One of the leading causes of death worldwide, especially in impoverished areas, is water scarcity or diseases transmitted in polluted water supplies. The UN estimates that about 1.1 billion people are do not have adequate access to safe drinking water, and an additional 1.5 billion do not have adequate water for sanitation purposes. Groundwater overdraws are creating sinkholes, ruining the very fields they are meant to nourish, and occasionally polluting the wells themselves (“Groundwater Drawdown”, an article by Kally Worm from Evergreen State College, goes much more in depth). In Mexico City, which is built on an old lake bed, and whose water supply consists entirely of an underground aquifier, overpumping is resulting in a depleted aquifier. This in turn is literally sucking Mexico City down. Parts of the city have fallen by as much as 25 feet in the last century. The Colorado River has not reached the ocean for decades, and several of its basins are below 50% of their capacity.
Free-market economies tend to be exactly as forward-thinking as they need to be. Hybrids did not start getting made until people would start buying them, and even then many models bombed. Huge investments in expensive technologies that are not cost-efficient and are not immediately necessary do not fit into the free-market theory. The problem is that water shortages are huge problems for modern societies. Lack of adequate water often means a contamination of the basic water supply, which in turn means disease outbreaks. These things tend to happen in the larger population centers, and they also happen quickly. But since predicting when they will happen is tricky business, it is not an immediate priority for private business. Which is why we have a federal government.
We need to appropriate funds for massive investments in desalinization technology. Desalinization is the removal of salt from water. It allows us access to a limitless water source. I guarantee you that in a hundred years, desalination plants will be as common as hospitals. But right now they are not cost-effective, and they are riddled with environmental and logistical problems. It is ridiculous to expect a company, particularly in America, where we have a relatively stable water supply (though that may be changing, particularly in the Midwest), to lose money on a technology that is decades from being heavily implemented. But it is the government’s duty to spend enough money to make desalinization cheap enough that it is affordable worldwide. Unfortunately, that is only half the battle. Philanthropists and governments across the world need to begin to raise the money for construction of infrastructure in developing nations. Part of that infrastructure must include provisions for inland water supply.
I’m talking about billions of dollars being spent on something that we don’t need. This is not an easy sell, but it is also an issue that needs foresight, as well as a kick in the ass. It takes a human being less than a week to die of extreme dehydration, sometimes much less. But more than that, many economists and environmentalists have predicted that the next major conflicts will be fought over water supplies. North and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, Egypt and Ethiopia, these are just a few of the countries undergoing water disputes, and the United States’ vital interests are tied in with several of those nations. This is not a sexy idea, and if it is handled right, nobody will probably notice. So maybe it’s a bad idea. But waiting could be far worse. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, “it gets dry early out there.”
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
#1 Population Control
In 1800, according to the History Database of the Global Environment, the world’s population stood at 980,851,296. We first cracked the billion mark around 1804. It took until 1927, 123 years later, for the world population to push two billion. In 1959, we hit three billion, and gentlemen, start your engines. 1974, four billion, 1987, five, 1999, six, and in almost exactly three years, in February of 2012, we can all break out the Siete Billones hats.
Not to belabor those basic numbers, but again, it took humanity somewhere around 11,800 years to pop the billionth cork. It took us just 123 years to double that. If the United Nations and the US Census Bureau know what they’re talking about, it will have taken us just under a hundred years to quadruple the population from two to eight billion. And according to Thomas Roberth Malthus, with each babbling bundle of joy we are barreling just a little faster towards an invisible line. He famously stated that since population growth is exponential (2, 4, 8, 16), while subsistence growth is arithmetical (2, 3, 4, 5), it was inevitable that one day humanity would exceed the Earth’s capacity for food, resulting in what later theorists would call a Malthusian Catastrophe.
