Do not, my friends, become addicted to water

[Lonestar]

It will take hold of you and you will grow to resent it

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la- ... story.html

In Cape Town, 'Day Zero' is coming very soon — the day the water runs out

pe Town, South Africa’s second-largest city, is facing its worst drought in a century, with its water supply expected to run dry April 21.

They’re calling it “Day Zero.” In this city of 4 million, people will have to line up in the streets at just 200 water stations. The police and army will enforce a limit of 6.6 gallons per person and adopt measures to control crowds. Some experts believe evacuations will be necessary.

If the city runs out of water, it will be the first major city in a developed country to do so.

But a number of details of the crisis plan remain unclear. How would one person carry 26 gallons of water for a family of four? How would the elderly and disabled cope? What about the fact that officials expect there will be insufficient water to flush the city’s toilets?

“A lot of the logistics are not known, and that’s worrying and it’s causing a lot of alarm. We just never get any answers, which tells us there is no plan,” said resident Brigetti Lim Banda, who started a Facebook page on the water crisis. “We are at the point where it’s impossible to avoid Day Zero.”

Last week, the Cape Town city government moved Day Zero a week forward to April 22, blaming citizens for using too much water. This week, it advanced ominously again, by one day.

After three years of drought, towns across eastern and southern Africa have faced troubles, and some already have had to import water. None, though, are as large as Cape Town.

The problem boils down to sharp population growth and a failure to plan alternative water sources to augment the reservoirs behind six dams, some of which are rapidly dwindling to arid sandy stretches. The dams have fallen to 15.2% capacity of usable water, compared with 77% in September 2015.

Here, residents are now rationed to 23 gallons a person each day. But only 39% of citizens are meeting the target. After February, they will be cut to 13 gallons.

“The average ordinary citizen is reaching the breaking point,” said Anthony Turton, a water expert at the Center for Environmental Management at the University of Free State. “You have people saying, ‘Enough,’ and ‘No further.’ ”

“Everyone has got buckets, and we’re using buckets because we have to recycle all the water we can,” said Lim Banda. “We have buckets in the shower, buckets in the kitchen, buckets in the laundry.

“I forgo my shower for three days until the fourth day, when I need to wash my hair, so that I can save my water for laundry and so forth.”

Swimming pools are empty. People with lush gardens are suspect. Householders capture recycled graywater to flush toilets.

Analysts say there is indeed a serious risk the city will run dry.

<snip>

Capetown is running out of water so quickly that severe rationing is going into effect Friday, and which will incrementally decrease until "Zero Day in April.

This is right about when you get out of town and crash at a relative's house.

[MKSheppard]

This is actually pretty interesting, because Cape Town is one of the few holdouts against near universal ANC rule in South Africa; so there's that added onto general incompetence.

[K. A. Pital]

When I told Simon that next thing in capitalist development would be water shortages and inevitable water riots and stuff, I did not think the days would run so quickly.

But it’s fine, we got bottled Brawndo. It’s got electrolytes.

[Broomstick]

Right... because drought and abandoning cities due to lack of water never occurred in history prior to capitalism....

It's about location, not capitalism. There are cities like Chicago that are not going to run out of water for the foreseeable future because they are located next to one of the biggest freshwater lakes in the world, or Buffalo or Detroit for the same reasons, or St. Louis because it's on one of the largest rivers in the world. Granted, those places might have issues with the quality of the water, but water doesn't have to be potable to flush the toilet.

Other places, like LA or Las Vegas or, yes, apparently Cape Town, have seen their populations exceed the local supply of fresh water. That's not capitalism, that's population growth. It happens under other governmental systems - the Soviets had a good go at draining the Aral Sea, for example. Chad, Niger, Nigeria, and Cameroon have sucked dry Lake Chad. Over half of Lake Urmia in Iran is gone. Rinse and repeat all over the world.

