Remember me
▼ Content

how many


how many20-06-2020 01:18
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy? It takes a large number of people to efficiently operate the economy. If the economy isn't efficient can it be the same economy?
20-06-2020 02:20
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy? It takes a large number of people to efficiently operate the economy. If the economy isn't efficient can it be the same economy?


There has never been an 'efficient' economy... Nobody really actually controls the economy, although democrats, socialist, nazis all would like to believe they can. The economy is really something we observe, and have a limited influence over.

Consider, you have a farm. Basically, you can simply toss your seeds out in the fields, and wait a while, until harvest time, to see how well you crops yield. Works, but usually not great. There are a lot of things you can do to prepare the fields before planting. Irrigation, remove weeds, pest, fertilizers. But even then, you can still have years of poor yielding crops. Some years, you might do quite well. Then, you go to market. The price is usually set by the supply, and how many people want to buy. Farmers don't really have much say at market, since if they don't sell, their product rots, or needs storage, until sold. The supply side depends on how many other farmers, planted the same crop you did, and their yield.

The economic stimulus the government just handed out, would only help out, if business opened up, and started hiring and producing. Without working, people would just spend their checks, much of it going to banks and creditors. The products, just empting store shelves and warehouses, supply shortages. Fewer products, lead to higher prices. Basically, another round of stimulus required. We need people working, earning their own money, producing more product to put on store shelves.
20-06-2020 02:42
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Harvey,
Did you actually read my post before you went on your rant about seeds and Nazi's and stimulus checks?
20-06-2020 02:48
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Did you actually read my post before you went on your rant about seeds and Nazi's and stimulus checks?


Yeah, and you don't seem to understand what the economy is. It's always going to be there, people may, or may not die. Nobody lives for ever... Basically the economy is how easy or hard it is to survive. In a good economy, you can work, get paid, buy what you need. Bad economy, you have to do a different form of work, possible fight over the things you need.
20-06-2020 02:56
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Harvey,
Your answer , "people die, the economy exists, and you can work and buy".
I learned this in school. "RTFG". It means, "read the f-cking question".
20-06-2020 02:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy?

Probably millions. Won't happen though.
keepit wrote:
It takes a large number of people to efficiently operate the economy.

Economies are not efficiencies.
keepit wrote:
If the economy isn't efficient can it be the same economy?

Economies are not efficiencies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-06-2020 03:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Did you actually read my post before you went on your rant about seeds and Nazi's and stimulus checks?


Yes he did. It's obvious.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-06-2020 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Your answer , "people die, the economy exists, and you can work and buy".
I learned this in school. "RTFG". It means, "read the f-cking question".


He did. He answered it. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-06-2020 03:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Just more red herrings ITN.
It's time for happy hour. Manana.
20-06-2020 03:03
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Your answer , "people die, the economy exists, and you can work and buy".
I learned this in school. "RTFG". It means, "read the f-cking question".


I tried to answer the question as worded. Sorry, you don't get the answer you want, you just get an answer.

Obviously, you never learned to articulate your questions in school, or attended a 'liberal' school... Have you ever met Joe Biden?
20-06-2020 03:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
keepit wrote:
Just more red herrings ITN.
It's time for happy hour. Manana.


Void argument fallacy. I don't drink.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-06-2020 03:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1795)
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy?

I have a grim question for you, keepit.
If everybody only worked half as much, and only bought half as much stuff (as you suggested will save the world from the CO2 furnace), would that result in the complete devastation of our economy? Um....yes.

How many deaths would follow?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 20-06-2020 03:28
20-06-2020 04:03
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy? It takes a large number of people to efficiently operate the economy. If the economy isn't efficient can it be the same economy?


There has never been an 'efficient' economy... Nobody really actually controls the economy, although democrats, socialist, nazis all would like to believe they can. The economy is really something we observe, and have a limited influence over.

Consider, you have a farm. Basically, you can simply toss your seeds out in the fields, and wait a while, until harvest time, to see how well you crops yield. Works, but usually not great. There are a lot of things you can do to prepare the fields before planting. Irrigation, remove weeds, pest, fertilizers. But even then, you can still have years of poor yielding crops. Some years, you might do quite well. Then, you go to market. The price is usually set by the supply, and how many people want to buy. Farmers don't really have much say at market, since if they don't sell, their product rots, or needs storage, until sold. The supply side depends on how many other farmers, planted the same crop you did, and their yield.

