Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

the whole Middle East is going to be involved in water wars in a few decades.

I would bet money that this will not come to pass.

What is your reasoning for that? The Middle East population is growing and their water supply isn't. Turkey and Israel are holding (and to some degree, withholding) the meaningful rivers, and the only nation in the region with large scale desalination operations is the UAE. Combined with the growing political instability in the region and that both Israel and Turkey are politically distant from the rest of the Middle Eastern nations (the former because of Palestine and religious conflict as a whole, the latter because Turkey is trying to warm up to Europe instead of their southern neighbors); war seems inevitable.

The water is going to run out, and people aren't going to die of dehydration without a fight; even if that fight is against other people.

[mainiac]

Because there are plenty of ways that crises can be averted and they have the money to do it.  Wars over water would be ridiculously counter productive.  If there was a humanitarian crises you'd be more likely to see widespread immigration then water wars engulfing the region.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

These wars probably aren't going to be explicitly over water, but the Iraq War wasn't explicitly over oil. That doesn't change the true nature of the conflict.

[MrWiggles]

There's no reason to fight over fresh water. Its a solvable issue to desalinate water on industrial scale. And considering most major population centers are less then 100 miles from a coast, desalination is the obvious way to go.

There's a video on Google's Solve for X, where there a person that has a pretty sound plan for industrial scale desalination.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no reason to fight over fresh water.

When you've got rational, somewhat non-corrupt governments? Sure. Too bad that's mostly not true in the Middle East. 

Its a solvable issue to desalinate water on industrial scale. And considering most major population centers are less then 100 miles from a coast, desalination is the obvious way to go.

It takes a lot of energy, and energy costs money. I just don't think it can be pulled off in places like Syria. Saudi Arabia is a tossup, because that all hinges on the progression of the oil industry. If it doesn't crash for a while, sure. If not; it'll be anarchy.

[Frumple]

the whole Middle East is going to be involved in water wars in a few decades.

I would bet money that this will not come to pass.

Seriously though maniac, give me a more solid number on "few decades" and I'll take that bet. Maybe have it passed down via estate or something after death, if it's too far into the future.

I'm saying... ten USD we have violence over water shortages in that area in question in... 50 years. Double or nothing for full out war by 2100, barring technological advances rendering the issue moot.

I won't even take the skwiggly route to it. Explicit conflict over water.

And while we're taking that bet, I'll put another 10 down for no conflict against anyone that wants to take the bet. Anyone? I'm feeling hedgey.

Because there are plenty of ways that crises can be averted and they have the money to do it.

Problem: Ascribing foresight to people in power and them actually attempting to avert anything. Prediction: Great deals of "Got Mine" in the future and thirsty thirsty poor people.

There's no reason to fight over fresh water. Its a solvable issue to desalinate water on industrial scale. And considering most major population centers are less then 100 miles from a coast, desalination is the obvious way to go.

Has anyone done it, though? Is it economically viable yet? Mostly playing devil's advocate with this, but it's a serious subject I haven't noticed much public awareness of yet. Population vs water supply is another one of those potential issues coming up the road, especially with ol' global warming saying "Hi~"

[MrWiggles]

It only takes a lot of energy if you're going to use Hydraulic Fed Water through Desalinating membranes (I cant remember the techinal term for that), or boiling water to desalinate.

But there smarter ways to do it, like in the video I spoke up. It idea is to just use different salts, create a super salinated draw solution. Then the amount of heat/energy needed to transform the salts into a gas (and that desalinate the water), is much less then boiling the water itself. The salts can then be cooled and reused to be mixed back into the draw solution.

As for the populations that are further away from the coast, welp I guess we can just go back to irrigation and aqueducts. If you're already desalinating all the water you need, then transporting it is a trival issue, as it's engineering and logistical issues have ready to go solutions.

There's no reason to fight over fresh water. Its a solvable issue to desalinate water on industrial scale. And considering most major population centers are less then 100 miles from a coast, desalination is the obvious way to go.