Between climate change and growing population a lot of placed are exceeding the natural water sources in their areas. If they can't bring more in from somewhere else they'll run dry. Even if they do pipe it in from elsewhere, elsewhere can also run dry. It's not a capitalism problem, it's a too damn many people problem.

[TheFeniX]

As Broomstick pointed out better than me, this is not an issue with people paying homage to Saint Reagan at the Las Vegas Fountains.

If you grew up in a culture where the toilets flush gallons of water and showering is a part of daily life, making a shift is a big deal. It's not just the social aspects, but the economic ones as switching to either low flow toilets or something completely different costs money, and plumbers aren't cheap. Same thing for the bathing area. Then there's the habit, it took me quite a while (when I made the decision) to NOT flush the toilet every time I urinated in it. I usually wait 2-4 times, more if I've been drinking tea/water because I was raised to always flush the toilet.

And if you don't handle these things right, sanitation becomes an issue. And that leads to all sorts of problems. Disease being a big one. And it spreads around because when making the choice between defecating in a toilet and letting it sit or shitting in a garbage bag and leaving sanitation workers to deal, it's not pretty.

I don't know man, I really enjoy some of our conversations, but there are times I just kind of chuckle and think "MUST. CRUSH. CAPITALISM." when I read your posts.

[K. A. Pital]

Right... because drought and abandoning cities due to lack of water never occurred in history prior to capitalism....

Attacking my point before learning my point with sarcasm? Maybe first listen to what was said?

It's about location, not capitalism.

Sure, as you say.

That's not capitalism, that's population growth.

As if it wasn't capitalism that enabled extremely rapid population growth and concentration of people into megaslums like that... Oh wait.

It happens under other governmental systems - the Soviets had a good go at draining the Aral Sea, for example.

Industrial socialism copies capitalism. Unsurprising.

Between climate change and growing population a lot of placed are exceeding the natural water sources in their areas. If they can't bring more in from somewhere else they'll run dry. Even if they do pipe it in from elsewhere, elsewhere can also run dry. It's not a capitalism problem, it's a too damn many people problem.

Malthusian approach detected, but connection between capitalism and explosive population growth is not made. Strange. And sure, climate change totally unrelated to capitalism. Like, not even close.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Malthusian approach detected, but connection between capitalism and explosive population growth is not made. Strange. And sure, climate change totally unrelated to capitalism. Like, not even close.

First of all, capitalism did not cause explosive human population growth. Decreased child mortality did that. We are in the middle of a demographic transition as a result of that, but it takes several generations for that to bear out, and human generation times are long.

Second: Rivers are over-utilized. This happens due to domestic and industrial reasons, as well as agriculture. Are you suggesting we don't grow food? Yes, there are certainly better ways to do agriculture in drought prone regions, but this would be a problem under any communist system with equivalent population.

For example, I live in AZ, which gets most of it's water from the Salt River and Colorado River basins. We share this water with Nevada, California, and Mexico, such that already the Colorado River does not reach the sea anymore with any regularity. Climate change is going to fuck us. This has nothing to do with capitalism in any way that isn't purely speculative alt history and autofellatio.

Also: Don't sit there and try to tell me that True Communism(tm) isn't going to be industrial.

[Broomstick]

Yes, surprise surprise - the areas with the worst water stress are either desert or high population - and as Alyrium pointed out it wasn't capitalism that enabled greater populations it was better sanitation and public health. Which, I might add, socialist/communist governments adopted with enthusiasm, possibly more so than capitalist societies, one of which STILL insists citizens purchase even basic health care rather than having it as a right and government utility.

Sorry, this is NOT one you can lay at the feet of capitalism. Don't be a one-hit wonder.

[Tribble]

Also, overpopulation and over-extraction of resources is nothing new in history. Hell, it's not even unique to humans - most if not all species will eventually overpopulate and exceed the carrying capacity of their environment if there are not enough things keeping their population in check.

