Dark Sponge you are discussing a different subject: global population growth. This thread is discussing specific regions and the mismatch of local growth rate to limitations of critical resources, in this case fresh water.
Even within the United States the devil will (eventually) be in the local details, with some areas have no issue with adequacy of fresh water supplies and others having local economies hurt hard by its relative lack, with some migration within the country possibly resulting from such.
I am always surprised at how little emphasis there is on population levels in comparison with climate change, as if CC is a big deal and pop levels are a separate topic…
Regardless, I found this article interesting wrt to the Nile region.
The problem now is to ignore that an increase in the population does not mean that we will or should continue increasing the use of old technology or the old ways of polluting our environment.
Despite all the noise, Egypt did …nothing militarly. They even failed to get “negotiations” moved out of the African Union and to a more sympathetic (and USA influenced) forum. However they were able to get the USA to pull Ethiopian aid. Trump even told Ethiopia that “Egypt should blow up the dam” and that “they should’ve done that a long time ago”.
In the meantime, Ethiopia is undergoing a damaging civil war since October 2020. Regional forces in the northern state of Tigray, unhappy with policy choices undertook by Ethiopian PM Abiy Ahmed, took control of federal bases and expelled the federal army. In return, federal forces invaded the state and destroyed the regional forces. But fighting, atrocities, and refugees continue to this day (6 months later).
In addition to that elections has been delayed due to logistical troubles registring voters and a conflict opened up with Sudan on the pourous nature of their shared northern border. Sudan no longer wants Ethiopians occupying remote Sudanese territory.
To get back to the Nile dam. Ethiopia has another scheduled filling of it in July.
It is expected that they will do so with protest by the Egyptians, but without any real response. The GERD is a fait acompli.
Egypt hasn’t been able to get Ethiopia to recognize “its rights” to the waters. Egypt has not been able to get Ethiopia to delay its construction. Egypt has not been able to get Ethiopia controlled/punished in any international forum for the GERD. Ethiopia has complely avoided all of this by sticking to the African Union and not accepting any US direction.
The way I’ve been reading the dispute is that there will not be any agreement as the parties do not even agree on the subject that they are agreeing to.
Egypt wants what you say, a water deal with Ethiopia to secure a base minimum amount (close to) the 55 billion it had reserved from its dealings with Sudan (Egypt and Sudan wrote a deal that split the entire Nile water output and assumed zero upstream development from Sudan).
Ethiopia will not make any “water sharing” deal at all. It considers these negotiations simply for filling/operating guidelines and treaties for the dam, it will (hardline) not to sign any “water sharing” agreement at all. This means that Ethiopians will not sign anything that pledges any base/minimal amount of water to Egypt (with any penalties for failing to “pay” its yearly water-amount bill to Egypt).
Ethiopia (being a former Imperial power) is very familiar with farming, land ownership, and government grain taxing and sees this “water-sharing” agreement as locking themselves into a position of being a renter/surf who is legally required to pay Egypt a yearly “water tax”. It would just be insane for them to voluntary enter into any such (clearly) subservient relationship with Egypt.
If there was ever a major climate change event (or massive drought) Ethiopia would be on the hook for “defaulting” on this agreement. Perhaps for multiple years.
Egypt would never need to build (nor release) its own water stores when it can force Ethiopia to “make up” all the environmental differences.
Ethiopia would never be able to control its hydro-electrical output according to market forces.
Ethiopia would be forced to habitually empty its resevoir and operate it at no profit, just to keep Egypt’s Lake Nasser full.
Paying Egypt a yearly “water-rent” would be considered giving Egypt the legal status of proprietor (primary owner) of the water in Ethiopia’s Lake T’ana, Abay river, and even the rain that falls in Ethiopia, etc…
The current Ethiopian government will not willingly enter into such an agreement.
Add to that: “And have contributed the least to it”. While the country that, per capita, has contributed the most to it is still heavily into denialism.
You might call it a “time bomb” but any reduced water flow is (by definition) temporary. The GERD doesn’t divert any water away from the Nile. All water that flows into the Nile will still, and will ALWAYS, flow into the Nile and towards Egypt. Every drop.
It is important to repeat this key fact: Egypt will still receive all the water it did before the GERD was built (including lack of water from droughts and climate change). None of the Nile’s water can feasably be diverted as Ethiopia is a massive mountain range.
Egypt might not like that Ethiopia is not entering into a contract ensuring minimum amounts of yearly water, but Ethiopia’s GERD is only sequestering water from seasonal rains for hydro-power and year-long controlled releases. This regulates flow and does not “take” any water.
There are maintenance and filling concerns that Ethiopia should address, but they are not going to sign any water-sharing agreement.
For Egypt’s reservoirs to be empty this indicates that Egypt is simply not receiving water anymore (the Nile is dry) or their Dams are no longer functional. Both events are unlikely, but if true the GERD could be an emergency store for the Nile (assuming we are still in a world where rains continue to fall onto the Nile basin and Ethiopia’s Lake T’ana still is outputting water).
But in either way Egypt is undergoing a civilizational ending catastrophe. There will assuredly be war (with Ethiopia and within Egypt itself…maybe a few other neighbours too).
flow to Egypt is less than consumption in Egypt, and
The Nile (as it currently is being used) cannot (or can just barely) sustain Egypt already. The only way for Egypt to get out of its current water critical state is to better use its water stores or to find a new source. Relying on the Nile is a failure. It only outputs what it outputs. No more nor less.
Ethiopia’s dam doesn’t change a drop of output. It only evens out the output past the rainy season and throughout the year.
Ethiopia is filling its reservoir without Egypt’s consent to impound the Blue Nile
Egypt has never (nor are they ever likely to) consent to Ethiopia building, filling, or controlling the water that flows into the Nile. Ethiopia, of course, has also never requested (nor required) Egypt’s consent before building the GERD.
The GERD was planned and built on Ethiopia’s own finances, schedule, and initiative.
No, Ethiopia will continue letting water through the GERD as long as possible because that is what generates power. Therefore in order for Lake Nasser to dry up past critical the GERD would have to already be drawn down.
While Ethiopia is filling the dam, part of the river flow is impounded and Egypt draws down it’s reservoirs to satisfy domestic consumption.
So it’s been filled. It took four annual rainy seasons and (of course) all talk of Egypt undertaking a military strike was a bunch of hot air; as I highlighted back in 2020.
Egypt’s own hydrological infrastructure is just too critical and exposed to start an international war (a tit-for-tat strike on any Egyptian dam would destroy the country as we know it), and their economy is just too fragile to become the next internationally sanctioned Russia. No way would they go the military route.
Their best bet was always to get their case decided in an international forum that is dominated by the US (and then enforced through threat of legal international sanctions). When they failed to get the Ethiopians to agree to the US as an arbitrator (in place of the AU) it was over. The Ethiopians were going to be plowing ahead without asking the Egyptians permission, nor would they stall operation of the dam because the Egyptians were in disagreement.
I’m a bit skeptical of a site that uses “totally” like a surfer dude and whose funding necessitates that others to buy into the idea that population growth is unsustainable.
It’s not sustainable because it has a negative effect on other areas that are important markers for a healthy civilization. In other words, it’s just not more and more people, it’s more and more strain on the environment, more and more strain on food and fuel resources, and more and more strain on social and economic conditions. It’s a cascade effect.
Let’s say that we consider there to be an upper limit on human quantity. We only have so many square miles of land being hit by sun and so only so much biomass that can be sustained by it. Some percentage of that biomass is humans and some percentage is plant and other animal matter that the humans consume. Maybe we ditch all of the animals and just have plant matter; we modify the plants so they optimally reduce the amount of non-edible parts and perfectly match human dietary needs; we structure the size and shape of the plants and of the land to optimize access to the light.
In theory, we might be able to calculate that, and the number of humans we can support is going to be massively past what we currently have. And that’s before we begin talking about supplementing solar power with fission and fusion power - growing vat-grown products vertically - and before we talk about converting the ocean into a farmable surface area, etc. It’s deeply unlikely that we’re anywhere near a limit, even given our current technological limits.
And saying that doesn’t mean that we start producing excessive waste. The waste product of water is water. The waste product of food is compostable biomass that goes right back into becoming food again, on the next round. If we re-engineer plants and energy inputs, then we can re-engineer regenerative agriculture.
In theory, we could engineer humans to be smaller so that we don’t need as much food.
In the face of technology, there’s really no way to say whether population growth is sustainable nor where the cap is at. We can say where the next cap is going to come in if we don’t invent something, but that’s all that we can say. And, likewise, we can say that certain inventions might have a closer or further horizon. But that’s it.
For certain locations on Earth, we might be able to point to political instability, corruption, and fiscal irresponsibility and, thereby, an inability to bring in methods for dealing with a growing population before it hits a plateau. But it’s questionable whether that’s more an issue of population growth or bad governance. If they can’t improve their technology, it’s likely that they don’t have the organizational capabilities to really limit population growth, either.
I appreciate the thought and work you put into your post but, if anything like that has a chance to actually succeed, humans will have to exhibit a level of discipline, behavior, and global cooperation far above anything they have ever attained before.
You could say my negative attitude is not at all helpful, and you would be right, so I’ll sit back and let you optimists have a serious go at saving humanity.
I’m not familiar with Malthus or his exact theory, so I can’t speak to that one way or the other. I do know that, when one is discussing a global event, it is virtually impossible to isolate it from everything else. I also look at nature and see that, any time a species over populates, bad things happen; disease, starvation, conflict, etc.
