton of ground water in the well. I walk to swimming etc.
rocya.....
You are right it is simple to collect drinking water. They do the same thing in the mountains with the morning dew.
70% of the world is covered in water thousands of feet deep and some people can't get that fact through their heads. We just invest a small amount and the world has water for cattle veggie what ever a person wants to eat. When it comes to bottled water, companies go the quick cheap route first.
Fresh water?
Fresh water costs only spending time at the beach with a see through plastic canopy and 2 containers, one for the salt water the other under the drip edge of the canopy for DISTILLATION.
what's this canada has 20% of the world's fresh water? the great lakes, which surround michigan and touch other states and provinces, have 20% of the world's fresh water. and fools right here in michigan want to bottle and sell some of it.
only 1% of the great lakes water recirculates to the ocean and from weather. most of it is the heritage of old glaciers.
we need wetlands, mother nature's kidneys. and the rich suburbs of detroit ought to pony up some money and build their own water system.
"There are cheap answers to clean water and trying to turn the whole world into a veggie is not the easy way."
Considering that almost EVERYONE on the planet is wired to TV culture, all that is actually required is to inform everyone that our culture is as clueless as it was when it said the earth was flat. Tell them we are human herbivores.
Where we stand today is that the earth is being decimated by meat-eating herbivores in service to the Empire this break from sanity (the advent of meat-eating) was meant to (and did) empower!
The meat-eating human herbivore is an OX-Y-Moron (really big IDIOT!) if ever there was one!
Humans have been taught to eat meat in the context of a validating corporate/military culture that spans tens of thousands of years. All that is required to end the insanity (ecological and sociological) is to reveal the truth:
No amount of human meat-eating is healthy...
not for us, not for the economy, not for the planet.
You can look for another 5 thousand years for a better answer than the truth but you will never find one. (Believe me, it's been tried… ad nauseum… it's called the empire program… and this is the result… deception on every matter leading to... death of everything required to support life.)
Hint:
Nature actually depends to the functioning of certain laws (ecological cooperation) to maintain its vibrancy.
Humans are A PART of the ecology. Every creature on the planet could tell you what part of the natural ecology you are, except yourself!
Q. Does this mean that other creatures are therefore less intelligent than humans?
A. Humans are culturally conditioned to be OX-Y-Morons! So, no, humans take the prize for catastrophic ignorance!
The SOLUTION:
Have the TV talking heads reveal these facts and the costs associated with not respecting them…
And, the next time someone like myself tries to open businesses to assist everyone in the transition to a healthier ecological interaction, like starting up a vegan fast food burger restaurant…
Tell the FBI;
DON"T STEAL THEIR MONEY, slander their persons, attack them physically, etc., etc.
Because the infrastructure for dietary and general ecological sanity does need to be built as well as the means to help everyone make the transition.
The answers, all of them, have been prepared… the military (with its corporate arms and policing units) has them blocked. And that's the facts of this matter.
Its a Naz....
I guess you skipped over my other posting of a book I use called Edible Wild Plants. It shows you how you can pick almost every type of plant and make from flour to salad, cold drinks potato you just about name it all packed with vitamins you body needs. Pick up a copy for the area you live in.
Its a N ......
My new house in Canada has a well and cistern. I guess you are going to say I can't do what I want with the water that falls out of the sky into my cistern?
OTHER POSTINGS YOU ARE AGAINST GOV CONTROL BUT NOW YOU POST CONTROL OVER WHAT PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO GROW, EAT. Have fun voting MCCain in Nov.
eat what ever you want. I was trying to say is you can't force people to eat just plants. The other factors such as the tractors that get about 2 Miles to the gallon while working you fields of veggies. Then the illegal people picking your veggies. Cows can go out in the fields by themselves eat sleep under a tree beside your good friends the illegal tomato pickers. There are cheap answers to clean water and trying to turn the whole world into a veggie is not the easy way. How about ban watering the front lawn or washing your car for 2 months every year. Back later got to put more sauce on those Rib Eye steaks. mmmmmm good. Maybe even have some beans with them as well, happy now?
"OR how many can you feed with 114 cups of coffee that use the same amount of water as 2.24 LBS of beef."
I fear you have ENTIRELY missed the point! Is that your intention?
