I share your concern about the profligate use of water and agree that its sources are finite.

Query, however, the propriety of the 25 April Fluids event, involving 2,400 cubic feet of ice. That's a lot of water; where did it go when the ice melted? Did it go down the municipal drain, or was it used productively?

While it is, obviously, true that the oceans are finite, if the Church of Global Warming is correct that sea levels will rise many feet in the near future (speaking in geological terms, of course), there should be plenty of ocean water for a very, very long time. Through osmotic desalination, it becomes fresh water, useful for drinking, crop irrigation, and everything else. Of course, that requires energy, but as we produce more and more ethanol from land previously wasted in growing food crops, that shouldn't be a big problem. Not only that, but as the ocean water becomes less saline through the melting of glaciers, it will require less energy to convert into fresh water.

The problem, upon which few have focused, is that there are just too many people. We, the people are responsible for the consumption, pollution and waste of most of the potable water. However, I have yet to see any serious commentator suggest that birth control just might be part of the solution to many problems, and not just to those involving water. I do not mean involuntary sterilization or other coercive activities unacceptable in a free society. I do mean education on the perils of having too many people. This is largely a cultural/religious matter, and in many societies there are both cultural and religious inducements to have as many children as possible.

And that brings me to a satirical article I recently wrote. I hope that, as does much satire, it makes a valid point which is not totally obscured by the satirical effort.

Dan

You seem to be more intent on drawing attention to yourself via getting traffic to your own article than making intelligent commentary.

1. Ice water watered the lawn of Memorial Park.
2. Loss of glaciers will result in less water for people and animals because glaciers are the largest reservoir of fresh water and not all glaciers are in the ocean. There are glaciers in 47 countries, including Austria and Switzerland.
3. Controlling the population will not necessarily conserve water. If you have low population growth, but insist on having golf courses in the desert the question becomes how many people could have lived on the water and other resources used to maintain those greens. How many people could live on the potable water used for lawns? Further if you live in a country that has high infant mortality or your economy depends upon having a large and free workforce (i.e. a family working a family-owned or rented farm), then educating people about the perils of too many people will be a moot point because it already shows a cultural bias--one of an American used to fine living conditions, good health care in an urban setting within a nuclear family. If you insist on putting water in the desert, thus giving the desert more water than it would naturally get, then there is already less water for those places that would naturally get water.
4. Less water, means drought. Drought means different things in different places. In some countries is means death. We are taking water that went to Mexico and using more than our share so we can water the deserts. We are killing cities. And drought means fires. Fires in the Southeast and fires in Southern California. Some people are worried about places burning to the ground due to drought or polar bears drowning as the ice melts resulting in unchecked populations of seals resulting in problems with the fish populations before the level of water would rise.
I don't think the 1,000 people just evacuated in the Pasadena area (CA) would find your words so amusing, particularly when you used satirical, satire and satirical effort in two sentences in the same paragraph.

We agree that waste of water is a very bad thing. I don't personally want golf courses in deserts or, for that matter anywhere else. I tried playing golf once, found it a boring game, and didn't play again. I do see a lot of merit in using irrigation to make deserts with otherwise fertile soil capable of producing food.

I hope that we agree that all resources are finite, and that waste of any of them is perverse. In most places, water is not the only finite resource; even where abundant in poor countries, the infrastructure needed to get it to where it is needed is too expensive to be affordable. Fertile land is also a finite resource, and over using even fertile land diminishes its fertility and hence the crops it is capable of yielding. Chemical fertilizers increase productivity but cost more money than many people can afford, and even if widely and wisely used can have unfortunate consequences: one such consequence is the pollution of streams by run off during rainy periods. The same is true of herbicides.

A "large and free workforce" may be a good thing, provided that there are adequate education and employment opportunities. Education is difficult in a very poor country lacking adequate resources for it, and finding productive work is difficult for people lacking education. Moreover, the creation of industrial facilities to employ more and more people tends to produce undesirable consequences, including air and water pollution, not to mention the conversion of land previously used for food production to industrial use.

High infant mortality is frequently a function of poverty, and poverty also leads to other bad things, including starvation and general misery for those who manage to survive infancy. Overpopulation is, ironically perhaps, a cause both of poverty and infant mortality. In poor, overpopulated areas, people seem to feel a need to produce more children because they know that many of them will die young, and hope to have enough surviving children to care for them should they reach an age when they themselves can no longer work. With fewer people, and with education about birth control, this vicious cycle just might eventually die a natural death. I understand that in India, education about birth control did not work very well. An interesting experiment was tried, and had notable success: television sets were distributed at very low prices, and soap operas were broadcast during the times when people tended to go to bed. The birth rate dropped.

It is, of course, true that drought makes forest fires more likely. Unfortunately, we have not learned how to create rain or otherwise modify the weather to prevent droughts. The water conservation solutions suggested in your article might help conserve a little bit of water, but even with much more draconian efforts I do not think that many large areas suffering from drought could be spared the consequences. Moreover, forest fires are not completely bad. They produce ash and other by-products which fertilize the soil and permit the growth of new forests. There were forest fires long before man and his wasteful ways entered the picture. Lightning, a phenomenon of nature, was then the primary cause. Now, stupidity (e.g., discarding still lit cigarettes in very dry areas, intentional arson, driving cars with extremely hot catalytic converter emission control systems through tall, dry grass, etc.) is a primarily cause. True, people's houses are sometimes consumed by forest fires, and that is obviously a bad thing, which I do not find amusing.