And there is a theoretical long-term solution; build enough desalination plants, problem solved. Of course, that raises its own problems (namely cost, energy use and what to do with all that brine) but it can be done.

[K. A. Pital]

Look guys, I see your points. You are basically saying that 200 years after the scientific revolution, our civilization is just as dumb and pathetic as Easter Island, about to cause ecological destruction on itself. That is an indictment, not an excuse, I hope you do realize. If capitalism is no better than the Maya or Ganges civilization and puts mankind on track for catastrophic water shortages because “exceeding carrying capacity” is an uncontrollable tumorous growth, what exactly are you trying to say? “It is the fault of man, do not blame the system?” But bear with me a bit.

Soft drink production that destroys water reserves for the poorest and most vulnerable populations is a capitalist thing, or just a thing? Bottled still water is a capitalist thing, or just a thing?

Answer honestly. I was honest in saying industrial socialism sucks, because it replicates the problems found in industrial capitalism. Now it is your turn


A final note: a plastic bottle of soft drink is estimated to have a water footprint of between 200l and 300 l total water consumed to produce 1l of soft drink.

Is soft drink a “general human thing”, or a capitalist thing?

You said “water is used for agriculture, should we stop growing food?” - I say, think long and hard about supply chains and what exactly is it that you are producing. After all, Ferrero uses 25% of world production of nuts, maybe more by now, to make a definitive luxury product intended only for the rich. Similar revelations may await in other sectors.

In the evening I shall come with some statistics on sugarcane production and consumption- till then, I will hear your kind objections to my judgment out.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You've basically already admitted that your issue is with industrialization, not capitalism per se. I don't think saying that a lot of the world's current environmental and resource issues are rooted in industrialization is exactly a profound statement. Nor do I think there is any compelling evidence you could present that industrialization would never have happened in a non-capitalist system. I also don't think it's at all helpful or profound to say, "Well, if we had only all lived in a network of autonomous agrarian communes this past 200 years we wouldn't be having this problem lol".

[K. A. Pital]

You've basically already admitted that your issue is with industrialization, not capitalism per se.

I asked a direct specific question, sugary plastic bottled soft drinks are an industrial necessity? A general human thing, or a specific capitalist thing?

Bottled still water is a necessity for an industrial society, or a wasteful luxury that is specifically capitalistic?

Do let me know, and get off the high horse. I told you to look at the supply chain and ask what it is that we are producing, what are the outputs from water-intensive sectors of industrialized agriculture.

This is not a game of Starcraft and we are not Zerg, and the goal is not to maximize the swarm headcount.

You know what’s not helpful at all? Accepting the status quo and refusing to examine what you are producing.

[Kane Starkiller]

I asked a direct specific question, sugary plastic bottled soft drinks are an industrial necessity? A general human thing, or a specific capitalist thing?

Bottled still water is a necessity for an industrial society, or a wasteful luxury that is specifically capitalistic?

Craving for quick and easy source of sugar and water is a general human (animal) thing.
Putting instant gratification over long term consequences that won't directly impact you personally is a general human (animal) thing.
Creating societies with affluence without precedent in human history is a specific capitalist thing.

Combining deep seated human instincts with unprecedented affluence often leads to misuse of certain resources but it's not the fault of capitalism.

Hope that clears things up.

[K. A. Pital]

Are you saying there is a scientifically known, proven urge to drink Coca Cola, because quick sugars and aromatizers are known to be very addictive for humans, and the corporation and the order which produced the corporation, are therefore both blameless?

Just so you dig that grave deeper, you know.

So, knowingly abusing a scientifically proven addiction to enrich yourself, wrecking the ecosystem in the process, means corporations are blameless and capitalism is blameless.

I will record it for the future.

[ray245]

Are you saying there is a scientifically known, proven urge to drink Coca Cola, because quick sugars and aromatizers are known to be very addictive for humans, and the corporation and the order which produced the corporation, are therefore both blameless?

Just so you dig that grave deeper, you know.