Has anyone done it, though? Is it economically viable yet? Mostly playing devil's advocate with this, but it's a serious subject I haven't noticed much public awareness of yet. Population vs water supply is another one of those potential issues coming up the road, especially with ol' global warming saying "Hi~"

To my knowledge they're looking for money to create a plant for it. Their solutions have uses in smaller scale industrial uses, and they dont expect any real issues with scaling up.

[mainiac]

These wars probably aren't going to be explicitly over water,

But starting a war doesn't help your water problem, it makes it worse.  Water concerns would be a reason to avert war.

There's no reason to fight over fresh water.

When you've got rational, somewhat non-corrupt governments? Sure. Too bad that's mostly not true in the Middle East. 

No government is perfectly rational.  This is a false dichotomy.  Just because the Middle Eastern governments are somewhat asshatish doesn't mean that they would respond to a crisis by knee jerkedly starting a war.  If they started a war it would just make their people suffer more and put them at greater risk of a revolution.  Avoiding war leaves them with the resources to actually solve the problem.

The middle east is hardly a beacon of good governance but they do have a tendency of supply the cities with basic municipal services.  Even if water becomes more expensive it will be affordable.

The middle east still grows high water crops like corn and wheat on a widescale basis.  A halfway competent government can make this water situation work out.  And they have halfway competent governments.

Frumple, two problems.  "Conflict" is a very general term.  I'd want you to lay out an explicit number of military casualties.  Also, I don't currently have 10 dollars to my name.

[Frumple]

Fair enough, so I'll go with no less than 30 dead in one go (say 24 hour period.), with the additional caveat of it not having to be strictly military. If we get a civilian water riot, that'd count. And again, explicitly over water, so a suicide bombing or revolution or whathaveyou over something else wouldn't count.

I also don't have ten dollars to spare, but considering the bet's conclusion would be in 2062 at the earliest, I think that I can scrum up that much by then. Start up a penny collection, if nothing else.

[mainiac]

Frumple, by that standard we've already had water wars in the middle east.  There were multiple riots in Iraq in 2004 caused by lack of municipal services which caused those kinds of bodycounts.

[Frumple]

Sounds like the best kind of bet to make, then

But okay, what would you lay down as a fair bodycount?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Frumple, by that standard we've already had water wars in the middle east.  There were multiple riots in Iraq in 2004 caused by lack of municipal services which caused those kinds of bodycounts.

So there's your proof that it's already a problem. If it's riots now; what do you think will happen once the shortages get worse?

[mainiac]

Frumple, by that standard we've already had water wars in the middle east.  There were multiple riots in Iraq in 2004 caused by lack of municipal services which caused those kinds of bodycounts.

So there's your proof that it's already a problem. If it's riots now; what do you think will happen once the shortages get worse?

Remember when the water riots in Iraq cut off the middle eastern oil supply (the issue that got us into this debate?).  Me neither.

Sounds like the best kind of bet to make, then

But okay, what would you lay down as a fair bodycount?

Well the Iran-Iraq war caused 1 million casualties and caused economic damages of $1 trillion.  But it didn't actually stop either country from extracting oil.  So if we get back to the starting premise, the bodycount would need to be pretty freaking big to have a chance of stopping the regional oil supply.  Like 200k military deaths in 1 year minimum.

[Frumple]

Hn... wasn't going for oil disruption, just water war. Still, modern wars being what they are, I'll give 200k combined military/civilian deaths and notable oil trade disruption for the area, with the caveat that MSH's 2040-2070 range projection for heavy loss of economical oil extraction doesn't fall through. Hundreds of thousands is a lot higher than I was planning for, but I can accept a counter-hedge.

If a major (and applicable) technological shift comes through during the time frame of the bet, I'd call it fair to say bet's off, though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just a note, I'm actually predicting that there will be two oil industry crashes. One for the OPEC nations between now and 2040, and a second, delayed one for the US and Canada between 2040-2070. All rough estimates, of course.