RE: [pf] Fork in the evolution road

by David A

21 December 2000 13:06 UTC

Kaleopono wrote:
> Looking at it from the perspective of the billions-of-years,
> evolutionary timescale:  if phosphorescent potatos are destined 
> to replace farmers' eyes and fingers for the task of 
> determining when crops ought to be watered, it surely won't 
> matter whether they are introduced today or 100 years from now.
> In the evolutionary timescale, it will still be instantaneous.  
> Taking 100 years will assure ample time for relaxed consideration of > 
> the possible consequences of their introduction, and whether 
> there is really any point to widespread use of this new, 
> manufactured life form in the first place.  The new organism's > 
> behavior under widely varied conditions can be observed and
> evaluated.  With no compulsion to hurry in lunging dog 
> fashion, stress within all parties will be reduced not increased.  > > 
> Life will be more enjoyable and satisfying.

You're assuming the next hundred years will be like the last hundred 
years, and that the next billion years will be like the last billion 
years. Neither are true. One important change, perhaps the most crucial, 
is that the world is coming quickly to a water crisis. (Indeed, it's 
already arrived in places.) You've been forwarding these news items to 
the list--have you read them? Have a look at Peter Gleick's writings at 
the Pacific Institute. 

The world already uses 1/4th - 1/2th of all freshwater on earth, every 
year. There is projected to be an 85% increase (1985 to 2025) in the 
number of people living in "high water stress," to 2 billion by 2025. 
(Even the UN gets this wrong by looking at the situation only on a 
country-by-country basis, as Charles Vorosmarty at the University of New 
Hampshire, whom I just interviewed on Tuesday, wrote in the 7/14/00 
issue of SCIENCE.) The World Resources Institute projects that by 2025 
at least 3.5 billion people--roughly half of the world--will experience 
water shortages (John Flesher, Associated Press story, 10/21/00). And so 
on. Many expect that water, not climate change, is going to be the most 
important issue of the 21st century.

Agriculture accounts for at least 70% of this water use. "Long-term 
productivity [in food production] wis threatened by increasing water 
scarcity and soil degradation," writes the World Resources Institute in 
"Freshwater Systems," c. 2000. As I wrote in an earlier post, future 
increases in food supplies *must* come from increased productivity, as 
the amount of arable land has remained about 
constant since 1960, and will be under future stress from growing 
populations. 

Farmers are not going to be able to irrigate as they have in the past. 
"Making irrigation more efficient is a top priority in moving toward 
more sustainable water use.... Reducing irrigation needs by a tenth, for 
instance, would free up enough water to roughly double domestic water 
use worldwide. " (Sandra Postel, THE LAST OASIS, p. 99) Worldwide, 
irrigation efficiency is estimated to average less 
than 40% (Postel, p. 100). New sprinkler designs and drip irrigation are 
a good start, and while they pay for themselves in the 
long-run, both methods require significant capital to implement (up to 
$3000/hectare). 

Crops in some parts of the world simply fail due to lack of rainfall 
that follow centuries-old patterns--one in every three years in some 
African countries. "Unreliable, uncontrollable, and insufficient rains 
often foil the best-laid plans of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and 
other dry regions lacking irrigation.... Hopes that large irrigation 
schemes will solve the water and food problems of these regions, 
particularly Africa's drylands, are fading fast." (Postel, pp. 114-115) 

Water shortages also affect water quality, biodiversity, and carbon 
storage.

Clearly something has to be done, as a global average. Don't you think 
it's worth pursueing many different avenues to see how each might 
contribute to solving this problem?

David