So, knowingly abusing a scientifically proven addiction to enrich yourself, wrecking the ecosystem in the process, means corporations are blameless and capitalism is blameless.

I will record it for the future.

Such a thing will happen in any other system which have some sort of power structure. Giving the masses what they want and not what they need is a long standing issue for any human society.

[Kane Starkiller]

Are you saying there is a scientifically known, proven urge to drink Coca Cola, because quick sugars and aromatizers are known to be very addictive for humans, and the corporation and the order which produced the corporation, are therefore both blameless?

Just so you dig that grave deeper, you know.

So, knowingly abusing a scientifically proven addiction to enrich yourself, wrecking the ecosystem in the process, means corporations are blameless and capitalism is blameless.

I will record it for the future.

I think I was pretty clear in what I was saying: The capitalist system is the best economic system in human history. If you want to produce affordable chicken and eggs it's best at it. If you want to produce affordable information systems it's best at it. And if you want to produce unhealthy shit like Coca Cola and then pack it into wasteful 0.5l bottles it's best at it too.

Human beings being shaped by ages of scarcity want to turn themselves into big balls of fat and hoard whatever there is to hoard. Capitalism makes that happen.

[Simon_Jester]

Are you saying there is a scientifically known, proven urge to drink Coca Cola, because quick sugars and aromatizers are known to be very addictive for humans, and the corporation and the order which produced the corporation, are therefore both blameless?

Just so you dig that grave deeper, you know.

So, knowingly abusing a scientifically proven addiction to enrich yourself, wrecking the ecosystem in the process, means corporations are blameless and capitalism is blameless.

I will record it for the future.

Such a thing will happen in any other system which have some sort of power structure. Giving the masses what they want and not what they need is a long standing issue for any human society.

Command economies often manage to do neither.

The USSR did not supply its population with a cola analogue, but it did have soft drinks. If they'd had the recipe for something as tasty as cola and access to the ingredients, they would very likely have created the stuff.

It might not have let an aquifer run dry to supply a cola bottling plant, but it did let a lake run dry to sustain vast amounts of relatively inefficient agriculture on marginal land.

I think I agree that the 'problem' here is industrialization itself, not capitalism. The possibility of consuming the entirety of a land's resources to fuel the achievement of human goals, be those goals wise or foolish, causes this consumption to occur.

[ray245]

Command economies often manage to do neither.

The USSR did not supply its population with a cola analogue, but it did have soft drinks. If they'd had the recipe for something as tasty as cola and access to the ingredients, they would very likely have created the stuff.

It might not have let an aquifer run dry to supply a cola bottling plant, but it did let a lake run dry to sustain vast amounts of relatively inefficient agriculture on marginal land.

I think I agree that the 'problem' here is industrialization itself, not capitalism. The possibility of consuming the entirety of a land's resources to fuel the achievement of human goals, be those goals wise or foolish, causes this consumption to occur.

Yeah, I don't think this is about blaming any ideology. The desire ( be it to give people more cola or to increase production of food to feed more starving people) exceeds the resources available.

We should ask whether living in an industrialised society is inherently sustainable.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it can be arranged to be so, and I think we can learn to make it so.

I actually do think a competently administered command economy might well do a lot better at this than a capitalist economy.

The problem is that any given command economy tends to fall into the hands of people who act like a bunch of gangsters and conspire to murder or at least expel from power the sort of people who could competently administer the command economy.

[K. A. Pital]

i think I was pretty clear in what I was saying: The capitalist system is the best economic system in human history. If you want to produce affordable chicken and eggs it's best at it. If you want to produce affordable information systems it's best at it. And if you want to produce unhealthy shit like Coca Cola and then pack it into wasteful 0.5l bottles it's best at it too.

No, you are just doging the issue. Is a system encouraging to make profit on scientifically known addictive substances while wrecking the environment blameless? Do not try to dodge the question, we are not in preschool here.

