Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Another Kick To Malthus

22 Comments

Huge amounts of freshwater reserves have been found, under the ocean:

Water scarcity has been a favorite topic for the Chicken Littles of the world. Just 18 years ago the vice president of the World Bank was ominously warning that “the wars of the next century will be fought over water.” It’s easy to drum up fears of “water wars” some undetermined time in the future, but studies like this one, and discoveries of new water sources like this one in Kenya, or this one under the Sahara, suggest that these fears that have gripped Malthusians — and that Malthusians have in turn used to push through otherwise unworkable policy recommendations — are a lot less serious.

One less excuse for socialism.

22 thoughts on “Another Kick To Malthus”

  1. It’s great they are finding fresh water and brackish water in geological deposits,
    but offshore water mining should cost to a first order as much as
    offshore oil drilling. Big platforms, big pipelines, giant tankers.

    Right now, Water here from the DC Water is about $5/1000 Gallons.
    or half a cent per gallon. As I recall, last time I checked Oil was running about $90/Barrel.

    Now some of the production costs will be lower, because water is safer and easier to handle then oil,
    but, I can’t imagine it being super cheap.

    I know a lot of environmentalists and economists, they never say we are running out of fresh water,
    they say we are running out of cheap water. In the Midwest, where they used to drill 30 feet to pull water,
    now they drill 300 feet and it’s lower quality. They have to filter out metals and salts. There is an ocean of water sitting off our shores, but, it’s expensive to desalinate. It takes a lot of energy, wether that’s solar, coal or nuclear. The Arabs pay a fortune for water because they desalinate. People even regularly look at
    schemes to tow icebergs to the middle east.

    So Rand, How much would it cost to drill offshore water and ship it to Kansas?

  2. If we work the future right, it’ll be wealthy enough to just make fresh water in desired quantities.

    It’s not like desalination is an unproven technology, or difficult to power with a nuclear plant (which has the advantage of being “sustainable” and “green”).

    To be a Malthusian about water requires you to simply ignore existing technology…

    1. No, it’s an act of Hubris. Remember, the whole “water shortage” thing was created by the Democrats and people like dn-guy. Remember all the stories about “arsenic in the water supply”, and how W wanted to kill children? Desalination doesn’t work, not because it doesn’t produce fresh water, but because it will not be pure enough to get past the Democrats anti-science, homeopathic regulations……

      1. Well, no, the fact of the matter is that if left alone, the Free Market will find a way to drop that price like a rock, as we saw with Lasik surgery, and oil, and fruit out of season, etc, etc. One of the reasons the Left was so blindsided by the ACA, this refusal to face the reality that people will change things based on incentives and penalties.

        1. I disagree Robert. The left knows that people will change things based on incentives and penalties. They just don’t understand the first part: left alone, the Free Market will find a way to drop that price like a rock.

          I do agree that the reason for lack of “cheap” water is the cost of meeting EPA requirements, which created a water shortage. That’s everything from where you can get the water (“You can’t take water from that lake or wetlands”) to the quality of water (“You must test for arsenic to 50ppb, no wait, make that 10ppb“).

          1. Lots of places with contaminated water. Why don’t you move there?

            Heck, Lots of places in Pennsylvania, people are selling their places cheap,
            why don’t you buy them?

          2. Why would I want to live in a blue state? Those are the places people like you Iive, hateful people that lie all the time.

          1. Depends on the Democrats ever changing position on homeopathy. I do know that 100 parts per billion were just fine under Clinton, only to find that we couldn’t have 50 parts per billion under W, or Civilization would collapse. And, of course, my post was how quickly the price would drop, given some free market activity, so that the current price is rather pointless. But you are someone pushing the ACA. You really think you have any standing to speak of predictions? Now, while the country’s health system is going down in flames, thanks to you and your’s? Pathetic.

          2. I remember when the anti-oil lefties were telling us shale oil would never be economically viable. Now they’re complaining there’s too much of it.

            Has any left-wing cost prediction (‘affordable’ or otherwise) ever come true without price-fixing on their part?

          3. Shale oil isn’t Viable below 60/BBl.

            Back when Oil was $10/BBls and the US Economy
            was staggering, $60 seemed inconceivable

          4. Actually shale oil can be economically viable below $50bbl. It’s $60bbl in Canada when you add the carbon tax, which of course was placed on oil because of the religious fear of global warming and because progressive’s love of incentives and punishments to keep cheap oil unavailable to the poor. Also, Canada will have to ship that oil to Japan for refinement, because Obama keeps blocking Keystone XL.

