Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

India's Flooded Farmlands Mask a Water Crisis Deep Underground (bloomberg.com) 106

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
India consumes more groundwater. That's testing India's ability to feed itself and much of the world. From a report: The South Asian nation is already the world's largest guzzler of groundwater. Cheap power has encouraged routine overreliance on finite riches. India overwhelmingly grows some of the thirstiest crops: rice, wheat and sugar cane. Over the last half century, farm productivity has leapt forward, but so, too, has water usage -- up 500% over that period, according to the World Bank. Erratic monsoons and brutal heat waves are only making the problem more acute. Farmers are digging deeper wells because existing ones are no longer refilling. Some regions may run out of groundwater entirely -- Punjab, a major wheat producer, could go dry within the next 15 or so years, according to a former state official. States in southern India are battling over water rights in areas where rampant urban development has drained thousands of lakes.

The government is not blind to the crisis. But with a national election on the horizon next year, there's little to gain in pushing actively for change among farmers, one of the most important voting blocs in the country. Any long-term solution will involve tinkering with farm subsidies or the minimum price set for water-intensive crops. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's ruling party is all too aware that farmers from India's grain-growing northern regions dominated months of protests against proposed agrarian reforms from late 2020. Modi was forced to withdraw the proposals. For now, it's clear the water math does not add up.

Modi has promised piped water to all Indian households by 2024. Yet nearly half of India's 1.4 billion residents already face high-to-extreme water stress, and the world's most populous nation is expected to add more than 200 million more people by 2050. Agriculture, meanwhile, accounts for 90% of water use, helping to explain why Indian officials say the clearest strategy for preserving supplies is modernizing the industry. The government has tried to convince farmers to adopt different irrigation technologies, return to traditional rain harvesting and plant less thirsty crops like millets, pulses and oilseeds. Nothing has yet made a substantial difference, in a country where subsidies supporting wheat and rice persist, and farming is dominated by smallholders.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India's Flooded Farmlands Mask a Water Crisis Deep Underground More

India's Flooded Farmlands Mask a Water Crisis Deep Underground

Comments Filter:

  • Farmers are parasites (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @10:17AM (#64090807)
    In India farmers dont pay any taxes, get free electricity and water, subsidized seeds, fertilizers and pesticides; minimum guaranteed prices for their crops and pollute the air by burning crop residue. Most of the so called "farmers" dont even farm. They are a land owning class who use their farmer status to to cheat on taxes on their non farm income. The farming is done by landless laborers from poor states. This means the "farmers" are mostly politicians and have lot of time for protests (they hire thier laborers at a daily rate to come and block streets).

    The entire country's development is held hostage by a small "farmer" class who hide behind millions of landless laborers.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The entire country's development is held hostage by a small "farmer" class who hide behind millions of landless laborers.

      "I own less than 1/4000 of the farmland in the US. I have invested in these farms to make them more productive and create more jobs. There isn't some grand scheme involved - in fact, all these decisions are made by a professional investment team." - Bill Gates, owner of 242,000 acres of farmland.

      • Billy G. In some ways can help farmers, expect his company would like to take on the tractor repairs shakedown. His foundation strives to be philanthropic. Not quite the Cyborg Billcutis of old. Water rights for farmers another matter. Food security is priority but almonds for ex r hardly a staple requirement.
    • We found right here why communist has a wide and easy recruiting base. The investor class in land that some year costs to plant and occasionally makes a profit on other years is always in the crosshairs of the people who quickly discount risk. In the US the governments is also the largest landlord of agriculture and grazing leases in the hemisphere, a tremendous amount of non income tax revenue is because the people/state hold the land and that ownership has not really changed since 1900.

      If the fa

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      yeah I see similar whinging about US politics.

      Here is the thing - we all gotta eat. You are going to pay one way or the other. The policies and subsides that exist, so exist ultimately out of a belief its better for food security over all.

      Price supports, destruction and or dumping of surplus crops - all that is about ensuring that if some freak even does occur - say a volcano erupts and there is like no sun one summer the impact of lost production does not leave little Timmy wondering where his bowl of corn

      • And it's never secure enough; they will always shout for more subsidies on that excuse.