You state, educating people about the perils of too many people will be a moot point because it already shows a cultural bias--one of an American used to fine living conditions, good health care in an urban setting within a nuclear family.

Perhaps you are correct, and a dislike of poverty and poor health care do evidence a cultural bias. The same could also be said of an aversion to the repression of human rights. However, these are not cultural biases of which I am ashamed. As to the nuclear families living in urban areas, it is my impression that such families in urban areas are becoming less common, at least in the United States.

The highly publicized man made global warming scare is, to me, a false religion with many dogmas and many unforeseen consequences, including the neglect of other, more important, environmental problems - such as water conservation. You may disagree, and I think that rational discussion of the matter is very healthy. It is now recognized by many that the use of food crops, primarily corn, to produce ethanol as a gasoline supplement is not only energy-inefficient but has very unfortunate consequences. The food crops used to produce ethanol are becoming scarce and hence much more expensive. Similarly, the use of land previously used for food crops to grow other crops useful for ethanol production has also caused increases in the cost of food. Obviously, there are other factors as well, such as increases in transportation costs.

I live in a rather remote, rural area in the mountains of Panama. Even nearby, land once used for agricultural purposes is now being used for upscale subdivisions for Gringos and less upscale subdivisions for the less affluent who desire to escape the heat and other problems of the city. Here, there is plenty of water but the delivery infrastructure has not kept pace with the demand. Accordingly, in more populated areas, there are days when homes have no water. Although this area is one of Panama's prime sources of food, the withdrawal of land from agricultural use has caused increases in food prices. Locally grown rice has become more expensive. Some food products are imported from the United States. Corn is one example. Horse and cattle feed have increased from $11.50 to $16.75 per hundred pounds over the past five months, due largely to increases in the cost of corn and other ingredients. Imported wheat is another example. The costs of bread, rice, milk and many other things have increased substantially. I understand that in Panama City, approximately eighty percent of the small bakeries have been forced to close because they simply can't produce bread at prices their customers are able to pay. People must, therefore, consume less of these things or reduce the amounts they spend on other necessities, including health care. Money, too, is a finite resource.

As to my attempt at satire, yes I would like people to read it and think about the consequences of over-population. I think the article makes a valid point which just might produce thought. If anger also results, that is not necessarily a bad thing, because even anger can produce thought. It has been my experience that satire can sometimes be more effective than preaching and other modes of persuasion. Many years ago, I was in Haiti during a bad drought. Where water was available at all, it was so only on a rotating basis, for perhaps three hours per day. During those three hours, many of the more affluent people, who should have known better, caused their servants to use water to wash their cars, water their lawns, and for other patently unnecessary purposes. The poor people, who had neither cars nor lawns, did not do these things. They just broke the water pipes to get a little bit of water to drink, thereby depriving themselves and others of water during periods when it would otherwise have been available. While doing so, they incurred and spread diseases caused by drinking polluted water. There were efforts to preach to them about the bad effects of these things, but they did no good. I do not think that preaching to or arguing with golfers, planters of water loving flowers and sidewalk washers in the U.S. is likely to have any more salutary effects. Satire might have done a little bit of good in Haiti, and it might also generate thought in other, more affluent countries. In the final analysis, people need to think about what they are doing and the consequences, and any mode of expression which assists in the process is useful.

Dan

One of the major causes of the Dustbowl of the 1930s as agricultural practices.

Owen Valley in California is a small dustbowl due to water being diverted to Los Angeles. After this, there was a population boom in LA.

In 2002, the US Supreme Court found that California must find another source of its water due to years of taking too much of its share of water from the Colorado River. Yet there was no mandatory water practices enforced then or now.

The Colorado River doesn't end in the US. It ends in Mexico. I do not believe that the treaty that divides up the water between states even cares what happens in Mexico. There is an effect on the environment and the standard of living, worse than that of Owen Valley. It is not surprising then that the president of Mexico spoke when that country hosted the UN World Water Day.

About 60 percent of a single family dwelling water usage goes to the landscaping. The majority of the water goes to the lawn. Where I live a green lawn in summer requires daily watering or better twice daily. Most lawns use the broadcast watering systems. Actually, the water used for laundry or showers/baths could be recycled to the landscape.

There are regulations in Arizona about watering and lawns, but not in California.

Fires are natural. Dustbowls are mostly man-made disasters. We are in a drought. We are wasting water. We do not have a high birth rate.

Birth control will not resolve our problems in the US and the US uses more of its fair share of the world's resources.

The US also has a higher mortality rate than say Japan or Sweden. The places with the highest infant mortality rates seem to be plagued with political instability.

For your thesis, birth rate, infant mortality, health care, political unrest would have to be considered among other things.