The economic stimulus the government just handed out, would only help out, if business opened up, and started hiring and producing. Without working, people would just spend their checks, much of it going to banks and creditors. The products, just empting store shelves and warehouses, supply shortages. Fewer products, lead to higher prices. Basically, another round of stimulus required. We need people working, earning their own money, producing more product to put on store shelves.


When I lived in a small town a farmer grew product on about 5 acres right near where the river was dammed up to make a swimming pool.One time I saw him plowing half grown vegetables carrots I think and then he planted pumpkins which gre w massive.I asked him why and it was because the price of pumkins was so good and carrots so poor that it was worth switching over.So the market sets the trend.The town down the road Harvey has netting and red globe grapes everywhere the problem is so many people got in to it that the price has never gone back to the glory days


duncan61
20-06-2020 06:42
keepit
★★★★☆
(1689)
Gas,
Real good question. If i remember correctly i was suggesting that work hours be cut in half and that the remaining hours be spread evenly and equitably to everyone. The question right now is "would there be enough hours available to take care of the mechanisms of society and the economy? The other question would be, could the fed and treasury and congress be able to provide financing for this?
The fed and treasury and congress have done a pretty good job so far. Fed chair powell says there is no danger of inflation in the near term. I don't know how long that will continue. It would take an awfully concerted effort if done long term.
20-06-2020 17:32
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy?

I have a grim question for you, keepit.
If everybody only worked half as much, and only bought half as much stuff (as you suggested will save the world from the CO2 furnace), would that result in the complete devastation of our economy? Um....yes.

How many deaths would follow?



Technology is already doing this in a way. The amount of goods produced per man hour conceivably outproduces demand. Is market saturation a good thing?
Take beef for instance. Which tastes better, fresh beef or beef that has been stored for a while?
And how does outproducing demand affect profitability and the pay workers deserve?
The current economic system in the US favors the top 1/3. As the economy grew under President Trump because of deficit spending, the money went to the top 1/3 of the people in the US. The lives of the bottom 2/3 didn't change.
And now in San Francisco, the average home is worth more than $1 Million. And yes, as started by former President George W. Bush, by increasing the value of homes, more money was put into circulation which helped our economy to grow.
With me, I'd favor a 32 hour work week with more of a focus on sustainability and quality of life. But if people don't work 60 hours a week, they don't have a life. That's because IMHO housing is more expensive than it needs to be and as a result, Americans can't afford to buy Made in the USA.
21-06-2020 03:27
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
The number of people nowadays is not the problem in economy, AI and robots will do most of the work in the future . The amount of natural resources and sustainability of such resources however is. Farming is possible because of the topsoil which formed during millions of years and it is being depleted quickly due to industrial farming. Even simple non industrial farming depletes topsoil eventually, that is why historically forests have been cut down and set on fire to get new field to grow crops. Oil, coal and other valuable resources are also depleted eventually at current rate of consumption. Nuclear energy is nasty because of the waste disposal problem which currently has no good solution. In overall the oil and diesel engine are the biggest contributors into economy.
21-06-2020 04:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3376)
keepit wrote:
Sorry for the grim question but how many deaths would result in the complete devastation of the economy? It takes a large number of people to efficiently operate the economy. If the economy isn't efficient can it be the same economy?
I think this issue was faced with the black death, (Bubonic plague) 1346 – 1353, estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population.

The Economic Impact of the Black Death

21-06-2020 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
Xadoman wrote:Farming is possible because of the topsoil which formed during millions of years

No topsoil took millions of years to form.

Xadoman wrote: ... and it is being depleted quickly due to industrial farming.

Nope.

You're not a farmer. Ask me how I know.

Xadoman wrote: Even simple non industrial farming depletes topsoil eventually,

Not when the farmer maintains the soil ... which they all do because that's how they make their money, i.e. farming.

Xadoman wrote: that is why historically forests have been cut down and set on fire to get new field to grow crops.

They are slashed and burned for the space ... not for the soil. Farms can be placed there, or a factory or an entire housing community ... or all of the above.

Xadoman wrote:Oil, coal and other valuable resources are also depleted eventually at current rate of consumption.

Are you under the impression that the earth somehow won't make more hydrocarbons? Are you under the impression that geological activity is going to somehow stop?