        When the UK was still in the EU the National Farmers' Union still called for more farming support for food security reasons, despite the fact that the EU's Common Agriculture Policy was justified largely on the basis of the need for more food security.

        What's needed is a rational discussion of how large strategic stockpiles should be, and then the adoption of policies that will achieve that level of provision. What actuall

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          Its not a rational question though. It fundamentally has to do with ones risk tolerance, which varies person to person, varies according to things like if you have children or not and if you like them...

          However it is a question that has to be answered as a society. I know people that have expensive umbrella policies because they fear a disruption in their life style so much they can't feel satisfied with the coverage even a higher end home owers policy alone generally affords them.

          Not a lot of people do th

          • The depression also had the Dust Bowl, and that led to attempts to change farming practices. However, I think WWII that bookended the depression also had further consequences after it was over, because that was the era of long distance food shipments, a boom in household incomes, large migrations into the cities, which changed how the US views food greatly.

          • It's a bit like the discussion of how much healthcare the state should afford for its people and so tax them for. The UK has successfully had that conversation with the inauguration of National Institute of Clinical Excellence, but most people wander around muttering that 'life is of infinite worth'.

            Except there's far less excuse for us not to have a reasoned discussion about that... Which is why I suspect there's a deliberate attempt to avoid the public conversation.

      • yeah I see similar whinging about US politics.

        Here is the thing - we all gotta eat.

        Yes, the US has similar political concerns. The political alignment in the US happens to fall roughly along Republican farmland and Democratic city lines. Here in California, driving through farm country, one sees signs about how water is needed for food, and we all have to eat. Of course, the US has way more than enough food many times over for its people. It just that the food is not efficiently produced or distributed. Some items should not be produced, like alfalfa for export. A lot of food is nev

        • As an example, much of the vegetables in the US is grown in California, but California has only two senators compared to the tens of Midwest senators. As a result, the overall health of Americans has suffered.

          Let us know when you can grow tomatoes in the Sand Hills of Nebraska. There is a reason some crops can only grow in certain areas of the country. You won't see orange groves in Minnesota, for example.

          This doesn't take into consideration the market for fruits and vegetables. Maybe you want

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )
            GP is not asking to grow veggies in the midwest. He is referring to the fact that the school lunch program is meat and dairy heavy so as to provide a ready market for all the subsidized grains and cattle grown in the midwest. If California was 5 separate states with 10 senators , similar subsidies for veggies would exist improving the health of school children nationwide.

            • Most of what you say is wrong. The main reasons the school lunch program is a problem is because
              1) it is a government program, therefore it is inefficient and poorly managed by definition. But it is a welfare benefit that keeps poor voters voting for a certain party that wants welfare benefits for all
              2) the FDA, another bastion of left wing progressivism defines the food pyramid even though like most of what the FDA prescribes is scientifically suspect
              3) the current program due to steps 1 and 2 is overfunde

            • If California were five different states then two of them would probably be agriculture-poor and barely populated. It would only affect the balance slightly.

          • Maybe you want to eat brussel sprouts, but most people don't.

            Funny that you should pick that as an example. Back when I was in my single-digit years, I always liked cabbage, probably because Mom never boiled it to death. Then, I ran across a mention of brussels sprouts in a Dr. Dolitttle book, and got curious. Imagine my pleasant surprise to learn that they're really just miniature cabbages that even a boy like me could eat several as part of dinner. Think of them that way, don't overcook them and th

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by vivian ( 156520 )

              Also add bits of sliced bacon - you don't need much. Makes cabbage and brussel sprouts awesome.

              • Sounds like a good idea in general. However, if you try Alton's recipe, the seasonings and grilling give them all the flavor boost they need.

            • Before Brussels sprouts became popular, the jokes we make about it now were all made about cabbage... And then some.

              I for one have always hated them, and it seems I always will. The smell alone is enough to put me off, from a distance no less.

