Day: August 30, 2026

Since most of the earth’s surface is covered in water it seems odd to be worried about the availability of water. But this seems less odd when we remember that most of this liquid bounty is too salty for humans to drink or use in most forms of agriculture. When pollution and distribution are considered, then worry makes sense.

While people normally think of water in terms of something we drink, 92% of our water usage as a species is in agriculture. Plants and animals need water directly, but water is also used for other purposes in agriculture. In addition to direct use of water, it is removed from being useful to humans by agricultural contamination The chemicals and waste of agriculture often end up in rivers and other bodies of water, rendering it unsafe unless it can be treated.

Looking just at the direct water costs, the creation of animal “products” imposes the highest water costs per kilocalorie (kcal). Growing edible roots and cereals requires .5 quarts per kcal, making these foods very water efficient. Fruits are more costly, requiring 2.2 quarts per kcal. For meat product, pork is relatively efficient, requiring 2.3 quarts per kcal. Beef is by far the least efficient, using 10.8 quarts per kcal. As might be imagined, this use of water raises both practical and moral concerns. Concerns about water are, of course, increasing as the fight over data centers intensifies.

One practical concern is working out how to efficiently handle water resources as our population increases. Adding to the difficulty is that economic improvements in developing countries will lead to a significant increase in the desire for meat, especially beef. Given the water cost of meat, the agriculture industry will be hard pressed to meet increased demand, especially if the water supply is under even greater strain. If we add data center usage and the ongoing impact of climate change, the challenge grows.

Fortunately, there are practical solutions to some of the technical problems of water. For example, more efficient agriculture would enable more food to be grown using less water. Another example, developing cheaper means of purifying water would help. Obviously enough if the world eschewed meat in favor of plants, then that would have a significant impact on water usage. We could also forgo the creation of data centers, although the rulers of the AI corporations seem intent on making every aspect of life worse in their quest to make their apocalypse bunkers a necessity. I mean, if you have an apocalypse bunker it would be a shame not to ensure that it gets used.

There is also the moral aspect of water, which is distribution: determining how the available water will be used and who will benefit. As noted above, the growing of meat and other animal products is water intensive relative to growing plants. While there are practical grounds to move away from animal agriculture, the decision is largely a matter of ethics. After all, decisions about who is entitled to the water resources and how these resources should be distributed are moral decisions. If, for example, it is decided that water resources will be allocated to the beef industry, then this means that less water will be available to grow more water efficient foods, thus potentially reducing the food supply while also creating food that is more expensive for the consumer. The beef industry has done an impressive job getting people to accept eating meat as part of their identity, although the screw worms clearly have a vote in the future of the industry.

As our population grows and the climate changes, the moral concerns about water will become even more serious. After all, it is certainly worth considering that the demand on water resources will eventually be high enough that choosing between growing beef and raising more water efficient crops will be a choice between providing the more affluent few with a luxury food and providing the less affluent many with the food they need to survive.

The obvious response is that we have always found a solution to past problems, and we will surely find one (or more) in the future. After all, the doomsdays predicted in the past all turned out to be as mistaken as the culture war prediction that same-sex marriage would destroy marriage. While this response is reasonable, there must be a point at which our ability to solve the water problem reaches its limit and the fact that we have not gone extinct yet does not prove that we will never go extinct. But being a fan of science fiction, I am amendable to solving the water problem by crashing space-ice into the earth. As a philosopher, I am comfortable with solving problems by creating more problems.

It is also worth noting there are many practical (rather than theoretical) problems that could prevent us from solving the water problem. The droughts that affected the United States back  in 2012 impacted food production and if droughts become more common, then distributing water resources will become even more pressing. Ironically, flooding is also a growing problem in some areas—climate change can make some places dryer and other places wetter.

There are also the political considerations of the people controlling the distribution of water to serve their own ends. Even the United States has political conflicts over water distribution, and these will only worsen as water distribution changes as the climate changes. And, I am obligated to say, data centers will just make this worse.

As a final point, it must be said that water is is almost endlessly reusable. Unlike oil, our use of water generally does not destroy the water. Roughly put, most of the water that goes in eventually comes back out. But contamination can render water useless to us and some contamination, such as radiation, can last a long time. Fortunately, we can purify water (although this can be costly) and purification also occurs naturally. Unfortunately, we have damaged many of the natural purification systems and have been very busy contaminating water. Also, unfortunate is the fact that being “pro-environment” (favoring the preservation of natural purification systems and being in favor of limiting water pollution) makes a person a target in the manufactured culture wars of the right. Like the beef industry, the fossil fuel industry has done an impressive job making fossil fuels an integral part of the identity of some people, making them useful idiots in the fight against renewable energy and protecting the environment.