I have no interest in hyperbole. Paul R. Ehrlich predicted in 1968 that the 70’s and 80’s would see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, the result of horrific famine and starvation. He was, quite obviously, wrong. So any claims of doom and catastrophe I could make would be alarmist and premature. BUT, I am proposing population control. Strict population control. The American life expectancy has risen by 30 years in the last hundred years, while infant mortality has plummeted. The quality of life has likewise risen, but so has the value of life. We have three times as many people, and we expect them to be better off. And in America, by and large, we have been successful. Many economists would argue that the increased population density, made possible by agricultural innovation, also helped created the technological explosion that was the 20th century. Higher population density leads to increased specialization, which in turn leads to further innovation and an increase in quality of life. Most of the work I’m referencing is Julian Simon’s. He believed that due to market and societal innovation, mankind would be able to sustain any future population growth, and do so comfortably. I believe his exact quote was “we have the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy for an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years.” My simple response is: do we really want to?
Population increases create stress. They can force invention and ingenuity, but they can also put 35 children in a classroom and millions of our citizens on the streets. World energy consumption is projected to increase 50% in the next twenty years. Carbon emissions follow a fairly similar trajectory. The world’s oil production peak will probably be reached in the next twenty years, if it hasn’t been already, and if I live to 85 the American Petroleum Institute thinks there’s a decent chance I will get to see our planet run out of oil completely. Eleven million children are dying per year of diseases that are strictly preventable. One in four acres on this planet has been devoted to the consumption of food, along with one in three jobs, but the pressures put upon agriculture have led to the worldwide rise in convenience food, which in turn has led to a rise in childhood obesity (as high as 50% in some demographics). We can fatten our poorest people with the worst food possible, but our richest people stay skinny by running miles in place.
Change is possible. In fact, birth rates have been slowly declining for a few decades, but still too slowly to keep up with decreased mortality rates. Change can start in America. Our population growth is the highest of any industrial nation, as is our per capita energy consumption (many of these statistics are from Albert Bartlett’s articles “Scientists and the Secret Lie”, a wonderful read). One less American means the world to the world. And I’m not saying no children for anyone. I’m saying less. If a tax credit was given to families that stopped after two children (no negative penalty, just an incentive), or if the government paid for women to have their tubes tied and for men to have vasectomies, who does that hurt?
The answer to that question is, the economy (Bartlett mentions this, as well as reminding me of a great quote, “The chief source of problems is solutions” from Eric Sevareid). Our economy expects to grow every year. Which is a nice idea, but it assumes our population is growing as well. Why does it have to? Why can’t we slow down, instead of being stopped? Why can’t we show, in that most crucial of decisions, to have a child or not, a shade of restraint? A bad idea, perhaps. But what else is this blog for? And besides: in 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically published a population control theory of his own. It was called A Modest Proposal, and it outlined a plan to control Irish overpopulation and poverty: poor Irish could sell their children for food. Now there’s a bad idea.
Not to belabor those basic numbers, but again, it took humanity somewhere around 11,800 years to pop the billionth cork. It took us just 123 years to double that. If the United Nations and the US Census Bureau know what they’re talking about, it will have taken us just under a hundred years to quadruple the population from two to eight billion. And according to Thomas Roberth Malthus, with each babbling bundle of joy we are barreling just a little faster towards an invisible line. He famously stated that since population growth is exponential (2, 4, 8, 16), while subsistence growth is arithmetical (2, 3, 4, 5), it was inevitable that one day humanity would exceed the Earth’s capacity for food, resulting in what later theorists would call a Malthusian Catastrophe.
I have no interest in hyperbole. Paul R. Ehrlich predicted in 1968 that the 70’s and 80’s would see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, the result of horrific famine and starvation. He was, quite obviously, wrong. So any claims of doom and catastrophe I could make would be alarmist and premature. BUT, I am proposing population control. Strict population control. The American life expectancy has risen by 30 years in the last hundred years, while infant mortality has plummeted. The quality of life has likewise risen, but so has the value of life. We have three times as many people, and we expect them to be better off. And in America, by and large, we have been successful. Many economists would argue that the increased population density, made possible by agricultural innovation, also helped created the technological explosion that was the 20th century. Higher population density leads to increased specialization, which in turn leads to further innovation and an increase in quality of life. Most of the work I’m referencing is Julian Simon’s. He believed that due to market and societal innovation, mankind would be able to sustain any future population growth, and do so comfortably. I believe his exact quote was “we have the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy for an ever-growing population for the next seven billion years.” My simple response is: do we really want to?