              I am not mad that you like them, but no amount of preaching will make them palatable to some of us.

              • The smell alone is enough to put me off, from a distance no less.

                I can well understand; I feel the same way about bananas. And, I wasn't preaching, I was explaining why I've always liked them and offering a recipe for those of us who enjoy them.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ghoul ( 157158 )
                its all about what you grow up eating. In India we didnt eat beef. Now I feel beef is chewy and meh. Much prefer lamb or chicken. I can only tolerate beef in burgers. But others swear that its much tastier than Chicken. To each his own. of course Chickens take a lot less resources to grow so we will run out of beef much before we run out of chicken. And chickens dont fart methane.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Here's a rule of thumb: if your doctor wants you to eat less of something, it is heavily subsidized, either directly or indirectly. If your doctor wants you to eat more of it, it is a "specialty crop" that receives little or no government subsidies.

          It's actually cheaper to shop in the interior of a supermarket which your nutritionist advises you to avoid, becuase the hyperprocessed foods there are made pretty much entirely from federally subsidized agricultural feedstocks, industrially processed on a massi

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by junglee_iitk ( 651040 )

      Mandatory reference, just to show the difference between what is, and how it is presented in the western media:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1... [nytimes.com]

      https://www.indiatoday.in/indi... [indiatoday.in]

      The leftists in the west are so focused on dismantling "existing systems of oppression" and they don't mind sacrificing people who don't make the news - the normal people in other country.

    • "farmers are mostly politicians"

      No, the majority of Indian farmers have medium or small landholdings. With so many farmer suicides in India due to financial stress over the past few years, you should know better than to write that falsehood.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )
        Govt encourages farmer suicides by giving large amounts of money to the families of farmers who commit suicide. Its a solvable issue. Stop giving out money for commiting suicide and maybe farmers wont borrow large sums and blow it on lavish marriages instead of the farm equipment they borrowed it for.

  • Just like California (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @10:18AM (#64090809)
    The water problems will fix themselves. The places that overuse the slow replenishing aquifers will dry up, and after that no amount of political screaming or prayer to whatever god you worship will make the water reappear. If local resources get used up, the humans will adapt or migrate. Just like any other species of animal.

    • Re:Just like California (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @10:47AM (#64090863)
      That the weight of floodwater recharges aquifers must be a western hemisphere thing, man gravity just favors the Midwest USA in so many ways. Live next to river and watch farmers flood fields to recharge ground water supply this time of year and work hard to reverse the process so the field is perfect for May 1 - May 15 planting when the sun raises the soil tempters for the start of a 120 day crop growing season, that ends sort of dry around here. The bigest problem will wells around me is the glacial sands permeability is to high and the shallow water is not ideal for drinking, but it sure is ideal for corn and bean farming. The deep water is 40 feet down in/on/under limestone, the ag water is more like 15 in anything that is close to fractured gravel. 125 years ago my part of the midwest was more a bog going down 30 feet than grasslands or corn fields, so I have no idea what people who ask return to nature want, they say grasslands, but I know it was a bog so dense it made a peat layer. Shallow wells for farmland is effectively Dec-March rain/snow runoff being stored out of the wind and sun. If you wanted farmers to put it into ponds, you are just reducing farmland for something that is stored under it yearly. I think of most of india's farmland being on top of sand? Am I wrong?

      • That the weight of floodwater recharges aquifers must be a western hemisphere thing

        No, just a regional thing. Flooding fields doesn't noticeably recharge aquifers where I live in the western US.

        The deep water is 40 feet down in/on/under limestone, the ag water is more like 15 in anything that is close to fractured gravel.

        Not here. You're going at least 200 feet to find water, 300-350 feet is typical, and 400+ feet is not uncommon. My brother-in-law (who was a farmer) had to drill 450 feet to get water for his fields when he converted from dry farming to irrigation.

