Water Water Everywhere Edited Edition

Recently we had a student from RPI, who was originally from Yemen, come speak to us. During the course of our discussion he brought up a topic which has fascinated me for awhile: water crises. The idea of a water crisis is that a country might, in the future, run out of water, or in some other way have their water supply crippled. To water rich citizens like ourselves this seems like an outlandish idea, but in many countries it is a definite possibility. Yemen, for example, may run out of water within the next decade (1). In Sudan 12.3 million people have no access to clean drinking water. This means that only 30% of the rural population and 40% of the urban population in Sudan actually have clean drinking water (2). Similar water quality crises can be seen in Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Tunisia (3). Other problems involve widespread drought; the shrinking of rivers, lakes and seas (take, for example, the Aral sea); and desertification. And, if you are the leader in countries which are experiencing such problems you have to ask yourself how you are going to react. Will you go to war with neighboring countries who might have more water, but risk coming off worse than you were to begin with? Do you just ignore the problem because it might not affect you personally? Or, do you attempt to trade whatever resources you might have for water?

In the future this might affect the United States as well. Not necessarily in a water shortage way, but water may become one of our more important trading commodities. We may not be the most water rich country in the world, and we have experienced several major droughts over the years. But, we are also one of the most prominent countries on the global stage. From an economic standpoint we are in a fairly strong position. This problem also poses a moral quandary. How do we approach this situation? . We could approach it from a humanitarian standpoint and just set up programs for nations to donate water to countries which are lacking. Or we could try to profit, and force other countries into trade agreements. For example, Yemen has oil reserves with recent estimates saying they are producing around 320,600 barrels per day (though their reserves are quickly running out), and they also have large natural gas reserves (4). We could easily exploit such a situation either by trading for their oil or by taking a percentage of whatever profit they make off their natural gas. Or we could even just sit back and let such situations resolve themselves. Personally I believe in a humanitarian effort, but more on that later. We can also do more in the area of desalination. In developing countries building a desalination plant, and then building an infrastructure to transport the water all over the country can be incredibly expensive. But if they can get the infrastructure and plants they need in place, and if they are located near the ocean, and then make sure that they can power it properly, then they can have basically an unlimited supply of water.

Personally, I feel that in this situation a global approach would be best. I feel that the US should set up an organization who's sole purpose is to persuade water rich countries, like Finland, to donate water to countries that are lacking. This way all the countries of the world have a chance to donate, and the US wouldn't have to be the only one. We are only 32nd in the world in terms of water reserves (5). There are other consideration to make, however, on both sides of the equation. Yemen, for example, is facing an insurgency of Al Qaeda, and the government is trying to quell a rebel uprising (6). We must also be wary of corruption in foreign governments. The student who came and talked to us, for example, admitted that he believes the Yemeni government to be corrupt. Finally, the US must consider its own self-interests before acting. But, who knows? Maybe someday we will be exporting as many barrels of water as the barrels of oil we import.

Water Water Everywhere

Recently we had a student from RPI come speak to us who was originally from Yemen. During the course of our discussion he brought up a topic which has fascinated me for awhile: water crises. The idea that a country might, in the future, run out of water, or in some other way have their water supply crippled. To water rich citizens like ourselves this seems like an outlandish idea, but in many countries it is a definite possibility. Yemen, for example, may run out of water within the next decade (1). In Sudan 12.3 million people have no access to clean drinking water. This means that only 30% of the rural population and 40% of the urban population in Sudan actually have clean drinking water (2). Similar water quality crises can be seen in Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Tunisia (3). Other problems involve widespread drought, the shrinking of rivers, lakes and seas (take, for example, the Aral sea), and desertification. And, if you are the leader, or leaders in countries which are experiencing such problems you have to ask yourself how you are going to react. Will you go to war with neighboring countries who might have more water, but risk coming off worse than you were to begin with? Do you just ignore the problem because it might not affect you personally? Or, do you attempt to trade whatever resources you might have for water?

In the future this might affect the United States as well. Not necessarily in a water shortage way, but water may become one of our more important trading commodities. We may not be the most water rich country in the world, and we have experienced several major droughts over the years. But, we are also one of the most prominent countries on the global stage. From an economic standpoint we are in a fairly strong position. This problem also poses a moral quandary. How do we approach this situation? . We could approach it from a humanitarian standpoint and just set up programs for nations to donate water to countries which are lacking. Or we could try to profit, and force other countries into trade agreements. For example, Yemen has oil reserves with recent estimates saying they are producing around 320,600 barrels per day (though their reserves are quickly running out), and they also have large natural gas reserves (4). We could easily exploit such a situation either by trading for their oil or by taking a percentage of whatever profit they make off their natural gas. Or we could even just sit back and let such situations resolve themselves. Personally I believe in a humanitarian effort, but that's neither here nor there. We can also do more in the area of desalination. In developing countries building a desalination plant, and then building an infrastructure to transport the water all over the country can be incredibly expensive. But if they can get the infrastructure and plants they need in place then, and if they are located near the ocean, then they can have basically an unlimited supply of water.

