Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to Third World Economic Aid — A Fair, Workable Solution
Now, back to our discussion...
One of the problems with the left is that it tends to ignore facts when they do not support its perceptions. The Coca Cola situation at Plachimada and elsewhere in India is a classic example of this. I agree that on the surface it appears that (1) Coca Cola established a plant; (2) it uses water; (3) local water resources are drying up; (4) ergo sum. So let's start here.
The first question one should ask is: Are water resources in other areas also drying up, areas that are not impacted by the Coca Cola operations? The next question is: Do the numbers match up? Is it really possible for the amount of water being extracted to cause the observed drop in ground water? (There are other questions, but these are the most important right up front.)
The answer to the first question is: Yes, other areas in the same region are also suffering from a significant drop in the ground water level. The answer to the second question is: No, it is mathematically impossible for the amount of water actually being extracted to lower the local level to the observed degree.
The important thing here is to recognize that these two answers are unassailable. They are not open to debate, because they are simple, verifiable fact. (You commented that the real world does not agree with my calculations. Since the calculations make no assumptions that depend upon point of view or other "spin," they must be taken at face value. For example, if you have a gallon of water in a pot and a pint bottle, a simple calculation will show you that you cannot put the entire contents of the pot into the bottle--no argument, it simply can't be done. My calculations are on this level. The only questions can be about the actual amount of water in the lake, and the size of the bottles.)
It seems that some other regional factor is causing the depletion of the regional water table. I should think, in this case, that local authorities would be concerned with GENERAL water consumption, including that by Coca Cola, and would establish some sort of restrictions until the crisis passes.
On the other hand, for Coca Cola to use dry wells as dumping spots for contaminating chemicals is unconscionable. This should be stopped immediately, if it really is happening! Unfortunately, the people who are taking a front position in this fight have sullied their credibility with their claims regarding the water table, so that their legitimate claims regarding the contamination will be less likely to be heard.
posted by
arGee
on October 7, 2003 at 10:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Yeah...
...I was watching that. Seemed a bit OTT to me. Ah well. Another one bites the dust.
Civility (usually) comes naturally to me. On we go!!
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 7, 2003 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Re email situation...
...here is the plain text of my email to you:
I wanted to thank you for your civility. I have been in a short conversation with VoiceofReasonandRage wherein he became excessively abusive and ugly. I was going to point you to his comments, but it appears they have been wiped along with his entire persona in the last couple of minutes. Oh well...
Again, I enjoy our reparte and look forward someday to meeting you personally.
posted by
arGee
on October 7, 2003 at 10:10 AM
| link to this | reply
With Respect...
...your math is at odds with what's happening out there in the REAL world, to REAL people.
Here's a link...
http://www.vshiva.net/archives.htm
Go to the top pdf - Cocacolanisation - and YOU do your freakin' homework!
(Bear with me on the email. I'm having...issues right now. Should be sorted in 48 hours or less.)
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 7, 2003 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply
I tried to send you an email...
...did you get it? If not, please send me your personal email to
rgw@argee.net, and I will forward the original email again.
posted by
arGee
on October 7, 2003 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
As I already said...Do the math!
It is physically impossible for a bottling plant—even a water bottling plant—to deplete a lake or reservoir.
Here is a simple calculation: Assume a lake has a surface of approximately 100 square miles, and is approximately 200 feet deep on average. This represents approximately 51 trillion cubic feet of water. Typically, you can get 25 bottles of water from a cubic foot (large bottles), so our lake can supply roughly 1.25 quadrillion bottles of water. The population of the planet is approximately 5 billion. Thus our lake can theoretically supply approximately 250 bottles to each individual on the entire planet—and this is without replenishing anything; just the water in the lake. So get real. Don’t throw ridiculous statements into a serious debate. Do your homework FIRST, so you won’t embarrass yourself in this manner.
[PLEASE NOTE: this calculation is done using American notation where a billion is 1 x 109 . In English notation one billion is 1 x 1012. Had I used scientific notation, there would be no confusion. The important thing is the final number of bottles. )
New Zealand apples can be found in your local market because for APPLES, the economics work out this way. For water, typically it does not. There are exceptions, of course: Evian, something from the South Pacific, but in my opinion, these are relatively short-lived fads. In the long haul, water is not economical to ship.
I won't quarrel with you that oil is currently important. I personally regret that we burn most of it, which I see as a waste of a valuable resource. Plastics and other oil derived products can, of course, be recycled. When this becomes fully profitable, it will become a way of life—count on it.
There is another resource on the horizon, one that has the potential for removing scarcity forever. Nanotechnology appears able, ultimately, to create whatever we need from basic raw materials: air, water, dirt, sand, etc. I will write about this in my Thrawn Rickle blog in the near future. You may want to review it.
I am totally astonished by your final statement. It presumes, (1) that there might be other intelligent races in the Universe (with which I agree); (2) that these races do not have atomics; and (3) that humans can really affect the universe in some meaningful manner.
Any other race that has moved forward with even basic technology will have atomics. It is an obvious outgrowth of the study of physics. If we meet them in space, they will have essentially whatever we have, at a minimum. Probably more.
The universe is to utterly vast that it boggles the mind to imagine humans having more than an insignificantly small local effect on anything. If one wishes to stretch the imagination to the limits, I guess one could look into the vastly distant future to where humans (or whatever humans ultimately become) find ways to control the underlying forces of the universe itself. In this case, we would be like gods, indistinguishable from gods--perhaps even gods...
posted by
arGee
on October 7, 2003 at 9:18 AM
| link to this | reply
You Need to Read...
...with a bit more attention to detail. I talked about Coca-Cola the company, not Coke the product. I'm fully aware of the syrup made, water added later model. I was talking about the bottled water, for drinking, carbonated and still, that Coco-Cola bottle. The reason they do it in the Majority World, more and more, is because of environmental and resource constraints placed on them in the West. And don't kid yourself - a water-bottling plant can drain a lake, deplete a river system and drop the water table disasterously low in just a few years. It's already happened in India. And the wreckage that kind of operation leaves behind is disasterous.
"AND you should know that it is bottled relatively close to where it is consumed. The reason is economics." Well, you'd think so, wouldn't you? So why is it that New Zealand apples in my local shop are cheaper than locally grown apples? Is that economics, too?
"...or by introducing technology driven new products. I suggest to you that this latter method can extend indefinitely into the future." And what, prey, are these products going to made from? Because on present course, the answer will be plastics, metals, or some combination or variation of these. But...ooops!...we need oil to make them. And oil is running out. Then what? Technology in wood?
Technology might dig us out of this hole. I hope it does. But I doubt it. We're being too complacent, not recognising the needs of the planet, and we're going to get shrugged off, just like the dinosaurs.
And if it's a choice between mass extinction of the human race, or spreading our brand of lunacy out to the furthest flung reaches of tghe Universe, I'd frankly prefer the former. The rest of the Universe does not need the nuclear bomb or the McNugget.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 7, 2003 at 8:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Not at all flawed...
First, I agree with you that the other inducements you listed also play a role. I could (should) have included them in my article.
Ditto for available natural resources, except that the appropriate utilization of these resources can and should be included in the underlying agreement/charter under which the company operates. BUT, if you truly believe that Coca Cola actually depleted the total water from a river or lake, then you need to review your basic arithmetic. Your statement is ridiculous. It is physically impossible for a soft drink manufacturing plant to deplete a lake or river, unless these are very small and without natural replenishment. Furthermore, Coke is not consumed just by Westerners. It is consumed world-wide, everywhere. AND you should know that it is bottled relatively close to where it is consumed. The reason is economics. Typically there is no need to ship water, because it is generally available everywhere. So Coke just ships the syrup, adds water in local bottling plants (typically locally owned and operated), and sells locally. This is not quite the model I have proposed, but (ironically, since you chose this company for your counter example) one of the closest.
Your point about expanding markets is, on the other hand, exactly on point. I do not argue with the basic principle you present. Without expanding markets, free economies ultimately stagnate. Expanding markets, however, is a slippery concept. Selling new products to an established market is "expanding markets." Selling established products to a growing population is "expanding markets." Selling established products to a new market is "expanding markets." Etc...
Nevertheless, your point still is pertinent. At some point, there are no more new markets (on the planet), no further expanding populations, so that the only remaining area for "expansion" is new products. I think you would agree (in principle, at least) that companies can always come up with new products, either artificially by "retiring" old ones and introducing replacements (not a long-term viable way to do it in my opinion), or by introducing technology driven new products. I suggest to you that this latter method can extend indefinitely into the future. As the tour guide answered the little old lady on the cavern tour: "Lady, I have no idea how much of this cave is unexplored!"
And another point: Although you might consider this fanciful, I firmly believe it to be true and ultimately the destiny of our entire civilization. We are just now taking the first faltering footsteps from our cradle of origin, the Earth. We are in the initial stages of our eventual expansion throughout the universe. This, ultimately, provides us with unlimited market expansion possibilities that we cannot even imagine now. 
posted by
arGee
on October 7, 2003 at 7:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Some Interersting Ideas...
...but fatally flawed.
For a start, cheap labour is just one of the reasons transnational corporations (TNCs) set up facilities abroad. They are also attracted by laxer laws around pollution and the environmental, around worker safety and welfare, and even around building regulations.
Another big attractor is natural resource - perhaps a resource that is controlled in the US or EU, but simply 'up for grabs' in the Majority World. A good example of this is Coco-Cola. There have been instances of the company (and others) setting up highly secretive water bottling plants in India and elsewhere. They take billions of gallons of fresh water from a river or lake system over a few years, bottle it in plastic and ship it out to wealthy Western consumers. In a few years the water is so severely depleted, and what's left is so salinated or polluted, that it's unusable. Of course, the TNC just ups sticks and moves elsewhere. The local population are left with their once-plentiful water supply effectively stolen, right out from under their noses.
But the really fatal flaw in your post appears in your own words...
"Without expanding markets and profit, business cannot exist."
Which takes us back to the one central flaw in all current-model thinking. Constantly expanding markets and profit (i.e. infinite growth) on a finite planet is quite simply impossible.
Until that central issue is addressed, all other ideas are just tinkering at the edges, re-arranging the deckchairs on the deck of the Titanic.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 7, 2003 at 3:16 AM
| link to this | reply