[iltos]

yet another issue where the question of government intervention to protect its population is an issue
from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/waterright/

Over the last 20 years, with the help of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization, water has become a $500 billion global industry dominated by just three companies. According to reports published by the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, it’s been a disaster in both the United States and the developing world.

foodandwaterwatch.org list examples of the failure of water privatization plans in america

yet

At the March 2009 United Nations (UN) meetings, coinciding with the World Water Forum, Canada, Russia, and the United States refused to support a declaration that would recognize water as a basic human right.
But this flies in the face of considerable evidence that access to water, which is essential for health, is under threat, argue the editors. According to the World Health Organization, 1.2 billion people worldwide do not have access to clean drinking water, and a further 2.6 billion lack adequate sanitation services, and these numbers are expected to rise. The UN has estimated that 2.8 billion people in 48 countries will be living in conditions of water stress or scarcity by 2025.http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wsb062609.php

so...is it every nation for itself -leading, it would seem, to every man for himself- or do we need some "one world" thinking on this?

[TooBad]

I think that from the beginning of time, for humans at least, food and water have been every man, then family, then clan, group, town, city, state, country for themselves. It may be a need, but that does not make it a right.

Those that live is desert areas do not have right to demand water from those that live where it is available. They can make a deal to trade for it, but it is not a right, just like healthcare is not a right as you can't have a right to demand something from someone else.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by TooBad

I think that from the beginning of time, for humans at least, food and water have been every man, then family, then clan, group, town, city, state, country for themselves. It may be a need, but that does not make it a right.

Those that live is desert areas do not have right to demand water from those that live where it is available. They can make a deal to trade for it, but it is not a right, just like healthcare is not a right as you can't have a right to demand something from someone else.

that's a very realistic and pragmatic answer....it certainly is justified by the present state of affairs.
but do you think the question of need should be answered by private enterprise?....there are apparently only a handful of companies -none of them american- who are pushing the privatization model
to me, the issue of answering these basic needs is difficult to answer using the model of free enterprise.....even in today's world of the conflicting interests of nation-states, it seems that water should be the domain of public policy....but we have become so skeptical of the idea of "public service" as some kind of socialist agenda that we bristle at the idea that our existance on this planet is anything but a bunch of tribes, still fighting for individual survival.

it was easy to identify when the supertribes were duking it out for nuclear supremacy....not so much now, with a global economy and all of its related issues surrounding how much and if we should be working together towards....prosperity.

[wacor]

Once the govts control all the water they just about have complete control of our lives. Sounds silly don't it.

You want to heat your house? Well who controls the gas and or electric which supplies the source of heat for most homes?

You want to drink water? Well eventually everybody is going to get their water from a pipeline.

You want to have a bathroom and be able to use it? Well eventually everybody is going to have a pipe to discharge sewage.

It is madness what we have done. For the very vast majority the very safest water supply is from a private well. Yet pipelines are run and people buy into the false premise that piped water is safer ignoring the facts far more people die from piped in water.

We have water ways that have ecoli in them. Where did it come from? Overflowed municipal sewers that could not handle the flow during storms. All because people were unnecessarily forced to abandon working septic systems.

Water is a right for sure. It is becoming the states right. They are going to put a strangle hold on it. Right now it costs a whole lot more for a bottle of water than a gal of gas. Wait til the govt gets complete control of it.

[lotuseclat79]

Fresh water is required by all living organisms to survive.

Government intervention in water rights is rampant in Colorado where it is illegal to collect the rainwater off of your roof. They fear a lack of water so they resort to legislation, rather than figure out a solution to their problems.

Only barely 2-3% of all the water on planet Earth is fresh water. If one lives in the dessert, like the Bedouin nomads - they know where to get water in the dessert. They have been doing it for generations upon generations.

Israeli invention has produced a way to squeeze water out of air and collect it.

As to whether or not water is a right for humans, they do not have the sole or an exclusive right to water as other animal species have preexisted humans and will probably live long after we have expired.

The question this thread poses is more of a knee-jerk reaction on the Internet to the overall fact that planet Earth is an orb of finite resources of which water is one, and all of them are rapidly dwindling due to human consumption, leveling of rain forests, etc.

Tree root systems have long ago figured out how to provide capillary action to drive water and nutrients up the tree to feed its leaves and spawn its seeds - humans have only just figured out a new technology to do this very same thing. Mother Nature is way smarter than humanity - been there done that before humanity.

Is water a basic human right? Water is a basic living organism right!