Population increases create stress. They can force invention and ingenuity, but they can also put 35 children in a classroom and millions of our citizens on the streets. World energy consumption is projected to increase 50% in the next twenty years. Carbon emissions follow a fairly similar trajectory. The world’s oil production peak will probably be reached in the next twenty years, if it hasn’t been already, and if I live to 85 the American Petroleum Institute thinks there’s a decent chance I will get to see our planet run out of oil completely. Eleven million children are dying per year of diseases that are strictly preventable. One in four acres on this planet has been devoted to the consumption of food, along with one in three jobs, but the pressures put upon agriculture have led to the worldwide rise in convenience food, which in turn has led to a rise in childhood obesity (as high as 50% in some demographics). We can fatten our poorest people with the worst food possible, but our richest people stay skinny by running miles in place.
Change is possible. In fact, birth rates have been slowly declining for a few decades, but still too slowly to keep up with decreased mortality rates. Change can start in America. Our population growth is the highest of any industrial nation, as is our per capita energy consumption (many of these statistics are from Albert Bartlett’s articles “Scientists and the Secret Lie”, a wonderful read). One less American means the world to the world. And I’m not saying no children for anyone. I’m saying less. If a tax credit was given to families that stopped after two children (no negative penalty, just an incentive), or if the government paid for women to have their tubes tied and for men to have vasectomies, who does that hurt?
The answer to that question is, the economy (Bartlett mentions this, as well as reminding me of a great quote, “The chief source of problems is solutions” from Eric Sevareid). Our economy expects to grow every year. Which is a nice idea, but it assumes our population is growing as well. Why does it have to? Why can’t we slow down, instead of being stopped? Why can’t we show, in that most crucial of decisions, to have a child or not, a shade of restraint? A bad idea, perhaps. But what else is this blog for? And besides: in 1729 Jonathan Swift satirically published a population control theory of his own. It was called A Modest Proposal, and it outlined a plan to control Irish overpopulation and poverty: poor Irish could sell their children for food. Now there’s a bad idea.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Beginnings of a Bad Idea
My background is theater, specifically theatrical direction. And as a director, one of my favorite tools was the bad idea. If I give an actor the assignment to think of one brilliant action, I generally get crap, as well as a psychologically damaged actor. But if I tell the same actor to perform ten bad actions quickly, without thinking, one of them tends to be brilliant. This blog functions on the same principles. I'm leaving this country to join the Peace Corps. I've been told my departure date is sometime early next year. Let's assume I have 50 weeks. On average of twice a week, I will publish a post detailing a truly stupid idea about how America can move forward. Moving forward could be defined as creating jobs, improving infrastructure, bettering our youth, reducing crime, or improving the environment, to name a few. Most of the ideas will attempt to encompass several of those definitions. As prefaced by this essay, and the title, generally the ideas will be bad ones. So please, feel free not to respond to one of my blogs by saying how bad an idea you think it is. You will be mocked. (unless you have something truly funny to say...in which case fire away). However, if one of the ideas intrigues you, let me know what you think. Adjust, tweak, and reinvent all you like. But in the spirit of this blog, never, ever, suggest that an idea is too stupid to be put forth and discussed. At the end of this year, perhaps one of these ideas will prove to not be so bad after all. If that is the case, where we go from there is largely up to you. But remember, we are represented, at any given time, by dozens of different people who need our support. It is not just right for them to listen, it is their duty.
A final note. In writing these entries I will do my best to research thoroughly and give credit where credit is do, if I indeed borrow anyone's words, ideas, or sentiments. However, I may very well propose an economic plan that, unbeknownst to me, Ralph Nader has been agitating about since 1981. By all means, bring that to my attention. But please, do so as an addendum, not as a refutation. There may well be no new ideas left, just new combinations. What may have failed in the past may work now, and there is no reason why this blog cannot be a dialogue with philosophies and systems centuries older than us. But while it is important that you know I am not a plagiarist, it is also important that you know I will never stop advocating a bad idea simply because it has been brought up before, or shot down before, or was in fact brought up yesterday morning on The View. I'm not writing this blog for credit or fame, and so none can be removed from me (I wish I could say the same for my dignity).
Well, so much for the foreplay. Now, light up your cigarettes, turn on your turntables, and prepare for the Ed Wood of public science blogs. Because what I lack in quality, I hope to make up for in quantity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)