        It makes sense that flooding fields in the spring will recharge aquifers if they're very shallow. The estimates I've seen here are that the water in t

      • That the weight of floodwater recharges aquifers must be a western hemisphere thing

        Floodwaters don't recharge aquifers anywhere. That's why they are floods - the water stays on the surface. Floodwaters mostly divert via rivers to the ocean. Aquifers are recharged slowly with continuous precipitation over long periods of time in a way where you *don't* flood.

    • Instead what will happen is that overall food output will drop resulting in an increase in food prices on the global scale. You'll notice this in the form of bread going up 20 cents below and in poor countries they'll notice it by having large scale food insecurity resulting in Mass migration of refugees and increased wars coupled with increased tensions in countries facing a large influx of refugees and political demagogues using that influx of refugees as a wedge issue to push through bad policy.

      Sayi

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        political demagogues using that influx of refugees as a wedge issue to push through bad policy.

        Bad policy? Like what kind of bad policy, keeping large masses of migrants out so they don't create the same problem here they are fleeing of more people than the local ecology can support?

        That kind of bad policy?

        Talk about American exceptionalism kool-aide swilling. Geeze, what is your actual plan? Just believe hard enough this part of the globe is somehow not subject to the same limitations everywhere else is?

        • well you gotta let them in, consequences be damned, because otherwise you risk being mean. or racist, or something.
          it's not like dumping a few million uneducated, unskilled, culturally distant people could ever be a bad idea.

          • it's not like dumping a few million uneducated, unskilled, culturally distant people could ever be a bad idea.

            Tell that to the home builders, restaurants, hotels, golf courses, and crop growers to name a few who think otherwise.

            • Okay so the 10% or so the country able to exploit cheap labor loves immigration; while it's used to punish working class natives for not being as enlightened or progressive or something.
              I guess as long as GDP GO BRRRRR it's okay to destroy your country and society; because again, you might be considered a big meanie if you're not a fan of it.

              • I guess as long as GDP GO BRRRRR it's okay to destroy your country and society; because again, you might be considered a big meanie if you're not a fan of it.

                Then perhaps all those MAGAs should stop hiring all those immigrants and employ Americans at good wages.

                Also, if immigrants are so bad why did the Oompa Loompa marry two of them, and why does he employ immigrants at his failing golf courses?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )
            Yeah the native Americans felt the same way about Europeans moving in. Its not really a choice.

        • Bad policy? Like what kind of bad policy, keeping large masses of migrants out so they don't create the same problem here they are fleeing of more people than the local ecology can support?

          Bill the Butcher agrees with you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          US population is projected -- factoring in current levels of immigration -- to grow slowly, peaking at only about 10% larger around 2080, then declining.

          What's going to change drastically isn't the ethnic structure of the country, but the age structure. At present there are four workers for every retiree in America. Under the current immigration regime, by 2100 there will be 1.9 workers for every retiree; if you cut off all immigration starting today that figure will drop to about 1.4. This is because im

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ghoul ( 157158 )
            The solution of course is to encourage emigration for retirees. People can lead a very luxury retirement in Costa Rica or Thailand on what Social Security pays.
    • I respectfully disagree with this approach. It is like saying drunk driving is a self correcting problem without concern for the innocent victims.

      The leading explanation of the formation of the Sahara desert is that overgrazing by nomads and their flocks tipped the balance of natural vegetation and that the grasslands could not survive the natural dry spells. Human destruction of natural resources has permanent long term drawbacks, e.g. giant hot dry deserts.

      The leading explanation for political unrest
      • According to laws of conservation of matter you can't "consume" water. It will keep on existing, though perhaps in different form because of chemical reactions. But most uses of water don't do anything irreversible to it so I don't see how it can be long term problem.
        • It not the amount of water on the planet, it is how it is distributed in a useable form. i.e. fresh water near arable land. Look again at my Sahara Desert example. I'd say 10,000 years constitutes a long term. See: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]

        • You are being very literal. No one is saying water is being broken down into hydrogen and oxygen or being converted into energy. The issue is fresh water, you can definitely "consume" fresh water.

          • You can also recycle it, and unless you store it, it will eventually evaporate and become clouds to rain it back.