Xadoman wrote: Nuclear energy is nasty because of the waste disposal problem which currently has no good solution.

Nuclear energy is totally awesome because it is so clean ... and uranium is plentiful and cheap.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2020 05:28
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
No topsoil took millions of years to form


An inch of topsoil takes aproximately 1000 years to form. It takes an incredible amount of time for nature to destroy rock etc to form soil as it.


Nope.

You're not a farmer. Ask me how I know.


I farm for personal use but tell me how do you know.

Not when the farmer maintains the soil ... which they all do because that's how they make their money, i.e. farming.


No , they want profit and as long the field gives it they do not care about the soil. The depth of the topsoil diminishes each and every year because on industrial farming. It is a simple distribution of mass from the field to cemeteries( dead bodies) , landfills( human feces etc), lakes and rivers( erosion). The topsoil can not form as quickly as it is being carried away from the field. Simple as that.

They are slashed and burned for the space ... not for the soil


No, they seeked for new land to grow crops and other things. Previous land was depleted and they had to move on. Ash from burning wood was good fertilizer but it did not work for long.

Are you under the impression that the earth somehow won't make more hydrocarbons? Are you under the impression that geological activity is going to somehow stop?


I belive that at current rate of consumtion there will be a point when most of usable wells are sucked dry. That is why they constantly seek for new areas to drill. The idea that earth makes hydrocarbons seems more logical than the idea of oil as fossil fuel but as I said I am not sure about the rate that we consume oil now. It seems to me that earth struggles to fill those reservuars sufficiently right now and they have to find constantly new places to drill.

Nuclear energy is totally awesome because it is so clean ... and uranium is plentiful and cheap
.

Are you saying that building the cover for chernobyl was a hoax and we actually do not need it? The first cover failed within 30 years. The second cover they build lately should last a couple of hundreds of years but the radiation is there for millions of years. If it is so clean why cover it?
21-06-2020 08:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7473)
Xadoman wrote: An inch of topsoil takes aproximately 1000 years to form. It takes an incredible amount of time for nature to destroy rock etc to form soil as it.

There are five factors involved in the natural formation of soil. You cited the estimate for natural formation of soil from rock erosion, obviously a very slow process. Other natural soil formation can take 100 years for an inch to form.

But all of that is natural soil formation.

Humans can speed up that process. Humans can grind rock, gather organic matter and mix in inorganic matter as needed. We humans can produce what we need and put it where we need it on short order. We don't need to wait hundreds of years for soil to form naturally. We make it the way we want it, when we want it.

Topsoil is manufactured by grinding up waste organic matter, e.g. waste food, brush, wood chips, leaves, branches, logs, cut grass from lawn mowers, bush/plant clippings, etc.. These items are normally sorted because there are different types of soils, and each type has a "recipe" for its making, each one calling for different "ingredients."

Once the different topsoils are ground up and mixed, they are aerated-stirred-agitated by big machines a couple of times per week over a few months. Each time the moisture levels are checked and fixed if need be. Then they are packaged and sold.

Soils can be mixed to farmer specifications in a way similar to what people do to color-match paint. They bring in the unique requirements for the soil they need and machines perform the required "soil blending."


Xadoman wrote:I farm for personal use but tell me how do you know.

Because farmers make it their business to understand their soils. You won't find farmers bemoaning the loss of their soil because they are constantly vigilant and they maintain it as needed.

Only fear-mongering leftist political activists, and those gullible enough to believe them, believe that farmers are panicking that the clock is somehow ticking on the ability of their land to be a farm. Any person making your claim is obviously not a farmer.

Xadoman wrote: No , [farmers] want profit and as long the field gives it they do not care about the soil.

OK, so you aren't a fan of capitalism and you have allowed yourself to be tricked into believing that soil is some sort of holy, sacred, spiritual substance that is being exploited by evil capitalist farmers who "don't care about it" and who treat the soil as though it were subhuman.

You seem to not realize that if the soil erodes away then farmers can't perform any of that evil profiteering because they won't have any soil to "exploit."

Profits are a good thing; they represent the value the farmers are adding to the world in this case. Farmers = "GOOD" ... not "EVIL"

Xadoman wrote: The depth of the topsoil diminishes each and every year because on industrial farming.

