economicmultipliers_179

Economic Multipliers (179)

Do you know what these are?
They help CREATE wealth in systems.
Poverty is not an economic multiplier.  (No. 9)
  
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
                   
I reiterate:

‘Elections (and any time) are a great time for young people to ‘meet’ their leaders.

For that reason, I’m hoping young people will think about some things they observe in their world related to how their ‘leaders’ lead.’
 
¤¤¤¤¤

NOTHING (in a collective sense) is going to have a greater impact on future generations than the amount of water human beings decide to leave in the oceans.

Know that this is a CHOICE.

If you don’t believe me, fill 2 glasses to the brim with water:

For the first – add more water.  Does it run over the edge?  That is water that will be flooding the coastlines.

For the second  – stick your finger in the water.  Does it run over the edge?  That is water that will be flooding the coastlines.

With more water, you could put it in a different glass.  It’s possible to put ocean water (desalinated) back up on land:  It’s not practical (economical) unless almost all of the work for desalination is done using passive energy.

Sticking a finger in the water is the equivalent of adding more boats and debris and coastal buildouts and pilings and even planned floating cities to the glass.  Once again, it’s possible to put ocean water (desalinated) which compensates for the water displacements up on land (and into people, plants and surface water and groundwater systems).  Again, it’s not practical (economical) unless almost all of the work for desalination is done using passive energy.

Many people think that inland areas would have no vested interest in helping figure out how to prevent the looming increase in water levels in the oceans.

In an ironic twist of fate that binds everyone together, if this is not done, at a time when more people will be pushing inland, many inland areas will be experiencing the equivalent of extreme droughts (see P.S.).

Water is needed inland for human beings, agriculture, business and industry and to prevent disasters like extreme fires and extreme flooding.

If any single thing is more ironic than any other, inland areas experiencing extreme droughts would be less resistant to extreme flooding and in the absence of proper planning, extreme flooding would not help alleviate the problems caused by droughts.

People can ‘pretend’ that glaciers and icebergs aren’t melting.  People can ‘pretend’ that inland groundwater resources aren’t being depleted.  People can ‘pretend’ that ‘ice’ lands aren’t melting away.

From a ‘leadership’ perspective, wouldn’t it be more fun to ‘pretend’ that we cannot accurately predict all the changes we are going to experience globally weather-wise but we do know that with lots of water and vegetative ground cover and trees inland and along the coastlines, on the whole, everyone will live in a ‘better’ world.

A LOT of (desalinated) water has to come back up on land – preferably all over the world so all the nations can experience the economic benefits of that happening.

I myself like the concept of designated bottled water with ‘pilgrimages’ and ‘relays’ since people are always on the move.  Hydrologists and hydrogeologists could literally set up moving water stations which could help renew lands (like by creating expanding oases in deserts or gardens and orchards at schools and on the edges of other public lands).  For larger projects, the economics might justify pipelines.

Depending on ‘needs,’ water could (mainly) be requested to increase ground cover and trees and food supplies which promote ground cover and the infiltration of water as these things also promote inland condensation, precipitation and soil moisture protection.

In a corporate world, is it ‘practical’ to want human beings to do some of the transport?  To make this work, I figure that about 3 billion of the world’s population have to be willing to say ‘I’m in:’

  • If one person’s ‘pilgrimage’ is to the top of a mountain, they might be willing to carry an extra bottle or two along.
  • If kids need extra exercise, they might be willing to ‘relay’ water from school to school or library to library (heading inland) and relay empty bottles back while learning about how they have the ability to change their world for the better.
  • Some adults might decide to get their daily exercise by walking or biking to and from water stations.

I won’t be around in 100 years.

I do wish for future generations that all the coastlines of the world and the economic multipliers which have been created from their development are.

Imagine creating the future while compensating for some of the past.

¤¤¤¤¤

P.S.  If large numbers of people need to move inland, areas that get the same or even more precipitation can experience ‘drought by numbers:’  A water supply designed for 100 people may have difficulty accommodating more – especially if the existing water system taps into and is already depleting groundwater resources.

And, if the coasts flood to any great degree, in an ‘unfortunate’ multiplying effect, coastal lands that would have supported agriculture and people will be ‘much less available’ and ‘shrunken’ river basins most likely will discharge less fresh water – IF we do not start moving water back up on land.

P.S.P.S.  If you anticipate a problem and immediately take steps to resolve it, it’s not possible to know what would have happened in the absence of the ‘work.’  The only thing you know is that, on the whole, everyone is better off than they might have been.

For any nation and as a collective ‘global whole,’ do we see this as a debt we owe AND must pay so future generations have their own chance at a ‘better’ life/world?

In the United States, people like to emphasize the concept of ‘freedom.’

I could be wrong about this:  When the founders of this country used that term, I believe they meant the ‘freedom’ to take ‘responsibility’ for the future in ways which would ensure the ‘rights’ of their own and future generations.