There are, however, practical economic reasons for preserving and restoring the natural purification systems, not the least of which is that nature does for free what would cost a fortune to do artificially. These same reasons apply to avoiding water contamination as much as possible. After all, cleaning water is generally more costly than avoiding polluting it. For example, keeping feces contaminated runoff from agriculture out of the water supply is much cheaper than removing the contamination. While I used to think that these economic arguments should have weight, I missed two obvious facts. First, natural purification of water and keeping water clean would save money, but do not make a profit for vested interests. But being a science fiction guy, I can imagine corporations buying land to preserve and charging people for the water it purifies—which would be oddly both dystopian and utopian. The second is that I did not fully grasp the fact that inflicting suffering and making life worse for other people is the goal (along the lines of how cruelty is the point). The billionaires paying the politicians so they can burn the planet are busy building bunkers because they know how this ends.

 

A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!

You can subscribe and read for free.

https://aphilosophersblog.substack.com/

 

 

The euphemism “right to work” is a useful rhetorical tool beloved by anti-labor politicians. A euphemism is substituting a positive or innocuous term for a more negative one.  It is like sprinkling sugar on something unpleasant as suggested by Mary Poppins, “Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down in a most delightful way.”

Euphemisms are also used outside of politics. For example, in my youth people bought used cars. Now people purchase pre-owned vehicles. People used to be fired. Now they are downsized. Secondhand clothing is now vintage.

Euphemisms are often used when naming laws to conceal the awful things within. One example of is calling anti-union laws “right to work” laws. These laws, not surprisingly, are part of the larger attack on unions, including educators’ unions. “Right to work” sounds good and some people probably mistakenly think these laws somehow address real obstacles to employment, such as discrimination. Which is the point of the name. The “Get Rid of Unions” law would not sound as good.

While there are many arguments for the “right to work” laws, one is that they will have an economic benefit for the state. If such laws were beneficial to workers, then it would be rational for workers to support them. Likewise, if they benefit employers, then it would be rational for employers to support them.

Interestingly, the premise is both true and false. By this, I do not mean that it is some sort of violation of the usual laws of truth. Rather, the claim is true for some and not true for others.

For employers, “right to work” laws can yield economic benefits, but precisely because these laws inflict economic costs on those doing the work. Darrel Minor, a professor of mathematics at Columbus State Community College did a 2012 analysis of “right to work” states relative to other states.

One focus was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of each state. This is a measure of the goods and services produced in the state. Based on the 2009 data, the GDP of “right to work” states was $38,755. For other states, the GDP was $43, 899 which is a 13.3% difference. Interestingly, this indicates that the “right to work” laws can hurt both the employed and the employers— states with “right to work” laws are less productive than other states, thus undercutting arguments based on the claim that these laws enhance productivity. However, it is also worth noting that salaries in “right to work” states are 9.4% lower than those in other states. While this is bad for workers, it can be advantageous for employers who want to pay less for the same work.

Another focus of the analysis was on poverty rates. Eleven of the fifteen states with the highest poverty rates were “right to work” states. In contrast, nine of the eleven states with the lowest poverty rates were not “right to work” states. In 2008, 14.4% of the population of “right to work” states lived in poverty. In the other states, the number was 12.4%. As Minor noted, if the poverty level of the “right to work” states was extended to all 50 states, this would mean 3,670,000 more people living in poverty. This data suggests that “right to work” laws contribute to increased poverty. Minor also found that life expectancy in “right to work” states was lower If this data is accurate, then there are good reasons to oppose “right to work” laws. At least if you think it is bad for poverty to increase. For those who are pro-poverty, “right to work” laws are great.

To be fair and balanced, proponents of “right to work” laws point to different statistics and claim there is higher employment and lower costs of living in states with “right to work laws.” If these statistics are true, then the “right to work” laws might have some benefits in addition to the harms they seem to inflict and these should be weighed against each other.  The weight given to each will depend on the values of those doing the assessment. So, for example, someone concerned with poverty and life expectancy would weigh these laws as more harmful than beneficial. Someone focused on the advantage of lower salaries in attracting businesses would see them as beneficial. Someone who enjoys the poverty of others would also favor such laws; sometimes the reward of a law is the suffering of other people.

It is reasonable to consider that the alleged effects (positive and negative) of “right to work” laws are not solely caused by the laws but are the result other factors. For example, perhaps “right to work” states also have inferior education and hence more poverty and lower wages. Also, which is weird but worth considering, some “right to work” states like the Free State of Florida get regularly hammered by hurricanes and these have enduring and surprising detrimental effects.

 It is also worth considering the “right to work” laws are an effect rather than a cause. For example, a state with higher levels of poverty might pass such laws in the hopes of reducing poverty. It is also worth considering that the laws and their alleged effects are both the result of a third factor. States with extensive and strong business interests would tend to have higher employment rates and these business interests would tend to support “right to work” laws because of their perceived usefulness in combating the threat of unions. These should all be considered, although the simplest explanation is that the laws designed to hurt the unions that help workers end up hurting workers.