      • "leading explanation" That is a hypothesis by archaeologist David Wright, in fact you can find the opposite hypothesis (https://www.earth.com/news/pastoralists-desertification-sahara/). From what I read the end of the ice age resulted in a drier, hotter climate at those latitudes. I have also read that the loss of topsoil and a change to a rockier environment happened in Greece due to the adaptation of widespread sheep herding.

        You're already seeing possible river wars as countries upstream take more and

      • Re:Just like California (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @03:04PM (#64091423)

        Humanity must understand that the world is a giant organism and each of us are like cells within its body. If we make the world's ecology sick, we are only sickening ourselves. We should be smarter than that. Ecological damage does not necessarily heal itself.

        We're too busy propping up ego-driven psychopaths to tell us why we should hate each other to do anything as smart as trying to work with the planet we live on rather than against it. "It's too hard," seems to be the answer to any logical solution. Why's it hard? Because psychopaths in charge tell us it's too hard. Because it's more profitable to them to maintain the status quo. Even if the status quo is headed straight to the edge of the cliff and over? Status quo. So long as we don't reach the edge before they die, what do they care?

    • Hope kills.

      "If I don't use this water, I won't have the money I need to maintain my lifestyle. I hope it won't run out before I'm dead of old age, because denial of the issue lets me keep what I have with minimal short term effort." Stack on "It can't be my fault, so I'd best find an outside group and get everyone like me to blame them for our peace of mind" and things get nasty.

      An inability to do proper risk/reward assessments and agree to minor unpleasantness now to avoid major unpleasantness in the fut

      • An inability to do proper risk/reward assessments and agree to minor unpleasantness now to avoid major unpleasantness in the future is a significant issue for humans.

        This is a solved problem; it's called governance. The perceived risk can be raised through regulation, enforcement, and publicizing those efforts. This isn't rocket science, but unfortunately it requires either a benevolent dictator, or else the collective societal will to establish institutions with resources and resistance to corruption in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Migration isnt really an option as we're talking hundreds of millions of people. Where are they going to go?

    • The water problems will fix themselves. The places that overuse the slow replenishing aquifers will dry up, and after that no amount of political screaming or prayer to whatever god you worship will make the water reappear. If local resources get used up, the humans will adapt or migrate. Just like any other species of animal.

      I don't think anyone doubts the physical inevitability of water problems fixing themselves. The question is how to fix the inevitable food production crash (followed by either by inevitable economic hardships or a famine).

      If local resources get used up, the humans will adapt or migrate. Just like any other species of animal.

      Unfortunately, past the size of small bands, people can't migrate in large numbers, not in the hundreds of millions as in this specific case. They aren't wildebeest. A water crash inevitably causes a food production crash. And a food production crash of this magnitude can cause devastatin

    • When water runs short , taxpayers will be on hook to create megaprojects to bring water so that farmers can keep growing alfalfa and almonds.

    • The water problems will fix themselves.

      No, the water problems become other people's problems. You think republican outrage at the "migrant caravan" that was moving slowly towards the USA was bad, that was 15000 people. Imagine what happens when actual millions start moving in search of water.

      Just like any other species of animal.

      Oh you were imagining. Eating and killing each other over limited resources.

  • Oh, come on, slashdot!

    Look at all the emotionally charged words in that summary. "Crisis", "Guzzled", "Thirstiest", "Problem more acute", "Erratic monsoons", "Brutal heat waves".

    Oh noes, the world is going to end!!!

    This isn't a technical description of a problem of interest to nerds, it's a trumpet of emotional outrage.

    Here's a problem, it's rooted in politics, here's the solution, and you should be outraged that they haven't fixed it yet! Outrage! Outrage!

    Slashdot, please: Let's get back to news for nerds.

    • The slashdot you remember is dead. The current editors are wearing its skin like a dress. They don't know or care what a nerd is or what kind of news might be "for" them.

