by | Jun 10, 2009 | Stress Blog | 1 comment


Two thirds of the world surface, over sixty five percent of the human body, falling from the sky, or locked in the ice caps at the poles. it seems so simple but it causes so much trouble. Water is necessary for all agriculture and just about every industry to varying degrees. The growing concern of both states and private individuals, is their ability to continue to suite growing needs with dwindling supplies.

It is source of regional conflicts and mass suffering,frozen and locked away on the highest mountains, with seasonal shift it is freed to go it way and every where it does human beings build communities and harvest its many plants and animals that thrive in it, as well as providing an inexpensive route for travel and trade.

So humanity went from the rivers to the seas and from the seas to the oceans, and contrary to our former presidents assertions that ‘we believed that oceans could protect us’ any one with basic historic knowledge will tell you that the seas have been from the beginning the foundation of trade, and latter of empires.

Water poses many difficulty when it come to liberty, each form bringing about more complexity. The first the solid crystal waters are both a massive fresh water reservoir as well as in the right places preserving ancient life for scientific study and perhaps medical break through and is some cases Siberian tribes have been said to have live off the frozen meat of long extinct animals. Most troubling to me however is that ice in water is effectively land. And when one realized that the earths land masses are constantly changing, growing or shrinking. The only difference between an island of dirt and rock, and ice is simply a matter of time-scale, that is to say the ice will change it’s shape and position far faster than land but basic principles seem to apply.

The one striking point to be made is that glaciers contain most of the land locked freshwater reserves. And are basically the prime resource around Asia, where rivers fed by glaciers are the foundation of most major societies and many minor ones. Now to switch tracks for a moment. Global warming! Indeed, but what help will suing on behalf of polar bears do? Rather what if the world glaciers privately owned would sue green house gas polluters for lost revenues and depleting valuable resources. The only difficulty i see with this is what right do we have to stasis? The world is, has been, and will continue to change, some time predictably and some times not. But the point is if I buy a swamp do I have a right to keep my land as a swamp, that is to say, if any one else can effect the climate in any real way what right do I have to a climate ‘Status Que’. Unfortunately at the moment this question is a bit above my pay grade so, moving along.

Wet water, the way we all know and love it. In every human beings life water is everything. We need it to live to travel to enjoy, but what is a river accept a piece of land that at the moment has water passing over it, or under in the case of aquifers. Rivers have been from the beginning of human history our traditional habitat, and as we have seen in almost every urbanized river valley the communal use of rivers as waste and sewage disposal has resulted in mass disease, destruction of property values and the ruining of agricultural lands. As well as the now called ‘dead zones’ were nitrogen fertilizer deoxygenates the coastal fisheries. The oceans are another deep problem where the state apparatus runs free and wild. A simple example of how counter productive state control of the sea, is the constant scuffles over fishing rights where small private fishing operations are unable to settle disputes among them selves because the moment there is a problem it is not a conflict between joe fisherman and some other (sorry) fisherperson. Rather it is an international conflict between two central states. Neither having any interest in seeing any of the actual grievance of the involved parties resolved, both looking only for national prestige, which might involve ‘winning for their citizen’, more likely though it will be purely a matter of ‘sovereignty’ and who’s armed forces may control said region.

A quick look around a globe or world map and you may notice a interesting point, that most rivers in the world either lay and the heart of a nation state or are there to serve as its border. Now the first category are quite understandable and logical and in the most notable case Egypt, the Nile river valley is basically all there is in a vastly larger country. This does lead to problems how ever. In a country I believe we will all be getting to know a lot better, Pakistan one of the major concerns with an Indian controlled Kashmir is that being the source of most of Pakistan’s rivers and damming or diverting of the water could cripple Pakistan’s agriculture. As well as the militarily concern that if India could cut of the water to certain rivers they could dry up a large marshy area that Pakistani military officials see as there only buffer against and Indian ground invasion. Iraq in fact is another good example of a nation state built on a river, but we should be familiar with that most unfortunate place.

The second category is the one that I have problems with the internationalizing of the most fundamental aspect to an independent life. Some of these rivers are of course treacherous and mostly uninhabited, but some are heavily populated. And so not only do these vital water way not fall in to the rights of those who live off it, in some ways they could not even seek redress from there state. Say a polluter on the neighboring bank with the ear of some official, a minor situation that no state would threaten war over. Resulting in wanton pillage of resources and dumping of waste material.

Vapor, what rights does one have for the clouds? We can after all seed clouds and increase their productive capacity. But how can one measure the output of rain and is cloud seeding not a form of stealing other peoples rain? I think an uncertainty principle must be applied here saying no amount of rain fall is ever guaranteed and thus is the property of whoever’s land it falls on. All though I totally disagree with the assertion of Bectel in Bolivia of owning rain, which seem to be far more a matter of home steading that is until it has hit the ground it has not been claimed and thus free to be gathered. But the converse I believe does apply that is to say in the case of acid rain, which is to say that when you pollute the rain and it falls on my property, you have either damage my property with it corrosive properties. Or one can say that the rains them selves where polluted, but I think it might be more of a homesteading issue since it could be feasible for an air polluter to constantly seed clouds assuring that the pollution remains local on the lands owned by said polluter. The same right to stasis come back to mind and not yet settled for me so continuing, I do have the right to not have polluted rain fall on my property but I do not have the right to rain itself.

When Al Gore talks about driving less or what ever no one really need to be paying much mind to him. Especially since cutting out beef from America would do more than stopping every drop of petroleum from being used. No al gore is nothing more than a fool and a pawn of the new environmental religion that is taking shape, one that see intelligent design as the basis of all nature that as long as we don’t change to much of any thing nature will carry out her wonderful plan for life on earth. This is a wicked pre-enlightenment idea that is the same underlying principle when eye glass were first invented some thought it blasphemy to tinker with gods creation. No the fundamental thing that we must realize is that there is no balance or order in nature. for every species that some environmental group saves from extinctions displaces and inevitably brings about the extinction of other species. Another point to remember is that most life on earth live far shorter lives and thus are in some ways better adapted to our pollution than we are.

A right to water! But should not some water bodies be designate communal for the good of all? For the good of whom? While perhaps feasible in deep international water In any developed area a communal space especially one as transitory as a body of water, Would result in wanton pollution by the state connected industries. to conclude we need it we want it but we think no one should own it. Perhaps in a future society will have the enlightenment to keep their environment healthy and thriving in a communal fashion. Until then one should keep in mind that a government exploits every recourse it has free reign over to the determent of every one else. So if you don’t like the idea of private water go and drink a glass of water, and ask your self would you rather drink the waters of a private property protected and maintained, or by a state that would be more than happy to take your drinking water reservoirs and fill them with depleted uranium and chemicals. From the non stop war games that are the soul of our state. But then again if they did do such things you could always write a letter to your congressperson.