upvote
We've already leached too much uranium into the groundwater for many to drink just from the mining alone.
reply
We’ve also already depleted many aquifers past the point of recovery.

We have too many people to hydrate, too many crops to water in order to feed them, and not enough water. At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.

Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.

reply
We're also not even attempting to be smart about our water usage, particularly when it comes to agriculture. Growing crops in a desert that require significant amounts of water to grow is already pretty bad, then exporting the bulk of those crops overseas adds insult to injury.

Of course, all that is made possible by our pants-on-head stupid water rights laws.

reply
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.

This might be true, but desalination is not without it's own externalities (not counting energy usage). The primary one I am thinking of is the increase in salinity and heat in the local area killing sea life. These issues may be possible to avoid with limited use of desalination today, but a significant increase in volume may reach a point where things like dilution and cooling by mixing does not have the desired effect.

reply
Solar energy is abundant in the places desalination is most needed. The market will balance out once that becomes apparent to constituents. They will vote to fund solar, politics are only a temporary impediment.
reply
> At some point widespread desalination is probably inevitable, but that requires a lot of energy.

We'll also need somewhere to put all that salt. It'd be best to stop the largest wastes of the clean water that we have. We have plenty of water for people and food. We just have to stop the wasteful practices of industry and force them to be more efficient and responsible even though it will eat into their profits.

reply
> Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.

I suspect what we'll actually do is what we always do. Innovate our way into a higher standard of living while simultaneously elevating the poorest people out of poverty and finding novel ways to feed, clothe and house our population.

It's funny how persistent malthusians are in the face of evidence to the contrary.

reply
We’ll see what that looks like in the face of demographic decline and increasingly expensive oil.

It’s possible that some kind of technological miracle rescues us, but it seems more likely to me that we follow the pattern of catabolic collapse seen in the Bronze Age, Easter Island, and Europe in the Dark Ages. Civilization may rebound, sure, but humans have a history of overextension followed by decline (as do all animals).

reply
A very small number of people are taking (and often wasting) the majority of the worlds wealth and resources and harming everyone else in the process. We could probably stave off that decline for a lot longer if we did something about the leeches accelerating our collapse.
reply
If pituitary driven impulse models are representative, than current trends of exploiting generations is provably unsustainable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CXj0AGuh4c

I wouldn't worry about it, and have a wonderful day. =3

reply
Seems more plausible given current trends. lol =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

reply
Wait till you find out how much uranium there is in coal ash and how many tons a year are put in the air or dumped into ground water. Both the ash and uranium tailings are in the 50ppm range, but we make 100Mt per year of one of them and basically no uranium tailings in the US. Globally, the ratio is over 1Gt of coal ash and 10-20Mt of uranium tailings.

One is currently a problem, the other isn't.

reply
Let's also not forget how much fresh water has been ruined with fracking

"Nuclear fission: the worst energy source, except for almost all the other ones"

reply
I have a lower opinion of coal, more than any other energy source. From an economics perspective it also costs 4% more than solar now. There is no excuse to bring back 1800's steam technology.

If you grill, use charcoal because it is short-term carbon cycle neutral.

We have one of the largest global coal deposits, but it is also one of the most contaminated natural hot heavy metal sources currently known. Indeed, the natural run off has already closed many water wells for small towns in the area. =3

reply
and we've collected enough arsenic from a single mine to kill every human on the planet 300 times over in one spot- what's your point? That because we screwed up one spot we should give up?

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Mine

reply
Whoa; TIL. It's terrifying the number of future-time-bombs we keep planting for ourselves.
reply
Not sure why people buried your post, but many water-soluble metal salts are pretty toxic to animals and people.

In areas with natural Arsenic accumulation (or Acid rain run off), farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil.

With low rainfall the evaporated well-water problem can certainly be a serious concern. =3

reply
>farmers will sometimes place rusting iron equipment in the water ways to reduce metals accumulating in the topsoil.

Hoes does this work and related to the arsenic and acid rain?

reply
Would have preferred a better source, but likely a similar process to the following:

https://wedc-knowledge.lboro.ac.uk/resources/conference/26/w...

Best of luck =3

reply
Every miner knows most holes fill with water sooner or later.

Corollary: Every sailor knows most vessels are sunk sooner or later.

Aircraft carriers and Submarines are not civilian infrastructure, and if they sink offshore where no can live... will usually pose less of a problem like buoyant waste barrels popping up later.

We are in the age of bargain conflicts, where throwing gold bricks at adversaries makes less sense strategically. =3

reply
Exactly. Most is not all and the ones that don't have striking traits in common ignored only by a fool.
reply