Q. How many people can you healthfully feed with a kilo of beef (or other flesh)?
A. NONE (your 6-8 is absurd! Is that it? People are going to live on a 1/3 lb. of meat, nothing else?)
Q. How many people can you feed with a kilo of rice, fruit and vegetables?
A. 1
What's the difference in water usage?
If the plants eaten were naturally harvested (prior to planned ecological destruction), no water would have been used (other than what was naturally provided).
If the plants consumed were grown by typical agricultural methods, they still would have consumed on average 10% of the water required to produce as much meat.
_________________
"Mr. Berntell said food production and agriculture were, by far, the biggest global users of water and an average of 70 per cent of all the water that was extracted went to agriculture. In that regard, rain-fed agriculture accounted for a large proportion of the water use.
In trying to determine how much water was needed to meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of people that suffer from hunger, the authors of the report had realized that the water requirement for food depended on what was eaten. A vegetarian diet was much less water consuming than a beef-eating diet, for instance.
Household water use, on which people mostly focused, actually only accounted for some 10 per cent of overall water use, while industry accounted for 20 per cent, he continued. Further, one very easy way of reducing total water use was to reduce overall losses in the food chain from production to consumption, from the field to the fork.
Mr. Molden noted that it took between 500 and 2,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilogramme of wheat and between 5,000 and 20,000 litres to produce 1 kilogramme of beef. Applying those figures to the human diet meant that, on average, each person used about 3,000 litres of water daily to meet dietary requirements."
(excerpt from: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2008/080514_Water.doc.htm )
If you really care about the planet and your place in it, plant an indigenous fruit tree or two! And, don't let your water district take away your water rights just to increase control over your naturally determined right to the basic necessities of life. And, most importantly, start acting like nature designed you to act!
! EAT AN ALL PLANT BASED DIET !
NO MORE BS unless you would prefer to eat that for dinner and shower in it to...
~Tom3Birds~ Wow, your comments were an eye opener for me, that is incredible.
Desalination factories
These don't have to be on the shore taking up the water front as some have said. A simple pipe that could even run under existing homes etc could be run back even a mile or more with no problem. Hell if they can pump oil out of the ground and across a country a water pipeline is easy.
Badgersouth 1:39
It is easy dump the salt back into the ocean. With global warming the oceans are becoming less salty. What this is doing is slowing the currets that run around the worlds oceans that control weather. So put the salt back in to offset the water you have taken out and help the salt levels.
Its a Nazi...:
good water use site. OK lets look at it this way
ONE KILO of beef 2.24 LBS uses 16,000 litres 4210 US GAL. of water ( your math is off some) . Now you can feed how many people in a stir fry or burgers out of that 2.24 LBS? about 6 to 8 people.
OR how many can you feed with 114 cups of coffee that use the same amount of water as 2.24 LBS of beef. Plus the paper cup to put the coffee in, so factor in trees as well and the pulp and paper water use and pollution, then the recycle costs and fuel for the trucks to pick up the recycle in front of your house. So it isn't just a single number it is connected to a chain of things to get it from the field to the mouth.
I scuba dive and Lake Ontario was down 7 feet last season. The US is sucking the great lakes dry so some fucker can have a green lawn in the south some place. Ban lawns would be a great start. OR invent GM grass that doesn't need any water. Sorry it has been it is called astro turf.
"Hint if we started RIGHT now (which we won't) how long do you think it would take to construct enough desalinization plants to provide all the drinking and agriculture water we need?"
IDIOTS!!!!!!
These are not NEEDS!!! You are addressing…
These problems are the results of calculated MISDEEDS!!!!
Get real. Get ecologically real!
!! HUMANS ARE HERBIVORES !!
Practicing human herbivores (eating their natural and all plant-based diet) require
!!CONSIDERABLY!!
less water, land, oil, and every other imaginable resource to obtain a much healthier diet (virtually cancer free, heart attack free, acne free, osteoporosis free, autism free...) than can be obtained by consuming flesh and other animal derived foods such as dairy, eggs, etc.
We could not only STOP decimating the environment, we could recover from this megalomaniacal military/corporate program where everything in use must be owned/controlled by an elite as part of the social control mechanisms…
which adds even more waste, much more in fact…
Practicing human herbivores utilize 1/50th the amount of land required to supply the typical Western-style meatarian diet (do you realize how significant this is to water usage?).
So, what is absolutely unhealthy for you and killing you in all sorts of weird ways prematurely;
…is also killing the planet in just as many weird and disgusting ways… and VERY prematurely!
Is anyone getting this???
The answers are REALLY simple. Avoiding the truth is just dumb, really really dumb… worse than dumb!
!!!!! MUCH MUCH WORSE THAN DUMB !!!!!
The production of corn ethanol is more destructive to potable water resources than you might imagine. A typical ethanol plant drains nearly 1,000,000 gallons of water per day from sub-surface sources including acquifers. That continues unabated 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Multiply that by 134 ethanol plants in the USA alone, and more coming online.
This will give you another reason, and perhaps one of the most crucial factors, why ethanol technology is so devastating to our land, our economy and our future. It is probably the greatest scam ever perpetrated upon this nation. The corporate rural mafia here, and internationally, is ADM. Know who the pirates are. They laugh, they bray as our country dies. They and their shills are stealing this country blind. Wake up America. Their scam, their crimes, though not quite so clearly written in blood and oil as the wars of empire in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just as insidious.
The corporatizing of water, of land, of people tolls our death knell as a democracy. The heart of our humanity, our consciousness, in this planetary generation is on life support. Do not let them pull the plug. Stand up now. Speak out to your communities, your organizations, your representatives and senators [if they have any spine remaining, or ears to hear].
Care. Act. Respond. Be accountable and put these corporate beasts on choke chains. Time grows short. Lessons must be learned. There is a balance in the cosmos beyond anything we now reckon. Beyond any metaphor of any belief system. And we are only now, on a planetary scale, beginning to see the enormity of that balance, those lessons, that reckoning beyond description. Our greater family of all life is awaiting our response.
Kem it just seems like it's putting off the inevitable and maintaining the fantasy that we can keep living like this and expanding the population forever. It just isn't going to happen and we need to start planning for life outside the cheap plentiful resource bubble now IMO. We are going to be hard pressed to maintain even a fraction of our current civilization post oil peak, to add another energy intensive operation into the picture seems foolish IMO.
Capture and purify rain water locally that seems far more probable to me, think new middle ages IMO.
Good point of pumping water 1,000 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to our agriculture heartland ~Hootowl~. How much water every minute 24/7 do you suppose could be pumped through a 40 inch pipeline? How about a 96 incher? How about ten of them? __ How about 20? A lot of fresh water with only one.
A lot more water per minute than heavy oil I'd bet and we pump oil from Texas, 1,800 to 2,000 miles to New Jersey in several pipelines, have done it since 1942. You pump water till you fill a reservoir and then fill another one, or allow it to recharge an aquifer. Could we supply all of the water needed that way? Of course not, perhaps half or more. Would it be beneficial? Why not?
~Hootowl~ If I say an idea won't work, it is appropriate of me to explain why it won't work. You ask who would pay for fifty or a hundred or more desalinization plants? Who pays to pump water from aquifers, lakes and rivers, purify it and pump it to the cities now?
If the electrical power were all clean renuable energy used to de-salt clean and operate and pump water from those plants, the cost of electricity would be minimul, it might even be less expensive than what we are currently doing.
Such a program would never ever supply all of our states water needs, but it sure would be a major help and greatly reduce the amount of other fresh water usage. I'm talking about plants large enough to supply all of the water needs for half the population of one state the size of Georgia, New Jersey or North Carolina.
People would still pay their water bills like they do now. If we can afford five trillion bucks and counting to wage an unjust war and occupation of a foreign land, we should be able to afford desalting ocean water. The Navy affords it alright.
Or, we can do nothing and just keep using the water we now have in the same manner we do now until the aquifers and rivers run dry and we then start desalting ocean water. Do we have another option?
Hint if we started RIGHT now (which we won't) how long do you think it would take to construct enough desalinization plants to provide all the drinking and agriculture water we need? How much would that cost? Who is going to pay for it? How much energy would it take? How long can we keep ramping up our useage of energy exponentially? Are we going to power these plants use nuclear power that has intractable disposal problems? Even if this were to work (which it won't) then we will just get more people on the planet and crash harder due to food shortages or global warming with a bigger population. THINK people!
Israel and it's desalinization is a poor model for the U.S. with a population of 7 million people they have literally 45 TIMES fewer people than we do. And no city over a million people. Both LA. and New York City alone have more people in a smaller area than the whole country of Israel.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Cultur/newpop.html
Not to mention problems getting water 1000s of miles from the ocean to our agricultural heartlands.