Clearly, there are many considerations on both sides of this equation in this case, and the countries involved have many other problems to face. Yemen is facing an insurgency of Al Qaeda, and are also facing down a rebel insurgency (5). Sudan has the conflict in Darfur. Both nations also face widespread corruption in their governments. The student who came and talked so admitted so himself. The US must also consider it's own self-interests before acting. But, who knows? Maybe someday we will be exporting as many barrels of water as barrels of oil.

1. http://www.al-bab.com/bys/articles/ward01.htm

2.http://blueplanetrun.org/youthboard/sudan

3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Crisis#Overview_of_regions_suffering_crisis_impacts

4.http://www.indexmundi.com/yemen/oil_production.html

5.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125417307132347371.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Ramblings on The State of Religious Freedom in America

Recently in our METS New Visions class we had a speaker who talked to us about the persecution of the Falun Dafa group in China (it's a very interesting subject, and I would encourage you to do your own research into the matter). Our speaker got me thinking about the state of religious freedom in America. For example, one of the first things that occurred to me is what exactly is a religion? How do we legally define a religion? The current US, and International Laws aren't very clear (I refer you to the Harvard Journal of Human Rights http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml). We know that in America we have Freedom of Religion, but does this mean that to be protected by this particular clause that you have to have a religion, or does this also protect non-belief? What about the non-religious? I think the problem lies in the wording of said clause. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." The only problem is that Founding Fathers left no indication of how this clause was to be executed. They left behind no defining characteristics of a religion to help guide us, nor whether this also meant that those who do not believe in a higher power should be able to enjoy the same protections as those who do. I think, however, that in a country in which 20% of it's citizens view themselves as atheists, agnostics, or non-religious (that's 60,000,000 people to put this in perspective http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=281&article=0) that we need a clearer idea of who exactly is being protected by the First Amendment. I think that we need to clarify the Freedom of Religion clause to be a Freedom of Belief clause. This would mean that you can believe, or not believe in any crazy crap you want, and that the government will protect your right to believe in it.

I think what I would like most would be an actual amendment to the clause (not a true amendment but a re-wording if you will). I also understand, however, that such an action would most likely be resented by the general populace and would also take up valuable time which could be better spent elsewhere. So, in a realistic sense the best I think I can hope for is for the Supreme Court to set a precedent in which the Freedom of Religion clause is interpreted as more of a Freedom of Belief clause. I know that to many this would seem to be a non-issue. Most would say, "What's the big deal? Clearly atheists, agnostics, etc. etc. deserve the same rights as any other group, and they are protected by the First Amendment," and I would agree. I personally believe that atheists are protected under the First Amendment, and that the Founding Fathers intended it that way. But we are also living in a nation in which atheists are the most distrusted of all groups (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/) I don't think it's unreasonable to wish for a little more security. I feel I should let the reader know that I myself am an atheist so I'm not just making this up as I go along.

Now, I would like to expand upon what I believe about government intervention in religious affairs. As I've stated I believe that every person is entitled to his or her own beliefs, but within reason. What I mean is that I believe a person should be allowed to do what ever they wish as long as they are not harming others. Now when I apply this to a religious group what I mean is say the group doesn't believe in modern medicine and they allow a child (who can't choose his own medical care) to die then that group should be held responsible. On the other hand if a group believes that suicide is perfectly reasonable and a person in the group (who is of sound mind) chooses to end their life then I see nothing wrong with this. In the first case I believe it is the job of the government to protect the child, and I in the second I believe it is the job of the government to protect the person's right to end their own life. I say this because clearly if we look at China's persecution of the Falun Dafa then we see an example of a country's government going to far, but I also feel that religions shouldn't be allowed to run wild and do whatever they wish.

I feel now that I must state that personally I've never had any run-ins with persecution. I've never been discriminated against for my beliefs and I've never seen anybody be persecuted personally. Relatively speaking, I've led a really easy life. So, instead, all I can do is observe the world around me and form conclusions based on those observations. And some of the things I've observed are troubling. For example, I look at China, and I see that they're able to persecute a group (in this case the Falun Dafa) and be able to get away with simply because of how powerful they are. Or, I look at America and I can see the hate that a lot of people are filled with (for example watch this video of a man walking through a health care protest with a sign which merely states a view opposing that of the protestors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc ). In a world where persecution is a very real threat I don't think that security is an unreasonable desire.