Human beings being shaped by ages of scarcity want to turn themselves into big balls of fat and hoard whatever there

Which human beings, though? The ones suffering from water scarcity? Or despicable shitpieces like you? Choice is yours.

Such a thing will happen in any other system which have some sort of power structure. Giving the masses what they want and not what they need is a long standing issue for any human society.

Really? Why don’t we just drug the masses? You know junkies just want more of the same, right? Or wait, perfect analogy! They are drugged, we are talking about addiction here.

But the cartel is blameless! The system is blameless!

What a sad, sad day.

[Kane Starkiller]

No, you are just doging the issue. Is a system encouraging to make profit on scientifically known addictive substances while wrecking the environment blameless? Do not try to dodge the question, we are not in preschool here.

No I am exposing your attempts at obfuscating the difference between an economic system and human nature. Nothing about capitalist system requires that there be Coca Cola factories. These same efficient factories and organizational capabilities could've been used to produce milk.
And in the absence of a capitalist system you can drink yourself to death with moonshine as citizens of good ole USSR were fond of doing.
Don't drink moonshine. Don't drink Coca Cola.

Which human beings, though? The ones suffering from water scarcity? Or despicable shitpieces like you? Choice is yours.

Man if you were a dog you would be a Chihuahua, just a small ball of quivering, impotent, misdirected rage. How about trying to make a logical argument instead of pretending that anyone that's not buying your melodramatic, sniveling rants about capitalism or the West is Scrooge McDuck.

[K. A. Pital]

No I am exposing your attempts at obfuscating the difference between an economic system and human nature.

Which human nature, the hunter-gatherer one? Blame it on the hunter-gatherers? I don't see tribal societies building Coca Cola plants, sorry. Which means human nature doesn't encourage people to profit on scientifically proven addictive substances while destroying the environment. Must be something else.

Nothing about capitalist system requires that there be Coca Cola factories.

But they exist. They are also placed in water-scarce regions, just to make the picture complete. You can't just bullshit here "hurhurhur nothing demands there be Coca Cola factories" when Coca Cola controls like half the world's soft drink market and uses up 14% of the world's sugar. How would that even exist without massive demand inside the system? Idiot. That's like saying "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be coal mines" or "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be shipyards" or "nothing about the capitalist system demands that there be oil wells". Sure, you can say that, but who's gonna believe you? I don't.

These same efficient factories and organizational capabilities could've been used to produce milk.

Except they are used to produce Coke, which has caused you to show up in this thread and start spewing nonsense. "But nothing demands they should exist", waaah waaah.

And in the absence of a capitalist system you can drink yourself to death with moonshine

There are many ways to drink yourself to death indeed, but home production of moonshine does not destroy the freshwater reserves of the Earth. I mean, there's much to be said about the alco industry, too, but let's not pretend the soft drink industry is blameless, or the system is blameless, or individual actors are blameless. That's just childish nonsense, and you're sour. Don't be - Coke has the solution for you:

...the head of marketing for Coca-Cola in Egypt, said, “We have young generations who can consume any kind of food and beverage; [they’re] not caring about their health yet.”

[Vendetta]

And in the absence of a capitalist system you can drink yourself to death with moonshine as citizens of good ole USSR were fond of doing.
Don't drink moonshine. Don't drink Coca Cola.

I think you're missing the point about the ecological impact of production, and how capitalist systems encourage short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.

[K. A. Pital]

So, some things I'd like to share ITT, as it shapes up nicely to be a good one.

First off, how's that 70% of water used up by worldwide industrial agriculture divided? The following infographic from Oxfam can give a glimpse:

As one can see, sugar cane occupies an important spot just behind the staple foods which are used to feed 90% of the world's population and livestock. Over 50% of world sugar is used by the processed foods industry (more aptly it should be called "junk food industry") - soft drinks, sweets, ice cream and the like.

