Thank you for your comment, Tandena! First, let me stress again that my understanding of that topic is limited too (hence the question I share in my post). And thanks for sharing your post, I enjoyed the read! Aligned with it, I don’t think water bankruptcy or resource depletion causes an existential threat. But I tend to think sometimes that focusing on existential only may lead us to overlook non-existential catastrophes… but which are nonetheless catastrophes. Which brings me to a question that underlies the hypothesis put forward in my post: what may be the importance level of a catastrophe caused by global water bankruptcy? This is also why I used the terms civilizational risk, in order to refer to a catastrophe level that is not existential but still large enough to impede human development and slow its pace for generations. But to a lesser extent, I also wonder if the resources spent to deal with even not-that-catastrophic outcomes could be considered as pure lost resources for improving human conditions. In that sense too, I believe water bankruptcy at a global scale may be highly detrimental. At least, the question needs to be answered.
On your question about what the biggest danger is, I believe the main problem is exactly that “we are choosing to pump truly preposterous amounts of water out of aquifers for agriculture” and, though avoidable, this unsustainable failure has not yet been dealt with to date and with no clear foreseeable resolution in the future. Will it then trigger cascading effects leading to humanitarian or development catastrophes? Will they be regional or global? I have no clue. I am still trying to get some more knowledge and a better understanding about all this. And I hope some member of the community will have better insight!
About the cascading effects, I have found one interesting historic example, the Aral sea dessication, within the World Bank archives[1]. Due to river diversion by the Soviets for intensive irrigation, “since 1965 the sea level has decreased from 52.5 to 37 meters. It has lost 57% of surface, […].”[1-1] It lead to the regional fishing economy collapse, but also to health issues and, ironically, declining crop productivity: “While irrigated agriculture and cotton exports helped provide livelihoods for 35 million people in the Aral Sea Basin, the large scale diversions created an ecological and human disaster for the people living near the Aral Sea. Local fishing industries disappeared as the sea retreated, and gradually saline soil and ground-water reduced agricultural productivity and led to the pollution of drinking water. Incidence of respiratory and kidney diseases increased as a result of salt dust blown by the wind and saline drinking water.”[2]
And for the general idea I have of the potential cascading chain, I think a typical built example could be: With these effects reinforcing one another: freshwater degradation & environmental damage creates economic losses, economic losses weaken communities’ ability to adapt, and emergency responses may further exhaust the remaining water reserves.
Thank you for your comment, Tandena!
First, let me stress again that my understanding of that topic is limited too (hence the question I share in my post).
And thanks for sharing your post, I enjoyed the read! Aligned with it, I don’t think water bankruptcy or resource depletion causes an existential threat. But I tend to think sometimes that focusing on existential only may lead us to overlook non-existential catastrophes… but which are nonetheless catastrophes. Which brings me to a question that underlies the hypothesis put forward in my post: what may be the importance level of a catastrophe caused by global water bankruptcy? This is also why I used the terms civilizational risk, in order to refer to a catastrophe level that is not existential but still large enough to impede human development and slow its pace for generations. But to a lesser extent, I also wonder if the resources spent to deal with even not-that-catastrophic outcomes could be considered as pure lost resources for improving human conditions. In that sense too, I believe water bankruptcy at a global scale may be highly detrimental. At least, the question needs to be answered.
On your question about what the biggest danger is, I believe the main problem is exactly that “we are choosing to pump truly preposterous amounts of water out of aquifers for agriculture” and, though avoidable, this unsustainable failure has not yet been dealt with to date and with no clear foreseeable resolution in the future. Will it then trigger cascading effects leading to humanitarian or development catastrophes? Will they be regional or global? I have no clue. I am still trying to get some more knowledge and a better understanding about all this. And I hope some member of the community will have better insight!
About the cascading effects, I have found one interesting historic example, the Aral sea dessication, within the World Bank archives[1]. Due to river diversion by the Soviets for intensive irrigation, “since 1965 the sea level has decreased from 52.5 to 37 meters. It has lost 57% of surface, […].”[1-1] It lead to the regional fishing economy collapse, but also to health issues and, ironically, declining crop productivity:
“While irrigated agriculture and cotton exports helped provide livelihoods for 35 million people in the Aral Sea Basin, the large scale diversions created an ecological and human disaster for the people living near the Aral Sea. Local fishing industries disappeared as the sea retreated, and gradually saline soil and ground-water reduced agricultural productivity and led to the pollution of drinking water. Incidence of respiratory and kidney diseases increased as a result of salt dust blown by the wind and saline drinking water.”[2]
And for the general idea I have of the potential cascading chain, I think a typical built example could be: