/sci/ - Science & Math

is that a lower case 'L'?
3000 litres each?
what? no.

also, water is recyclable. you use it, then it comes back to you via rainfall.
...never a miscommunication.

I never shower.
I use my piss in the sauna.
My drinking water is 40% ethanol.

>>3758204
Bathing, water cost of growing your food, producing the products you use every day etc.

I water my lawn with the blood of the innocent

fremen stillsuit.

not to save water, just so I could crap my pants without anyone noticing.

I walk and carpool.

>>3758213
first of all, you're wrong anyway and it is no where near 3000 litres for anyone.
secondly, water is still recyclable anyway so even if that were true, it isnt like the 3000 litres is somehow lost anywhere.

eat only dehydrated foods.

>>3758224
we're using it faster than it falls from the sky

>>3758228

>>3758204
>>3758224

The amount of water which falls from the sky per day is finite. Beyond that and we need extremely expensive plants to produce water safe to drink or pump it from the aquifer. The Aquifer levels has been getting lower and lower every year in most heavy agricultural areas due to overconsumption.

>>3758234
nah, I'm super cereal miss EK, and I'm not even OP or anything!

but seriously, much of the water we use comes from aquifers where it's been collecting for anything from hundreds to millions of years. We don't get enough rain, we pump the difference out of the ground. In the western US and many other places we've depleted several important aquifers and will soon finish off the rest. Mostly we use the water for crops and golf courses, both vital to humanity.

you might expect that the water we pump out of the ground simply returns to the ground, and you'd be wrong. It's because you're a zoologist though. If you geologied a bit you'd know better.

>>3758239
finite.. next thing you'll tell me it's value pattern can be predicted right?

I don't need to conserve water because I don't like in a desert shithole.

>>3758252
yet

>>3758239
>>3758245
yes, but you do realise that water cant be waste, right? i mean not in the sense that it cant ever come back. there is a finite amount of water molecules on earth, and they never leave the atmosphere, they are just moved around over the earth, sometimes in the atmosphere, sometimes in the sea, sometimes in organisms, etc.

if i spill a litre of water on teh ground, eventually it all evaporates, and will fall to earth as rain somewhere else.
if i spill 10 litres instead and waste more water, it still will all come back, it will still evaporate quite quickly and come back as rain later on.

PART 1:

of shit. Give it several decades and we'll be manufacturing the global weather. Water will be no problem, because we'll recycle the dirtiest of water known. We'll be drinking our piss daily, and even synthesizing the moisture out of our turds. Want a cup of water? Just go to the robotic toilet. And then wait several centuries and we'll be able to rearrange the molecules and atoms of dirt into chicken breasts. Does a vegetarian want a steak? Just throw a brick into the super-tron-fridge and watch it transform. This would take a lot of fucking energy and stuff, but by that time quantum computing and nanotechnology will be at peak advancements. In fact, humans will be bio-chemically engineered, and we'll be born of genetic manipulation out of test tubes and machines which simulate the reproductive system. Humans will be nearly robotic, and indestructible, and aging will be cured. By this time science will have a thorough knowledge of the bio-chemical processes of the brain, and will be experimentally verified that the mind and consciousness is a physical phenomenon. The government will then use the internet, which will be hooked up to our bio-mechanical bodies, to physically rearrange the chemicals in our brain to control our choices. Free will will be gone, but no one will know because they'll just think that they thought up those choices, just like you think you're thinking up your choices right this moment, when really it's a process of cause and effect and quantum probabilities. People will fear we've lost control, but we've never been in control anyways.

PART 2:

People love fear, it's an evolutionary by-product. They don't want to die, so they'll fear the unknown because it could kill them. We don't know the future, so we predict it will kill us all. Global warming, loss of resources, economic downturn... did scientists and mathematicians predict these things? No, politicians did. The news did. Because that's how they stay in business; from your fear. But it doesn't matter, because in the future everything will be so different from the way it is today. Just look at how the internet changed society in such a short amount of time. No one could've predicted that, especially not retard politicians and news reporters. They're all just a bunch of chimpanzees. And in the end, money will disappear and resources will be infinite. This is because robots will take over all manual labor, and all that will be left for humans is to finally enjoy they're time and think about the world. No more wars, and a utopia built on the singular opinion of one person at the top of the government, who decides what people should think through bio-physical internet mind control.

The point is, FUCK YOU HIPPIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PART 0:

Jack shit. Hippy environmentalism and so called 'environmental scientists' are full of shit. Give it several...

>>3758271
we are aware of the water cycle, just pointing out that we're using freshwater far faster than we're getting it back.

we can introduce more energy into the system to make up the difference, but we're already using energy faster than we can harvest it. It's a problem of cost, not how many water molecules exist.

OP's post assumes we don't want to conserve water by allowing 6 billion people to starve. This is strange since it's the obvious solution to the problem.

I live right next to the great lakes. Water is not a problem here at all.

>>3758273
>We'll be drinking our piss daily

>>3758292
If california could run a pipeline over your way they'd be gone in a year or two.

>>3758245
depends on the region you are talking about. america- yes, you are right, theyy use more water then there comes through rainfalls back. europe, russia- they use less, so theres always more water through rainfall then they use.

>live in britain, a place where people are born with webbed hands to help navigate the constant rain

>look at all the fucks i don't give

>>3758290
>we're already using energy faster than we can harvest it
That's obviously untrue. We don't use energy that we don't harvest, therefore the amount of energy we use is less than or equal to the amount we are harvesting.

>>3758307
Fuck their bullshit. They're whining about that we're hoarding the water, but it's obviously going to be detrimental to the environment if they do that, albeit wetlands are the only thing I can think right off the bat.

>>3758312
>britain, a place where people are born with webbed hands to help navigate the constant rain

nah, your just thinking of Norfolk

My country has 180k lakes and it rains all the fucking time. Doesn't matter if I use 30000 liters a day. There's plenty more where it came from.

>>3758290
>but we're already using energy faster than we can harvest it
>[citation needed]

>>3758325

What's the name of that chick you always post?

>>3758321
maybe.
I couldn't think of the words I needed. I was going to say we're using it faster than the planet recieves it, but that of course isn't true.

We're getting most of our energy from non-renewable sources that took billions of years to accumulate...

you're all idiots

>>3758339
Yes, but if you start going there, you could say the same thing about all the luxuries we have.

>>3758338
Laura Nielson
aka FvR
http://www.youtube.com/user/FactVsReligion

>>3758356
of course.

the point wasn't important, or even part of an argument. It was just poorly worded and anons jumped on it thinking I care to argue what they read rather than what I meant.

I don't really think it's important.

>>3758339

Yeah, but you're not thinking outside of the box. You're simply assuming that we will continue to use non-reneuable resources for energy. Why can't we change? In fact, we usually do when push comes to shove. By the time we are in serious trouble and those resources are depleted scientists and engineers will have developed new more sustainable technologies to harvest energy.

Just stop worrying about shit and smoka da ganga me monnnnnnnn!

>>3758362

Master Troll?

Wouldn't surprise me.

>>3758422
lol, yeh kinda. watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbIgSZPinvI

>>3758413
nah, I'm not actually worried about energy or water or climate.

we've got a far larger problem on the horizon everyone's kinda ignoring, one for which there is no technological solution. We have a couple decades to address it and then we mostly die. I don't think anyone will do anything about it, so I've stopped worrying.

the fact that most here haven't heard about it seems to merely indicate the consensus that it can't be solved.

>>3758445

>>3758445
A faggot none the less.

>you get no reaction out of me
>makes a 3 min video explaining this

I wonder who's wasting the most time

>>3758476

>implying it's not an elaborate troll

Only a /sci/duck could let this fact completely pass them by.

>>3758464
Which is...

If you're going to say overpopulation then there's plenty of technology to solve it, we call then guns.

>>3758669
no, I was going to say phosphorus production.

however that's only a problem if we don't fix overpopulation with guns, and you and I seem to agree that's probably the best and most likely solution.