In fact, in natural equivalent there's a greater mass of sugar cane produced physically than that of the staple crops. Sugar cane also has industrial uses - Coca Cola makes partially degradable bottles from it - which increases the water footprint of the final product. Just as using smaller plastic bottles also does, but that's another topic alltogether.

Also, please do tell me how capitalism isn't related to the need for unstoppable economic growth... which in turn isn't related to global climate change... and global climate change isn't related to turning the Middle East and Africa into uninhabitable wastelands with catastrophic consequences for some of the most densely populated nations on Earth.

I mean, try as I may, I can't imagine this happening in a pre-capitalist society. That's world-scale shit we're talking about, so of course it's related to the system. Is there another system that could support a global industry of such scale that it is powerful enough to wipe certain countries and territories off the face of the Earth by merely continuing to operate?

[Ziggy Stardust]

KA: As soon as I posted this, I saw that you had posted again in this thread. At the moment I have to run and don't have time to read your latest post, so my apologies in advance if you addressed any of the points I am about to raise.

I asked a direct specific question, sugary plastic bottled soft drinks are an industrial necessity? A general human thing, or a specific capitalist thing?

I never said they were an industrial necessity. Whether or not they are a necessity or luxury is really besides the point, because luxuries exist and are produced in non-capitalist societies as well. The onus is on YOU to PROVE it is a specific capitalist thing, not wave your hands and say capitalism created the problem then act incredulous when people don't take you on good faith that this is so. The Soviet Union product its own soft drinks, though I suppose you are going to pull another 'No True Scotsman' fallacy out of your back pocket, moving the goalposts to further obfuscate the issue as you ave thus far.

Bottled still water is a necessity for an industrial society, or a wasteful luxury that is specifically capitalistic?

This is a false dichotomy. These are not the only two options, as I know you are smart enough to be aware of.

Do let me know, and get off the high horse. I told you to look at the supply chain and ask what it is that we are producing, what are the outputs from water-intensive sectors of industrialized agriculture.

Mighty ironic you are talking about a high horse, given your utter refusal to provide evidence for your claims in this thread. Again, YOU are making claims, the onus is on YOU to provide factual support for the fact that these problems would not exist in a non-capitalist system. All you have done is spam graphics that show the problem exists; it is ridiculous that you think this is satisfactory. Nobody is denying the problem exists, so posting figures that show it exists is irrelevant.

You need to demonstrate why capitalism is a sufficient and necessary condition for these problems to arise, and why an alternative system would have avoided these problems.

This is not a game of Starcraft and we are not Zerg, and the goal is not to maximize the swarm headcount.

You know what’s not helpful at all? Accepting the status quo and refusing to examine what you are producing.

Where did I say I was accepting the status quo? Where did I even imply that I at all condoned this state of affairs? I only challenged your assertion that this is a problem UNIQUE to capitalism. I know you are smart enough to realize the distinction between these statements, so I'd appreciate if you didn't strawman my positions.

The sad thing is that Vendetta, in a single sentence, has actually made a more coherent and cogent argument in support of your position than you have in this entire thread, since you have so far elected to follow the MKSheppard school of debate by spamming irrelevant statistics and ranting hyperbolically. As Vendetta said:

I think you're missing the point about the ecological impact of production, and how capitalist systems encourage short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.

See? Now that actually IS a good point, and getting at the actual heart of the problem, as opposed to you just hurling fallacies at strawmen as fast as you can build them. I think it IS possible to construct an argument around this point, although I think there would still need to be a good deal of elaboration on how any alternative economic structure would have avoided the same pitfalls. After all, the relative inability of humans to think long-term has plagued us for far longer than capitalism has existed. So the onus is on looking at the ways that capitalism encourages or amplifies this tendency, in comparison to alternative systems.

(I emphasize this last point because it is the one you seem to have a hard time understanding in this thread ... the point isn't to point at the problem, see that it is bad, and say "capitalism is bad". The point is to COMPARE it to what would have happened under a different system. Without that comparison, you literally have no argument other than pedagogy.)