Literally the villain plot from one of the shittier Craig Bond films, but real, entirely preventable over the past decade, and with the endorsement of the biggest paper in the country
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NY Times: "As Fresh Water Grows Scarcer, It Could Become A Good Investment"
- Thread starter Sweeney Swift
- Start date
Literally the villain plot from one of the shittier Craig Bond films, but real, entirely preventable over the past decade, and with the endorsement of the biggest paper in the country
Much like food, this generally continues to be a problem on the horizon that we are wholly dependent on engineering and science to solve.
Pray those smartest among us can find a viable, affordable solution. Particularly for poor nations that will suffer the most.
Pray those smartest among us can find a viable, affordable solution. Particularly for poor nations that will suffer the most.
Nestle already has a leg up on most.
This is a fairly old topic and many corporations have already started positioning themselves for this scenario. Heck Robin Williams joked about this very topic in his HBO special.
Edit: although I suspect that when the water situation gets that dire governments will cease control.
Edit: although I suspect that when the water situation gets that dire governments will cease control.
Last edited:
Alternative investment-idea: a restaurant that cooks and serves the bodies of the rich, with a relaxed, "come all" atmosphere. No dresscode.
One guy who made a lot of money from the 2008 crash started investing in water, years later.
Future is going to be wild for regular people, can't even imagine how shitty things are going to get.
Future is going to be wild for regular people, can't even imagine how shitty things are going to get.
Cease or seize? Both are kind of right. If someone monopolizes water, either the government is forced go "NOPE" or said government will get overthrown.
Water is by far the stupidest and most psychopathic long con. These idiots buying up water think that when it grows scarce, they can go all Fury Road on the populace. It only works because potable water is still abundant enough to be fungible. Even in Flint, life sucks but drinking water can be purchased in bulk from outside the city.
People can go weeks without food, yet food shortages will spark riots. Lack of water will kill in days. People keep talking about guillotines and pitchforks in the context of stagnant wages and foreclosed mortgages; that's a pipe dream. But deny people water and you're basically declaring war on everyone.
Yeah, a lack of resources and automation is gonna cause multiple wars at this rate...
EDIT: There's probably a Titanfall prequel in here somewhere.
Bow to your New Northeast God's!
Making money out of peoples suffering.
Do these motherfuckers want a popular uprising!? Because this is how you get a popular uprising!
Do these motherfuckers want a popular uprising!? Because this is how you get a popular uprising!
People like to shit on Bond films for being too outlandish, then years later shit starts happening in real life.
Quantum of Solace being an obvious one. Tomorrow Never Dies being another with the weaponization of news media.
Anyway more on topic, shits fucked. Don't know what else to say.
Quantum of Solace being an obvious one. Tomorrow Never Dies being another with the weaponization of news media.
Anyway more on topic, shits fucked. Don't know what else to say.
I just watched Top Secret last night and loved that joke.
"I have created tech that can desalinate 50,000gallons of seawater daily. Do you know what that could mean for impoverished countries?"
"Oh my god! They could have enough salt for anything!"
The privatisation of water will cause prices to rise. If capitalism functions correctly and competition is enforced then investment into mass desalination technology may be able to compete in price.
Most natural fresh water sources are not going to be reliable sources in the future regardless of privatisation due to climate change. Cheap mass desalination is necessary in order to limit future climate wars.
Kinda tangential here, but an idle thought I've had for a long time...
I've felt like there will soon become some massive technical solution for regionalized water problems... or at least that a massive technical solution becomes more realistic cost wise given the rising cost of water problems. WIth the affect of climate change you'll have concurrent stories dominating the new of droughts in the (US) Southwest and Southeast, and floods in the midwest and plains. Now, sure, there's a massive mountain range and insane logistical costs that prevent the surplus in one area from alleviating the drought in the other, but ... I'm starting to think as extremes become more ... extreme ... when we tally up the total damage caused by both extremes (insurance), that pre-emptive technological solutions become more realistic. The north east US is mostly reaching water capacity in its reservoirs ... The largest reservoir in New England, the Quabbin system in central Mass (provides public water to Boston and major metro areas around it), has reached record capacities successive years in a row, and the reservoir is currently at max capacity now, draining off into the Swift/Connecticut river system, and yet, 12-24 hour drives away there are localized water shortages at the same time of year. Now, obviously, this is a logistical "impossibility" today because of cost, but as localized/regionalized water shortages become more dire the cost of those shortages increases and the cost of damage (insurance) can make pre-emptive investment more reasonable.
It's one of those ideas that's batted around in my head that if I were a billionaire who wiped my butt with money I'd throw $10b into cost analysis research.
It's not, it's just that anything that is presented without opinion or editorial makes 40% of this forum go into an illogical rage, and being a newspaper, the NYT usually reports stories like this without editorializing on it. I'm sure in the coming days and weeks they'll run editorials about it that have opinions, but that's not enough... for a growing number of people the news has to be editorialized these days or else it's evil.
I've felt like there will soon become some massive technical solution for regionalized water problems... or at least that a massive technical solution becomes more realistic cost wise given the rising cost of water problems. WIth the affect of climate change you'll have concurrent stories dominating the new of droughts in the (US) Southwest and Southeast, and floods in the midwest and plains. Now, sure, there's a massive mountain range and insane logistical costs that prevent the surplus in one area from alleviating the drought in the other, but ... I'm starting to think as extremes become more ... extreme ... when we tally up the total damage caused by both extremes (insurance), that pre-emptive technological solutions become more realistic. The north east US is mostly reaching water capacity in its reservoirs ... The largest reservoir in New England, the Quabbin system in central Mass (provides public water to Boston and major metro areas around it), has reached record capacities successive years in a row, and the reservoir is currently at max capacity now, draining off into the Swift/Connecticut river system, and yet, 12-24 hour drives away there are localized water shortages at the same time of year. Now, obviously, this is a logistical "impossibility" today because of cost, but as localized/regionalized water shortages become more dire the cost of those shortages increases and the cost of damage (insurance) can make pre-emptive investment more reasonable.
It's one of those ideas that's batted around in my head that if I were a billionaire who wiped my butt with money I'd throw $10b into cost analysis research.
It's not, it's just that anything that is presented without opinion or editorial makes 40% of this forum go into an illogical rage, and being a newspaper, the NYT usually reports stories like this without editorializing on it. I'm sure in the coming days and weeks they'll run editorials about it that have opinions, but that's not enough... for a growing number of people the news has to be editorialized these days or else it's evil.
Last edited:
There isn't any private organization that "owns" water or water rights, so it can't really be nationalized like ... say ... the railroads were, and water rights are already managed by governments (in the US). Nations claim sovereignty over their water rights, and within nations, states and local governments regularly sue one another over their water rights; within cities, private companies especially in water-intensive industries like farming regularly go to court over water access or land that has water access. The establishment of, basically, every dam in the US in the last 100 years has usually been accompanied by years of law suits in federal court of one state suing another for the water rights; and the federal government usually adjudicates those.
There are private water enterprises that are commodotized like desalination plants, some water purification/potability plants (though most of these are governmental/municipal in the US... private/public partnerships), and then the relatively small but well known water industries like bottled water or private water use (pools, commercial development, mechanized industry, specialized water uses, etc). The water supply, though, is largely government controlled and public.
Lol it surprises me more and more how relevant the "evil idea" of that film becomes more of a reality
T. Boone. Pickens tried to monopolize the water supply to west Texas. This shit is going to happen. Billionaires are going to buy up access to aquifers and control access.
If you can't earn money you don't deserve to live. God bless the USA