-- Tom

[iltos]

Originally Posted by wacor

Once the govts control all the water they just about have complete control of our lives. Sounds silly don't it.

no

It is madness what we have done.

what have we done?
or do mean things like allowing 13 million people to inhabit an area where the available fresh water sources can maybe sustain half of that (southern california)?

For the very vast majority the very safest water supply is from a private well. Yet pipelines are run and people buy into the false premise that piped water is safer ignoring the facts far more people die from piped in water.

agreed....even in southern california, there are well fed private water districts (i live in one with about 600 others)....but over the years, they have connected themselves to the metropolitan water district, to both buy and sell surplus, when the need arises..(the MWD is the brainchild of mullholland, who brought the water for LA from central california)

but i wonder: if the MWD was outsourced to a big private concern, would they squeeze out our little private district?

Water is a right for sure. It is becoming the states right. They are going to put a strangle hold on it. Right now it costs a whole lot more for a bottle of water than a gal of gas. Wait til the govt gets complete control of it.

but the bottled water industry in the result of private industry...i don't understand the correlation.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

The question this thread poses is more of a knee-jerk reaction on the Internet to the overall fact that planet Earth is an orb of finite resources of which water is one, and all of them are rapidly dwindling due to human consumption, leveling of rain forests, etc.

welpers, Tom....everything you say is true....but i don't know how that makes the question a knee jerk reaction to anything.

what'da'ya mean?

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by iltos

welpers, Tom....everything you say is true....but i don't know how that makes the question a knee jerk reaction to anything.

what'da'ya mean?

What is the origin of this thread? Looks like some articles on the Internet in your first post.

Taking that article to task - human rights aside - asking the question in the first place begs for some perspective on the issue of fresh water.

I believe the article states it's perspective up front that "Water should be a human right" - and I agree that impoverished societies that have no access to fresh water needed help yesterday. Note: the title of this thread asks the quesion "Is water a basic human right"?

Taking action with perspective rather than assuming that water is a human right is a more inclusive approach to the problem.

I believe that already very good programs are in motion to help correct this problem for humans, but we as a dominant species have a great disregard for our overall environment as long as we can exploit it for greedy gains. Where is the Help in that?

The knee-jerk reaction occurs when governments get involved way after they should have and panic creating legislation like in Colorado without knowing what the real problem is and how to look at it from an overall context. Help for human populations with a water deficit is greatly in need.

A solution to the problem just cannot be legislated - there are many variables like the weather in the face of a changing climate which brings the yearly monsoons. Grasslands change into desserts over time, and back again with the changing climate. These are not short-term problems that demand short-term solutions - they are long-term problems that demand long-term solutions.

Small-brained knee-jerk attempts at solutions to local problems (local legislation in Colorado) do not help to achieve solutions to the grand problems we all face in the future.

-- Tom

[iltos]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

What is the origin of this thread? Looks like some articles on the Internet in your first post.

it is

Taking that article to task - human rights aside - asking the question in the first place begs for some perspective on the issue of fresh water.

yup

I believe the article states it's perspective up front that "Water should be a human right" - and I agree that impoverished societies that have no access to fresh water needed help yesterday. Note: the title of this thread asks the quesion "Is water a basic human right"?

fair enough
take it to the next level....answer the question i posed then

so...is it every nation for itself -leading, it would seem, to every man for himself- or do we need some "one world" thinking on this?

because

Taking action with perspective rather than assuming that water is a human right is a more inclusive approach to the problem.

i'm asking if we're ready to consider some perspective on these global issues....and believe it's our inability or unwillingness to understand our place in the matrix of a global society that makes this globe's more universal problems increasingly relevant....whether you believe in the march of global capitalism or not, those problems have a direct bearing on the nature and extent of the development of new markets, imo

I believe that already very good programs are in motion to help correct this problem for humans, but we as a dominant species have a great disregard for our overall environment as long as we can exploit it for greedy gains. Where is the Help in that?

i'd like to hear about the programs that you feel are already addressing water as a human right.....the technical innovations you point to certainly provide for an increase in the amount of available fresh water....but as you say, so long as they can be exploited, they offer little in terms of "rights" issue.

The knee-jerk reaction occurs when governments get involved way after they should have and panic creating legislation like in Colorado without knowing what the real problem is and how to look at it from an overall context. Help for human populations with a water deficit is greatly in need.

no arguement here....

A solution to the problem just cannot be legislated - there are many variables like the weather in the face of a changing climate which brings the yearly monsoons. Grasslands change into desserts over time, and back again with the changing climate. These are not short-term problems that demand short-term solutions - they are long-term problems that demand long-term solutions.

what kind of long term solutions?.....how can they avoid both private exploitation and public short sightedness?