      • The problem is we just got old. So like it or not we have to pay attention to world events. Also technology isn't as cool anymore because it's not moving at a breakneck pace and we don't get tons of cool gadgets like we used to we just get another phone. There's still a lot of amazing tech going on but it's at a extremely specialized level now it doesn't lend itself well to a bunch of nerds chatting about it. It was easy to get a conversation going about system v not so much about the intricacies of one of

    • Nobody gets a ticker tape parade (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @11:12AM (#64090901)
      For preventing a disaster. That's the problem with our country and our world is that people who work behind the scenes in meetings and committees and in labs and public universities to make sure that you can go to the grocery store and buy food get blown off while the demagogue who takes advantage of a crisis gets lavished with wealth and power.

      Climate change is breaking the water cycle which is leading to drought which is in turn going to reduce food output which is going to create refugees and massive social, political and economic instability. You're already seeing this with a large number of Muslim refugees fleeing into parts of Europe and demagogues taking advantage of that to push extremely bad policy that makes things even worse resulting in a cycle that overtime leads to war.

      Instead of just letting that all happen when we can see it happening right before our eyes it would be nice if as a species we would fucking learn for a change and step in and stop it from happening in the first place

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Muslims have been trying to flood into Europe for 1300 years. It isn't climate change that is causing the current wave, it is retards like you cheering them on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kackle ( 910159 )
      While I hear what you're saying, "Slashdot" didn't write the report pasted in the summary, which does have that "sell more newspapers" spin to it.

  • Why is this story on Slashdot? What's the relevance?

    • Re:Why is this here? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @10:48AM (#64090867)

      Lots of science and engineering in there to unpack (aquifer overuse, looking for more efficient water use, building out a water supply system to hundreds of millions in just a few years), with the interference of politics preventing an optimal outcome to make us feel smug.

      It's News for Nerds and Stuff that Matters. Seems to meet the basic criteria for posting here better than other stuff that makes the queue.

      • Lots of science and engineering in there to unpack

        TFA has no quantitative information.

        The only number given is the population of India, and that number is wrong.

        • >The only number given is the population of India, and that number is wrong.

          Both summary and article state 1.4 billion, which is a perfectly legitimate rounding down of the current population estimate.

          • >The only number given is the population of India, and that number is wrong.

            Both summary and article state 1.4 billion, which is a perfectly legitimate rounding down of the current population estimate.

            What is more, they have increased their population by almost half a billion since 2010. That's more than an entire USA in 13 years. Y'all can look that up.

            It is not sustainable, and how the hell is the rest of the world going to feed India when the inevitable happens?

            I'm pretty certain that the unintentional human depop is going to start in India.

            • >how the hell is the rest of the world going to feed India when the inevitable happens?

              The world can't feed them, but many issues with India might keep the issue (somewhat) regional.

              India and Pakistan are going to fight over the Indus, desperate refugees will invade in waves from Bangladesh, and large, populated parts of India are going to have trouble growing food as they become less habitable with more severe heat waves.

              Essentially, I expect the region will (mostly) self-cannibalize rather than spread

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ghoul ( 157158 )
                Bangladesh population is falling as their TFR is below replacement rate. Same for India. Indian monsoons are getting stronger with global warming so arable land is actually increasing. Whats needed is to build more dams to store the excess water which is arriving each summer and use for irrigation during the dry season. The Indian subcontinent is a net winner in the Climate Change scenario. Worry about Europe where the shutdown of the Gulf Stream will mean London will soon be as cold as Moscow.

                BTW India

                • While I do enjoy looking at doomsday scenarios I'm absolutely not one to enjoy pointless human suffering, so it's nice to learn I'm off on at least one of them.

                  However, Bangladesh is to my understanding in very real danger of more or less disappearing. It's already 75% below sea level. Rising sea levels and more severe weather mean that 75% will become a higher number, lower ground, and more likely to end up hosting a new bit of ocean. And that's ignoring the fact they they are getting close to fatal wet-b

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by ghoul ( 157158 )
                    Bangladesh is no more below sea level than Netherlands. it can deal with the issue with a Netherland style of Dykes. However to afford such a system it needs rapid industrialization for which it needs fossil fueled development. If Bangladesh stands around trying to save the world , it will drain. Instead if it pollutes like hell , it can afford to build the dykes.

