I vaguely remember that now that you mention it. I can't quite get that synapse to fire though.
A small cascade of wisen-assen-ness. Just what I needed on a Sunday morning in the blue mountains of WV.
WOOT.
I tend to agree , but what if there was running water and the govt took control of it .....
What do you THINK?
I find my sympathy draining with each passing story of their economic extravagances.
Worry not your head my friend, the chickens are coming home to roost, one by one. This cannot go on forever.
I do think we have overlooked the actual price of water. So many aquifers have dropped. Even in my area of Michigan has had wells need to go deeper because of so much irrigation...
Right now it's an easy resource to use with no real thought to the cost down the road.
You have hit a nail on the head WRT to the question of "carrying capacity". It never ceases to amaze me the depths to which humans will dive in the effort to deceive themselves for the sake of preserving a cherished belief or systems thereof. In this
specific instance, many Christians are the absolute grand prize winners. Even in these forums where there are so many otherwise intelligent and smart people of that persuasion, I have read accounts and assertions on subjects such as global population and carrying capacity. Slowly but surely the supply of good potable water is shrinking, your reference to draining aquifers a prime example of the truth that we have, in fact, exceeded the "natural", longer-term capacity of the planet. I seem unable to forget one post where it was asserted that the poster could not wait for the global population to be 100 billions. Right.
Current capacities are maintained primarily through the employment of two instruments: water usage on a scale of declining returns (using more than the sources are able to replenish) and artificial soil augmentation via petrochemical fertilizers and other fortificants (yes, I just made that word up - sue me). If either of those run low, and they eventually must, barring some quantum alteration of the reality regarding their supply, we are in mortal trouble on a large scale. Just keeping this at home in America, if normal food supplies waned by 20% there would be food riots across the land as terrified and angry people murdered each other for loaves. Anyone doubting this need only look back on the relatively minor inconveniences of short term power outages. Even here in WV where everyone is polite and most are well armed, there were fist fights in Charleston when the 1/2 mile long line to the only gas station in town with a generator was the scene, for example, of two men beating each other senseless over who was going to be next after about 3 days of the power being out.
Week-long outages are non-issues when compared with "no food available". Where will the welfare queens get their daily bread, given McDonald's tends to be a major source of food? What will people in NYC do? Will the feds step in, nationalize, and redirect supplies according to "need"? What could possibly go wrong there?
We usually water our livestock from catch barrels. If we get a dry spell and keep using what remains in the barrrels, they eventually go empty. This is something any first-grader sees and understands with great perfection. How is it that so many adults across the face of America fail to grasp this when the fact that the largest aquifer in North America, the Coconino, is running out? It is especially noteworthy and annoying when those people start spouting off bibilical passages that have undergone substantial cognitive massage in order justify as the "will of God" that which would be otherwise and plainly barking mad even to an imbecile.
How can anyone possibly wonder about whether we are beyond longer term capacities, much less whether such limits exist? Given current states of technology, we are likely headed for a brick wall. Will technologies evolve such that we can stave off disaster? Who knows, but even so what are the costs in the broadest sense? We as a species have become fond of toying with the more fundamental fabrics of the planetary scheme and in many cases and ways it has not worked out particularly well for us.
Given all this, how is it that otherwise rational people assert that it is not only morally laudable, but expected that people "be fruitful and multiply"? Saving a few only to kill the many makes as much sense to me as two monkeys humping a football. Not trying to change anyone's mind here - only pointing out some of the flies in the logical ointment.
. I normally buy nothing from Calif , but I could make an exception .