[TooBad]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

What is the origin of this thread? Looks like some articles on the Internet in your first post.

Taking that article to task - human rights aside - asking the question in the first place begs for some perspective on the issue of fresh water.

I believe the article states it's perspective up front that "Water should be a human right" - and I agree that impoverished societies that have no access to fresh water needed help yesterday. Note: the title of this thread asks the quesion "Is water a basic human right"?

Taking action with perspective rather than assuming that water is a human right is a more inclusive approach to the problem.

I believe that already very good programs are in motion to help correct this problem for humans, but we as a dominant species have a great disregard for our overall environment as long as we can exploit it for greedy gains. Where is the Help in that?

The knee-jerk reaction occurs when governments get involved way after they should have and panic creating legislation like in Colorado without knowing what the real problem is and how to look at it from an overall context. Help for human populations with a water deficit is greatly in need.

A solution to the problem just cannot be legislated - there are many variables like the weather in the face of a changing climate which brings the yearly monsoons. Grasslands change into desserts over time, and back again with the changing climate. These are not short-term problems that demand short-term solutions - they are long-term problems that demand long-term solutions.

Small-brained knee-jerk attempts at solutions to local problems (local legislation in Colorado) do not help to achieve solutions to the grand problems we all face in the future.

-- Tom

If overpopulation of humans is your idea of the problem, you could help out.

This is always one of the leftists arguements, there are too many people. So what do you propose to do about it? Who gets to choose who lives and who dies? Oh yeah, "I won!" gets to choose because he is the supreme leader who "is above country, perhaps a god"!

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by TooBad

If overpopulation of humans is your idea of the problem, you could help out.

This is always one of the leftists arguements, there are too many people. So what do you propose to do about it? Who gets to choose who lives and who dies? Oh yeah, "I won!" gets to choose because he is the supreme leader who "is above country, perhaps a god"!

Hi TooBad,

There you go on one of your rants about leftists (which I am not). We all could help out, you included. Understanding the problem is the first step. Have you even taken your first step? Rants will get you nowhere.

This thread is about water, not overpopulation - you are off topic.

-- Tom

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by iltos

it is

yup

fair enough
take it to the next level....answer the question i posed then

because

i'm asking if we're ready to consider some perspective on these global issues....and believe it's our inability or unwillingness to understand our place in the matrix of a global society that makes this globe's more universal problems increasingly relevant....whether you believe in the march of global capitalism or not, those problems have a direct bearing on the nature and extent of the development of new markets, imo

i'd like to hear about the programs that you feel are already addressing water as a human right.....the technical innovations you point to certainly provide for an increase in the amount of available fresh water....but as you say, so long as they can be exploited, they offer little in terms of "rights" issue.

no arguement here....

what kind of long term solutions?.....how can they avoid both private exploitation and public short sightedness?

Hi iltos,

There are programs already in place I've seen on PBS and on the Internet that address the problem of pumping ground water up with human bicycle driven pumps to get the water up to where it can be used for what the people need. A cheap local solution the locals without electricity have bought into as a green solution.

Long term we need to invest in research to break the log jam on breaking down salt water (of which there is a lot on our planet) into fresh water (which is becoming if not already a scarce resource). The current solutions to this problem are too costly.

And we need to exploit any new inventions to capture water out of air on a local basis where needed. The means have to fit the need, and not all means fit every local need.

The SouthWest USA is already in a water deficit, and I understand Colorado's reaction to the fresh water crisis what with snow melt depleting due to warmer winters out west and the snow caps on the Alps are being lost there.

We need a systems approach to analyzing and adapting solutions for the future that are cost effective in these lean times.

-- Tom

[wacor]

Over population may not be the thread topic but it certainly does have an impact. Me thinks we can either deal with it on our terms or mother nature will thin the herd in her own way.

Like I said water is not a right. But the govts will make it one based on things I see going on. Conservation is taking place and in some areas restrictions are in place. Florida and other areas have potable and grey water.

There can be reasonable conservation but I have seen much that is based on knee jerk responses as Tom mentioned. And a lot of that is based on junk science. That is not something I am speculating on but have direct knowledge of. As they say one can do wonders with numbers and some people have found creative means to further their cause.

[pyritechips]

My concern with the topic is, if we declare water to be a basic human right, does that lead to who controls it, or if the controlling person (or country) has an abundance does the one in need have a right to demand some? If you think you need water bad enough do you give yourself the right to take it?There are not a hypothetical questions. Water rights is a rapidly growing world-wide concern.

[jmosmith]

We have said that life itself is a fundamental right; to cut off water is to cut off life. So it seems only deductive to me that water too must be a fundamental right. Yes?