            Finally, oil was last around $10bbl in 1998, when the economy wasn’t exactly staggering.

  3. Personally, I’m more of a believer in Malthus than most here. (With exceptions regarding some of Malthus’ beliefs).

    We were only saved from a global food shortage by fortuitous breakthroughs which enabled higher yield. My biggest issue with the anti-Malthians is this; they often say population growth is fine because we’ll have tech breakthroughs that will alleviate its effects. Personally, I think that’s insane; they are gambling with the existence of civilization that the breakthroughs will occur as needed, and they may not. Why take a risk when you don’t have to?

    I’m also well aware of a very troubling correlation; the denser the population of a given area, the less free it becomes. (look at any city in the USA for proof of this). Conversely, areas with low population density tend to be freer. There are, of course, exceptions (Such a North Korea for a glaring one) but I do see a trend here in the main; more people equals less freedom.

    However, I don’t favor regulations as a solution (they tend to make things worse, in this as in most else). If someone can afford kids, even a lot of kids, and they want to have them, I, or the majority, have no business in stopping them. That’s just not right. (Caveat; I do strongly object to the irresponsible ones who have kids they know in advance they can’t afford – and thus expect the rest of us to pay for. Not only is that graft, they are also lousy parents, in part because they are setting a horrendously bad example for their kids.).

    I do, however, not mind at all that birth rates are falling on their own in many areas – I see no advantage to an ever more crowded world, and plenty of negatives.

    1. “We were only saved from a global food shortage by fortuitous breakthroughs which enabled higher yield. ”

      There was nothing “fortuitous” about it. Norman Borlaug worked damned hard, as did thousands upon thousands of other researchers and hundreds of millions of farmers around the world. They do it because higher yield means greater production per acre, thus more profit per acre. RoundUp isn’t something that was just stumbled upon, nor was Dwarf Wheat an accident. And those researchers and farmers are still working damned hard to get production increases every year.

      Want to really end world hunger? End all farming subsidies in the USA, Canada, China and the EU, and eliminate agricultural tariffs worldwide. Then you’ll actually see Africa exporting food.

      1. Norman Borlaug did indeed work damn had, and thereby probably saved more lives than any other individual in human history. What I meant by “Fortuitous” regarding his and many of the other breakthroughs in yield is the timing; had they not occurred when they did, things could have been much worse. What I ought to have said was fortuitous timing, but even that’s not a good fit, as necessity was driving some of the research. The timing, though, was at the very least very fortunate.

        My point was that I don’t think it’s wise to rely on breakthroughs happening when you need them. That’s one heck of a gamble to take.

        Regarding ending subsidies; I completely agree.

        BTW, Africa (a few countries thereof) does actually export some food items, mainly to Europe. This is having the effect of spurring modern agricultural methods and yields, and is thus increasing their production for domestic needs as well (In Kenya, for example).
        The Greens, of course, are fighting this. They think stopping the exports would mean more food available in Africa, but what it would really mean is less.

        1. What I meant by “Fortuitous” regarding his and many of the other breakthroughs in yield is the timing; had they not occurred when they did, things could have been much worse.

          People don’t look for solutions to problems before they need to. Why would they?

          At that time, leftyists like Ehrlich were telling us we had to abandon Africa because hundreds of millions were going to starve to death. What if we’d listened to them, instead?

          1. People don’t look for solutions to problems before they need to. Why would they?

            Looking for solutions prior to a dire, urgent need is simple common-sense foresight. For example, if your car starts making an odd sound under the hood, do you heed the warning of possible future trouble and take a look and see what’s going on ASAP, or do you wait until it’s wheezing and belching smoke?

            And as a corollary, just because you need a solution is no guarantee that you’ll find (or invent) one. Depending on solutions arriving when you need them is IMHO a risky strategy. Sure, they might, and they even probably might, but what if they don’t? Why take a risk that gains you nothing?

            As for abandoning Africa… I’m all for research, but I’m against the forign aid that does little but empower the resident kleptocrats (Both there and here).

      2. “Norman Borlaug worked damned hard, as did thousands upon thousands of other researchers and hundreds of millions of farmers around the world.”

        Like Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law isn’t a given. It is only possible because of the effort put in by the industry.

        1. Moore’s law has worked very well indeed, so far, but I’d be rather reluctant to take a heavy gamble that it always will.

          The reason? There’s another law beginning with M that is always foremost in my mind – Murphy’s law. 🙂

  4. As long as inexpensive energy is available the world can support its current population and more, everything else can be produced cheaply – as long as the energy supply is cheap.

Comments are closed.