On the other hand, a group of people are looking at it from a micro level/individual point of view. Even though mankind will survive and life will go on, on an individual level there will quite a few people who will suffer. Most likely the poorest who are least equiped to handle the changes (and sadly enough those are also the least responsible for the cause of those changes).It all just depends upon your point of view.The thread's subject (in the title) is 'global water shortage', so it seems the macro point of view is warranted. We as a planet are not running out of water. There is, and probably always will be, plenty of water on this planet. Stating this does not trivialize the problems of some people who have problems with water, too much of it, too little of it, what they have being polluted, having to pay too much to get it, etc. It is true that when some people correctly say that there is no global water shortage, and others reply that this is not true, because there is a drought in X place, or because farmers in Y place are having troubles, we have the phenomenon of people taling pas each other. Technology now allows the very cheap production of drinking water, even from seawater if necessary, so there is no need for people to die of thirst, though of course some people will anyways, because of regional conflicts, extreme poverty, inadequate infrastructures, corrupt government, wars, etc. This does not necessarily suggest that there is a lot of money to be made from providing water to these people. And farmers in India committing suicide because they can't maintain their existing farming techniques with the available water does not constitute 'dying of thirst'.Regards, DTM
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat