Well, depending on whom you believe. A huge, global currency collapse is being engineered, so the banks, and their governments can implement a global electronic currency, thus, giving them access to every piece of information on everybody.

Really? Have you checked what international bodies such as the UN say on fresh water depletion and its likely consequences? Or that well known font of eco-hysteria - The Pentagon? [iParts of[/i the Middle East get by because they can afford to blow huge amounts of cheap fossil fuels on technologies such as water desalinisation. But the costs of running of such are prohibitive and many countries just can't afford the investment.

In the United States cities such as Las Vegas are on the point of drying up and withering away. The local reservoirs linked to the Rocky Mountains are practically exhausted. The last time I checked they were trying to secure water rights from as far afield as Washington state.

The agricultural belt of America (not to mention all but the South-Eastern tip of Australia) is entirely dependent on fresh water pumped from subterranean aquifers which are also close to the point of exhaustion. Once this water is gone it's gone for good. Or at least - for the next few hundred thousand years which is around the time it takes to replenish them naturally. Certainly no amount of water desalinisation can even hope to compensate for the loss.

Take the total agricultural yield of Mid-Western America and Australia out of the annual food chain. That's starvation - on a massive scale.

Of course, this is nothing compared to the calamity which will befall us once we reach the point of Peak Oil. No amount of "human invention" will be able to cope with the cold realities of fossil fuel depletion. Even if you could fit a nuclear fission reactor or hydrogen fuel cell to a car - where are you going to get the resources from to make all the components derived from fossil fuels (i.e. plastics, rubber etc.)

Where will the fertilisers or the pesticides we are now entirely dependent upon to cobble together the world's annual food requirements come from? Ditto medicines. And nobody will be squandering what precious little reserves they have left on ludicrously positioned urban developments such as Vegas or the host which have sprung up in the Arab Peninsula just so the inhabitants can all continue enjoying their splendid swimming pools.

When you say "can't afford" you really mean "won't afford just yet", but as can be seen in the Arabian states when they [iabsolutely need[/i desalination then its affordable, your two examples of the USA and Australia aren't really examples of two nations who will not be able to afford more imaginative methods when and if the time comes, for now there is a less expensive option, thats all.

Or are we saying that within a few decades a doomsday scenario will make the developments in the Arabian states turn in to ghost towns of a Mad Max style and those populations will be clamoring to get into the UK where it es water out of the sky for 250 days a year ?

That's assuming that the US, and Aus will be able to afford it when the time comes, and it won't be too late to renew the supply.
If you take a look at the US economy, and all the other debt based, consumer economies in more detail, it's clear that debt levels can't be maintained and the bubble will burst, and it will get very messy indeed.

Hey, take it up with the UN. I'm only voicing a small subset of the serious concerns they (and other groups) have been ringing the alarm bell on for many years now.

Your argument seems to go something like ...[i "everything will be ok, because human beings are smart and we'll invent some technological fix which will be able to supply all our needs at an affordable price".

[/iUnfortunately, as the popular science writer and anthropologist, Jared Diamond, points out - there are any number of human civilisations throughout history which faced resource crises of all descriptions and simply collapsed.

This reminds me of the argument I regularly used to hear in the seventies which claimed we'd be producing unlimited quantities of free energy from nuclear fusion by the turn of the century. Now, I don't know precisely how many kilowatts of juice fusion has churned out in total by 2015 - but I doubt it would supply one small town with enough to last a week. At best a workable, affordable fusion reactor seems the best part of a century away. Meanwhile serious resource depletion is hitting us RIGHT NOW.

The point is - unless you can actually point to an even halfway usable technology which can replace the colossal quantities of fresh water we've just frittered away you'll forgive me for retaining my scepticism.

I see the problem as less to do with debt than resources and growth. With unlimited quantities of resources (specifically energy) it's theoretically possible to carry on with a debt-based economic model indefinitely. Western economies are entirely dependent on growth - unlimited growth. But in a resource-finite environment it's only a matter of time before the upward momentum of growth hits the intractable downward spiral of resources and their depletion.

You only need look at the population statistics over the last few hundred thousand years to quickly gain an appreciation of this truism. For many thousands of years population seemed fixed to a few million inhabitants with the number of deaths broadly matching the number of births per annum. It's only around the Renaissance period when the trend began its ever-quickening acceleration to what we see today. It was at that period when we first began to really see the benefits from cheap, condensed forms of carbon-rich energy laid down during archaic periods of the earth's history. Go back a hundred years or so when petroleum products really hit the market and population growth really does kick into hyperdrive.

Population is no different to any other inflationary bubble. Take away the fuelling agent (literally and figuratively) and it'll burst.

I'm a child of the 50s, when I was 10 years old I confidently expected to have been obliterated by a Russian nuke by now, so forgive me but its not in my nature to be pessimistic.

Dwindling resources, will eventually be our downfall. However, I see the collapse in our economy to be the catalyst that initially sets the house of cards alight. It's how we've managed to expand to breaking point for so long - because we've had the ability to pay to keep the wheels in motion, to transport food, fuel, materials and labour to anywhere in the world. But, when those wheels stop turning, just how long will it take for everything to fall apart? It's not as if we have a solid manufacturing base to be able to produce our way out of trouble, and it's not as if we are self sufficient in terms of our resources.

Regarding energy, if we're not going to throw all our efforts into wind and solar energy, then we have to pursue nuclear power. It goes against the general consensus, but the facts are that it's more efficient than other renewables, and it's safer than we're led to believe by the media.
Either way, if we don't change course now both, environmentally, and economically, then our age of decadence will be over, and we'll suffer the same fate as every other empire in history.

Quote ="JerryChicken"I'm a child of the 50s, when I was 10 years old I confidently expected to have been obliterated by a Russian nuke by now, so forgive me but its not in my nature to be pessimistic.'" Patience, squire www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33151125

Quote ="JerryChicken"I'm a child of the 50s, when I was 10 years old I confidently expected to have been obliterated by a Russian nuke by now, so forgive me but its not in my nature to be pessimistic.'" Patience, squire www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33151125

Quote ="Charlie Sheen"Patience, squire www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33151125'" A Republican will be along soon with some Star Wars stories to put them back in their box.

Quote ="Charlie Sheen"Patience, squire www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33151125'" A Republican will be along soon with some Star Wars stories to put them back in their box.

Bearing in mind that the United States Congress passed legislation in 2002/3 which grants a three star general authorisation to both deploy and use nuclear weapons WITHOUT approval from the President you are probably more likely to be obliterated right now. Given that another Bush is likely to occupy the White House at some point in the near future and the best alternative the Democrats can currently muster is the wife of the world's biggest arms dealer and self described "Best Friend of Israel" it might be time to start rehearsing your "Duck & Cover" preparedness.



In any case, natural optimism is about as irrational as natural pessimism. No amount of it will conjure new reserves of fresh water or fossil fuels. But you are welcome to stand over an empty bucket and mentally project waves of such in its direction.

Let me know how you get on.

Economic collapse is inevitable - not least because it's good business. No amount of economic stability is capable of replicating the kind of colossal profits which can be had out of turmoil. Consider the number of Russian billionaires which were created when the old Soviet economy tanked under Yeltsin. A few million spent here and there acquiring state assets for way below the market rate never yielded so much juicy fruit. Of course, the Russian people didn't do too well - but that's just bad luck on their part.





There were some very safe forms of nuclear energy developed during the 70s and 80s which didn't involve the use of water or (worse still) graphite as a nuclear moderating agent and/or coolant. All of such were squashed by the oil and coal industries. Many of the skills involved in constructing those powerplants have now been lost and it would take perhaps thirty or forty years for us to get back to that point of development.

But this still leaves the problem of rolling out such on a sufficiently wide scale to make up for the shortfall in hydrocarbons. Bear in mind that it took the best part of FORTY YEARS to construct the network of filling stations and support infrastructure upon which our automotive society is entirely dependent.

The problem is we need functioning alternatives rolled out on global scale RIGHT NOW.

Don't know if this has ever been tried by anyone but I reckon that living in the UK you could conjure up all the fresh(ish) rainwater you need every year just by leaving buckets laid out across your back garden, my water butt collects enough off my garage roof for me to open the tap and throw it away throughout the year.

Of course, you need a back garden first, mine is ideal as it slopes towards the house, simply line it with corrugated plastic and sit in the kitchen waiting for the torrents.

I'm sorry, old bean, but I'm afraid you're missing the point. The days when nation states (nevermind individuals!) reserved the right to declare ownership and exercise control over their own natural resources are long gone.

We're living in a global marketplace. Once they finally manage to dot the Is and cross the Ts on TTIP (in secret by unelected, unaccountable Wall Street lawyers) and railroad it through Congress and the European Union it will become increasingly difficult for any nation state to claim privileges over natural resources such as water. Leaving aside the fact that decades of under investment in the water system since privatization mean even here, in Britain, we are often far closer to shortfall than abundance and any surplus we might enjoy will be little more than the recognition of such. So whilst it might land in your garden that water really belongs to Mr. Chow in Bangkok who just outbid you for the luxury.

The world's biggest water traders such as Danone have already stated that they believe fresh water should no longer be considered a "human right". They and other major providers were behind the disastrous pilot study carried out in Bolivia which made the act of collecting rainwater for personal use illegal resulting in the infamous [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F2000_Cochabamba_protests&ei=temBVfnLHbSN7AaaooLICw&usg=AFQjCNFO58PcKV4zbUZc6M8hc551u6YKYA&sig2=5rlFt43DjRKnD41ZhWtDaACochabamba Protests[/url

The water companies suffered an enormous amount of bad publicity over Bolivia. But this meme that we should have no rights over water isn't going away. They'll regroup and launch another assault in ten or twenty years. Most likely it will coincide seamlessly with a period of extreme drought and water stress thus making reduced rights sound just that bit more "rational" to the average Joe. Big corporations succeed because they are willing to play the "long game". That and relying on the endless stupidity, gullibility and goldfish memories of 98% of the public.

Oh I don't doubt for one minute that that indeed is the truth and here in Yorkshire we all know exactly what its like for a monopoly business to mis-manage water resources so that they have to drive tankers all over the county to share it around, but the point is that if you collect and use rainwater for yourself, Mr Chow of Bangkok has to come around and catch you doing it and then do something about it, 60 million times over.

Anyway, cheer up, its a nice day and the sunshine is still free.

NASA confirm freshwater supplies dwindling. rt.com/news/267898-nasa-study-world-water/ Also, Washington state is currently experiencing the worst drought in recorded history apparently.

NASA confirm freshwater supplies dwindling. rt.com/news/267898-nasa-study-world-water/ Also, Washington state is currently experiencing the worst drought in recorded history apparently.

Oh, my cheeriness is boundless.



As for the sun. Rest assured - if someone can find an ostensibly plausible argument in favour of metering the number of photons which hit the surface of the skin it won't be long before a bill is hitting the hallway floor.

So what happened in Korea, Vietnam/Indo China, Iraq and Afghanistan was a figment of our collective imagination.

...and all of it Dick Cheney's fault, according to some.

Those were proxy wars largely fought against the indigenous people. Not wars between the armies of super-power states.

Hence the sentence, [i"War - as we once knew it - ended with the atomic detonation over Hiroshima"[/i

This is a terrible straw man argument. Even for you.

There are examples from the USA to the Republic of Ireland where private water companies have tried to claim the rights to ground water collected on householders land.

You may be able to collect enough water to supply your drinking needs but would it cover your washing and cooking requirements? If you have a car would you be able to keep the radiator topped up?

If you have a garden you might have the surface area to collect rainwater but what about those living in flats?

We may live in a country where we have plentiful fresh water but the population is increasing all the time and I think that we waste a terrible amount of potable water.

A couple of years ago the chairman of Nestle said “access to water is not a public right.”. He may be just a representative of a private company but that company has huge influence in global politics.

Nestle being producers of bottled water, I would hope (although I know my hope could well be misplaced) that enough politicians will not be corrupted by offers of investments and directorships at Nestle in order to say, "Erm, hang on, don't you sell bottled water..." when lobbied.

These are interesting times with private businesses having the ear of a willing cabinet office and billions in revenue to divert to private profits and dividends yet the recent refusal of fracking rights in the Fylde area reminding business that sometimes we can just stick two fingers up and send them packing - now Cameron has one big headache to deal with, on the one hand he has a major business banging on his door shouting that he said it would all be ok, and on the other hand a public image to maintain where a PM who overturns local planning committees will appears to be of a dictator status and quickly turn to be the most hated man in politics - he's hidden behind his own "nasty men" for six years now and done a good job of deflecting a lot of harsh decisions onto Ministers - this one should be his baby.

Cameron's JOB is to play the villain this parliament. Just as happened under Thatcher, the news media gave the Tories an easy ride during their first term. From hereon in they'll go after them like Van Helsing chasing Dracula. Meanwhile New New Labour will be rubbed down to the base metal, primed and taken to the spray booth. Ideologically-speaking there'll be no difference (Labour's ideology being - anything trans-national capital desires is good for Britain) - but there'll be a fresh new image which the media will market like they do with washing powder or refrigerators. Throw in a few gormless celebrities, actors and musicians who've never seen a paid political rally they didn't like, one or two juicy sex-scandals in government and a corruption investigation where some insignificant Tory who doesn't have enough political clout to defend himself, is thrown to the wolves and the British public will embrace New New Labour like Christ resurrected.

I mean, it's crazy to think there exists a division between media and government. Half the special adviser positions in government are filled by ex-journalists, whilst Portillo and company walk through the revolving door in the opposite direction. The BBC [uIS[/u government - period. Anyone who thinks otherwise only needs to consider the near total absence of serious investigations into parliamentary wrongdoings. If the BBC were as independent from government as it claims why is it that almost all of the major recent political bombshells have been broken by the likes of the Guardian (a paper I have serious issues with at the best of times!) which has only a fraction of the resources, journalists, researchers etc. present at the BBC? Why is it that investigations into the paedophile scandal are being driven mostly by tiny, shoestring budget media outlets like Exaronews whilst the BBC is doing everything in its power to minimize, marginalize and dilute what is an outrageous political scandal of titanic significance?

Why is it that whenever the PM is gearing up for one of his bloody foreign wars the Beeb falls lockstep in behind him? One only need consider some of the Beeb's utterly RIDICULOUS claims leading up to the war in Afghanistan.

Anybody a bit suspicious of the governments reaction to the massacre in Tunisia? The defence secretary says we may have to bomb Syria now, hundreds of miles away. Was this not the plan all along? Remember Cameron wanted to bomb Assad but was defeated in parliament, now he wants to bomb ISIS, the same forces they initially backed.