You were certainly gullible on this one. You should have called BS immediately.

Industrial farming ensures soil is maintained. Where there is no farming, the soil can erode away.

Xadoman wrote: It is a simple distribution of mass from the field to cemeteries( dead bodies) , landfills( human feces etc), lakes and rivers( erosion). The topsoil can not form as quickly as it is being carried away from the field. Simple as that.

We create all the soil we need and farmers maintain as needed, creating a cycle of soil that becomes plants that become the bio-matter that becomes soil.

Have you noticed that farmers aren't complaining about terrible soil shortages? Have you noticed that only brain-dead leftist non-farmer activists are screaming about disappearing soil ... that they heard from other brain-dead leftist non-farmer activists?

Xadoman wrote:No, they seeked for new land to grow crops and other things.

Sure, for the space, like I said. They can't use the soil there for farming. They need to bring in the proper soil if they want to use that space for farming. They need to bring in the construction materials if they want to build a shopping center. They slash and burn for the space.

Xadoman wrote:Previous land was depleted and they had to move on.

Nope. You've been led astray. I used to think as you do but I was shown to be WRONG!

Xadoman wrote:I belive that at current rate of consumtion there will be a point when most of usable wells are sucked dry.

Even the ones that are forming now? Even the ones that will start to form over the next few years? How will they be "sucked dry" before they are even formed?

Xadoman wrote: That is why they constantly seek for new areas to drill.

It's why they constantly seek new wells; they want to find them as they form.

Xadoman wrote:The idea that earth makes hydrocarbons seems more logical than the idea of oil as fossil fuel but as I said I am not sure about the rate that we consume oil now. It seems to me that earth struggles to fill those reservuars sufficiently right now and they have to find constantly new places to drill.

Your point is well taken. Nobody knows the rate that new wells form. Hydrocarbons themselves can form within hours given the right conditions ... but we can't control when the earth decides to create the right conditions.

However, I do remember an oil "crisis" almost 50 years ago ... and then fast-forward to today, we have more petroleum reserves than we had back then and the price of gasoline has risen more slowly than the rate of inflation. I could make the case that earth is producing hydrocarbons faster than we are consuming them. I hope you realize that the earth makes hydrocarbons in vast quantities, i.e. when it makes them, it makes a LOT.

Xadoman wrote: Are you saying that building the cover for chernobyl was a hoax and we actually do not need it?

Are you saying that all nuclear energy production is a deadly disaster?

Xadoman wrote: The first cover failed within 30 years.

Who built and installed that cover?

Xadoman wrote: The second cover they build lately should last a couple of hundreds of years but the radiation is there for millions of years.


Millions of years? Ummm, are there any people living in Hiroshima?
[hint: 1.2 million]


Nagasaki? [hint: 440,000]



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2020 16:32
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
Topsoil is almost completely decayed organic matter, and gets replenished in most places every year. Depletion comes from using more of the vegetation grown in the soil. Use to be that fields of corn or grains were plowed under, after the edible parts harvested. The stocks would rot and decay, renewing the soil. Then they found that the stocks had other uses, like feed for the livestock. They also found that burning off fields made plowing easier, and removed weeds.

The inorganic portion of soil, is more of an extender, helps keep the organic material from getting packed down, provides drainage. Plant roots can go deeper, stronger healthier, more productive. Mixing in sand and other inorganics, helps keep the top soil from being completely washed away, when it rains, or floods. True, it takes millions of years for rock to erode into soil. But not much can grow in it, without the organic component, from decay of living things. Nature recycling, and maintaining a balance. Soil is renewable, just as long as we put back, what we carry away at harvest time. Some people want big profits, quicker, with minimal work, and abuse the land, use excessive chemicals. It's not that the soil is depleted, it's been poisoned. Farm science tries to reduce the process to the simplest, cheapest form, to increase profit and production. They focus only on the most basic and essential things they need, to grow successful crops. Bare minimal, but they tend to leave a lot ot, as not absolutely needed, most of the time.