                    Bengalis have evolved for the heat. Plus now we have air conditioning. Same payoff. Bangladesh has to get rich enough to afford air conditioned
            • India exports food. It grows more than its needs. India has the most arable land in the world. US is a close second. No other country comes close. Also Indian TFR has fallen to below 2.1 which is replacement rate. Indian population will start falling in 20 yrs once the children born this year reach reproductive age (there is always some inertia in populations). So India is never going to run out of food. By the time Climate change starts affecting yields , populations will also be falling. BTW global warmi
    • because your fellow nerds voted it up in the firehose

      but, WHY, i've always wondered, does the firehose keep around stories that have already been published, like WTF?
    • Stuff that matters. More importantly this touches on climate change and population growth..

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Why is this story on Slashdot?

      Well if it wasnt on Slashdot what would you whine and cry about?

  • India has been overpopulated for 3000 years. And they have learned nothing . Another 200-M people ... many of whom need to be exported to overpopulate other countries ... instead of a rigorous one-child-per-family agenda. Lets say each yeoman needs 100 acres of forest/arable land to live well. Anything less points to a peon or slavish dependent. How does India stack up. With the donation of major cities to NIKElooting savages how does the USA stack up ??

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Whibla ( 210729 )

      Lets say each yeoman needs 100 acres of forest/arable land to live well. Anything less points to a peon or slavish dependent.

      Given that a family of four can live off the produce of 1 acre, plus maybe a couple of acres of grazing land, if they have a hankering for cow's milk, beef or pork, I'd suggest your conclusion is somewhere between suspect and hyperbolic bollocks.

      • Depends on how and what you're measuring when defining 'live well', you can't support, say, an American lifestyle on the energy output of 1 acre

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ghoul ( 157158 )
          You cant support an American lifestyle without fossil energy. Its impossible from just farming. Just the diesel for your tractor to plant 100 acres will use up all the biodiesel you produce.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Whibla ( 210729 )

          Depends on how and what you're measuring when defining 'live well'...

          Indeed, the devil is in the detail. Different people in different parts of the world have very different definitions of "live well".

          ...you can't support, say, an American lifestyle on the energy output of 1 acre

          As things stand today, probably not, but I suspect the difference is not as great as most might imagine. Solar panels in combination with a reasonable sized battery and a ground source heat pump (preferably a vertical, rather than a horizontal one) would provide for all their energy and transport needs without significantly (if at all) cutting into the land available for growin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ghoul ( 157158 )
      India has been the most fertile place in the world for entire human history. Some places in India you can grow 3 or even 4 crops a year. It has a carrying capacity far higher than Western Europe or the Eastern Seaboard of the United States both of which have similar population density. India is not going to run out of food. In any case TFR has fallen below 2.1 so Indian population will start shrinking in a couple of decades.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well, leaving aside the fact that India didn't exist thousands of years ago, the population of the entire Indian subcontinent in AD 1 was around 35 million. That's a lot of people, but the Indian subcontient is a huge place; 35 million people would give it about the same population density as modern Idaho.

  • in spite of what the elongated mollusk has to say.

  • Too many people is a self-limiting problem.

  • They need desalination (Score:3)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday December 19, 2023 @04:08PM (#64091539) Journal
    Tamil Nadu and other states have nuclear power plants, and are building more. India needs to these power plants do multiple things:
    1) desalination. This is available for free. Simply use the heated cooling of the ocean water.
    2) the brine from (1) is concentrated elements. Mostly NaCl, but several means exists to pull that out. What will remain is super concentrated elements/minerals that all nations need.
    3) Indian Ocean is turning acidic and destroying coral reefs. Cold sea water contains some 25+ times the CO2 of atmosphere. When heated, it is released. That needs to be captured, solidified, and disposed of ( or possibly converted to hydrocarbons ). This is far more efficient and cheaper than the stupid approaches we taking in America and UK.

Slashdot Top Deals

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire

Close