However, as someone who is religious, I am not political nor is my religion ecology.

You seem to be far more interested in generating interest and traffic to your article. As I stated before, when fire causes an evacuation, I am sure that hearing how birth control could prevent global warming in Haiti is not as interesting as determining how to prevent future droughts and fires.

As SoCal isn't the only place under a drought. Have you checked the Drought Monitor map? I provided a link in this article. There are areas in the US that are more severe.

If it is true that the US uses more natural resources and creates more waste than countries with a higher birth rate and lower infant mortality rate and if it is true that water is being wasted in those areas where there is a drought, then I do not see how your thesis has any merit or relevance to this article, satire or not.

If I hear the word "Green" or the prefix "Eco" one more time on TV, radio, or out of a politicians mouth I'm going to crank my AC down to 60 degrees and turn the oven on 400 degrees to stay warm and scream until blood runs out of my mouth... then wash the blood-stained shirt by itself in a washer set to "large load" in hot water with a harsh, chemical detergent.

It's irresponsible people like you who put us in this situation and prevent us from finding a solution.

Grow up and stop the temper tantrum. Or stick your head in the oven so you can commit suicide the fast way instead of contributing to a slow environmental suicide.

BTW, if you knew anything about protein stains, you'd realize how idiotic your last sentence was. Of course, if you knew anything about fire safety measures, you'd know how stupid the oven part was.

You make me think of Darwin.

Keep touting the scientists who say man-made global warming is real (AKA the preachers of your religion) and keep ignoring the scientists who say it is natural and there is nothing man can do to contribute or stop it. It is the way of your kind.

By the way... Remember the ice age? Too bad all those cave men drove SUVs and burned so many fossil fuels that melted all those ice glaciers.

Oh, wait, ya don't think that was (gasp) natural do you?

I remember in the late 80s and early 90s there was a big push to recycle and the hole in the ozone layer and all this mess. A few years later, no one gave it a second thought. The 'fad' had passed, we all lived to see 30, and life went on. All this man-made global warming religion is nothing but a fad.

Let's all now take some stress off our shoulders, stop worrying and wringing our hands over something we can't help and go to a day spa or something.

And Purple, thanks for insulting me and suggesting that I kill myself, leaving my son and wife without a husband and father. Liberals are so peaceful and loving aren't they?

See? If you make fun of anyones religion, they will retaliate by insulting you or belittling you... just like you did to me for my tounge-in-cheek comment. Thats how you rise above us folks who make you think of Darwin; Insult us :)

Sorry for joking about your religion, I'll now go say 50 Hail Gores...

Final random thought: It is funny how so many of us believe in and praise evolution yet get our panties in a wad when we think an animal is going to go extinct. Ironic.

Actually, what's ironic is when logically challenged faithists try to reject rational thinking and make an ass of themselves by getting it all wrong.

To be concerned about not polluting the one and only planet we live on in the face of a rising population and shrinking resources such as oil and now food is surely only wise.

There was a serious problem with the ozone layer and still is but we reduced the amount of damage we were causing by a change in behaviour.

Even though we are living in a time of natural global warming, it's also the case that we are adding to the effect by the cumulative and growing contributions of various actions, such as gas emissions and forest reduction.

Once again, keeping our own backyard in good condition will make for a better life experience for all of us.

The real irony is how faithists love to imply that rational thought is the same as dogmatic belief, which is why they try so hard to reduce it to their own sad level by calling it a religion.

As to J-D's final confused remark, there is no contradiction or comedy about thinking that evolution is a more plausible explanation for how we got to be the way we are than the faithist absentee landlord concept and being concerned that human activity is driving other species, animal and vegetable, to extinction. The only true thing he wrote is that his thought was random!

JD:
Didn't you say you wanted to turn on your oven to 400? Isn't that the same as attempting to die from carbon monoxide poisoning (as per fire safety training)? I only suggested a faster and more efficient means (oh, sorry, that would save energy). Why be offended that I take your suggestion and encourage it? You were stupid enough to make the suggestion, knowing that you had a wife and child.

For a father, if that is even true, you show a lack of interest in the earth that your children will inherit.

You then make the statement that we are helpless to do anything about it so why worry. Obviously someone has to worry about idiots turning on their ovens to 400 degrees and causes a fire and possibly kills other people.

Perhaps the kind of people you associate with consider global warming a fad and recycling a fad, but there are some people for whom it is a way of life. And that is not a religion no more than eating a healthy diet or walking instead of driving.

I know it is very fashionable to make fun of religion and religious people in the US, and so I guess for people with that kind of prejudice it's OK to talk about someone who is popular as a pseudo religious figure. I guess that's easier for people who do not believe in a religion.

You don't know enough about my religion to insult it or I would say you don't know about about religion or science.

Natural selection, evolution and the extinction of animals are related, however, there is nothing natural about DDT or death from consuming anti-freeze. There is nothing natural about the pollution of rivers and oceans or even the heating of water to provide nuclear reactor generated electricity.

You can look at the diversity of dogs and their genetic and in some cases reproductive problems to know that human beings often attempt to circumvent natural selection.