It's kind of the same with climate science. The focus is on CO2, and how burning fossil fuel is so bad, and why. But they ignore that this is a huge planet, and a whole lot of other things going on. All those minor, insignificant details, the dismiss, actually add up, and negate the scary CO2 crisis.
21-06-2020 22:07
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Harvey, I have read that some of the most feritile lands in America have lost half of the topsoil thickness. It does not influence crop yield not so much yet because of the heavy use of fertilizers and that the thickness of the topsoil was pretty big in the beginning but eventually there is a point when crop yield goes down significantly. The other huge problem is using large amount of water from aquifers to irrigate crop. Eventually those aquifers are sucked dry.
21-06-2020 22:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, I have read that some of the most feritile lands in America have lost half of the topsoil thickness. It does not influence crop yield not so much yet because of the heavy use of fertilizers and that the thickness of the topsoil was pretty big in the beginning but eventually there is a point when crop yield goes down significantly. The other huge problem is using large amount of water from aquifers to irrigate crop. Eventually those aquifers are sucked dry.


Likely so, very little of a plant goes to waste these days, and little gets put back into the soil. Depends on the farmer's style, and level of greed. Soil isn't vital to growing at all, some don't worry about it. I'm sure you know about hydroponics, so you can imagine how that could be applied outdoors. Just need a place for roots to anchor, and steady supply of nutrients. Takes some of the guess work out, generally improves yield.

You've heard about compost, right? That's exactly what topsoil is made of. It's generally much richer than plant's actually need, and usually mixed with sand, dirt, or other things, to thin it out some, to get greater coverage. Before chemical fertilizers, composting was a more common practice, like the manure pile. Farms use to grow a variety of crops, some were specifically to be plowed under, a natural composing scheme. They rotated production crops between these fields, so one or more, was getting replenished. Composting takes time, labor intensive, and the results are reliable every planting season. Chemicals, mean they can profit off every inch of land, in a predictable manner. The soil may suffer over the years, but serves the purpose, long as chemicals are used. The topsoil could be restored in a few years, if anyone wanted to, and wasn't concerned about profits.

Fresh water falls from the sky, all the time. Just had about 10-15 minutes worth. Aquifers are replenished, if people let them. Too many people tapping in, all at once. Takes a while for rainwater to seep through, which means standing water, or flooding in some areas. Nobody likes ground water in inconvenient places, so the provide drainage and run off. Instead of a lot of it seeping down into the aquifer, it gets channeled out to sea.

It's not that we are destroying and running out of resources, just managing them poorly.
22-06-2020 01:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13305)
Xadoman wrote:
Harvey, I have read that some of the most feritile lands in America have lost half of the topsoil thickness. It does not influence crop yield not so much yet because of the heavy use of fertilizers and that the thickness of the topsoil was pretty big in the beginning but eventually there is a point when crop yield goes down significantly. The other huge problem is using large amount of water from aquifers to irrigate crop. Eventually those aquifers are sucked dry.




Wheat fields in 'disaster area' of 'dry wells' and 'topsoil erosion' (Nebraska).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-06-2020 02:28
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
Ever heard of crop rotation
22-06-2020 06:37
James___
★★★★★
(3176)
And yet Nebraska gets plenty of water from the Ogallala Aquifer. While that aquifer extends from Texas to South Dakota, the part of it that will dry up last is under Nebraska.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/high-plains-aquifer-water-level-changes-predevelopment-2015
22-06-2020 08:30
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(580)
You Americans have got more freshwater than Australia.
22-06-2020 10:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2415)
James___ wrote:
And yet Nebraska gets plenty of water from the Ogallala Aquifer. While that aquifer extends from Texas to South Dakota, the part of it that will dry up last is under Nebraska.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/high-plains-aquifer-water-level-changes-predevelopment-2015


And why does nobody do anything about water shortages? Freshwater is available, and overly abundant in other areas. Even the states on your list, get a surplus, even flooding at time during the year. Why aren't they saving good portion of the surplus, in reservoirs, tanks? We pipeline oil, why not precise freshwater? Quite a few artificial lakes across the country, not impossible. Not fresh enough, for drinking water? Fine, still good enough to flush a toilet, laundry, irrigation, and a lot of other high volume uses, which would easy the strain on the aquifer, which could then more fully replenish, naturally. Don't actually need an oil-style pipeline either, since the water would be hazardous, mostly canals would be fine. The drought solution is rather low tech, and cheap. Plenty of convicts, that could be made willing to to much of the labor, to pay off some of that debt to society. While they are out, working on the chain gangs, it free's up cell space for looters and arsonists. It's not the lack of resources, it's mis-management.




Join the debate how many:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact