No, We Are Not Running Out of Freshwater!

We often find ourselves confronted with alarmist predictions about resource depletion, particularly concerning oil. We were told that peak oil was reached in the mid-2000s, yet producing countries subsequently increased their output, suggesting they had deliberately underestimated their reserves to inflate prices. This unexpected abundance of oil has had the effect of slowing advancements in other forms of energy, such as nuclear fusion.

These doomsday forecasts often rest on two erroneous assumptions: first, that hydrocarbons are irreplaceable, and second, that renewable alternatives, such as algae, are not viable. These undeclared assumptions underpin many Malthusian models that call for drastic measures like population reduction or travel limitations.

It is crucial to understand that any conclusion based on undeclared assumptions is suspect. It is akin to purchasing a product at the supermarket under the belief that it is pure orange juice, only to discover that it contains 30% sugar. Assumptions are the "ingredients" of any model or prediction, and they must be clearly stated for us to assess the validity of the conclusions.

This point is particularly salient today, as we witness a global trend toward curtailing freedoms, including reproductive freedom, as is already the case in China. These restrictions could extend to other areas of life, such as food, healthcare, and even sleep. If we are told one day that water is a limited resource, this could justify further freedom restrictions.

But is it a lack of resources that threatens us, or rather a lack of ingenuity and critical thinking? Models claiming that we must relinquish certain freedoms because resources are limited often overlook the potential for human innovation. For instance, ancient Rome produced far less wheat per capita than what is common today in the Mediterranean region. Had the Romans heeded the Malthusians of their time, they might have erroneously concluded that their civilization was doomed.

If the Roman Empire were the judge of what is possible today, it would likely conclude that the current population of the Mediterranean basin is unsustainable, given the wheat production levels of the time. This would neglect, however, the advancements in agriculture, energy, and technology that enable us to produce far more food today than at the height of Rome.

The same logic applies to the question of hydrocarbons. Alarmist models often omit viable alternatives, such as algae cultivation for biodiesel or natural gas production. These omissions suggest that the real issue is not so much resource scarcity but rather control over populations.

Control over essential resources like energy, food, and water equates to control over populations. Add to this the control of money, healthcare, and even thought, and you have an increasingly tight grip on human freedoms. Yet, freedom is the very essence of human existence.

Take the example of water. While humanity consumes a large amount of water each year, this consumption is actually a fraction of the Amazon's annual flow. The real issue is not the amount of available water but its uneven distribution. Discourses on water scarcity are thus often misleading and serve hidden agendas.

This point is illustrated by the McKinsey scandal, which revealed that responses to the health crisis were uniform among G7 countries because they followed directives from this consulting firm. Similarly, global leaders close to the World Economic Forum, like Macron, Trudeau, and Ardern, are rewarded for promoting Malthusian ideas, whether it be restrictions on water, insect consumption, or birth limitations.

In France, for example, the adoption of water management policies seems disconnected from the country's actual needs, which do not particularly suffer from water stress. This suggests that these policies are part of a global agenda aimed at limiting freedoms under the pretext of resource management. Leaders are rewarded for their efficacy in instilling a sense of collective guilt and promoting ideas that curtail individual freedoms.

It appears that some wish to instill in humanity a sense of guilt for its very existence, relying on arguments ranging from our purported lack of intelligence to our resource consumption. However, these arguments often overlook potential solutions to the challenges we face, such as uneven water distribution and alternative energy sources.

For instance, if we had access to a cheap and abundant energy source, like nuclear power, desalinating seawater would become a viable option. This could even enable ambitious projects like "reverse rivers" that would irrigate arid regions, benefiting countries like Australia, the Sahara, or Gulf nations.

Similar ideas have been contemplated in the past. Consider the German engineer who proposed creating an inland sea in the Sahara by filling geographical depressions. The evaporation from this sea would create clouds, thereby increasing the likelihood of rain in the region. Another example is the Qattara Depression in Egypt. Filling this depression with seawater and allowing the sun to evaporate it could generate a significant amount of clouds, thus increasing water availability.

These projects are not science fiction. We already have technologies like cloud seeding, used by the Soviets to ensure clear skies during military parades. By combining such technologies with innovative irrigation projects, we could significantly increase water availability.

Regrettably, innovation is often stigmatized or ignored. Some pessimists claim that our growth and prosperity are solely due to hydrocarbon use, neglecting the role of human ingenuity. Yet, the history of the Mediterranean basin clearly demonstrates how innovation can transform a region, increasing its capacity to support a far larger population than what the Roman Empire could have envisioned.

Some alarmist voices assert that we are on the verge of running out of water, which, they argue, would justify drastic measures such as reducing agricultural productivity, imposing restrictions on individual freedoms, lowering living standards, and even strictly reducing the global population. However, the issue is not so much a lack of water but rather a lack of effective means to manage this abundant resource.

Take the oceans as an example. They contain a vast amount of salty water, the result of millions of years of mineral runoff from the land to the sea. Through human ingenuity, we have the capability to develop methods to desalinate this water and make it potable.

Consider an ambitious project, like exploiting the Qattara Depression in Egypt. The idea would be to allow seawater to evaporate under the scorching Sahara sun, thereby creating clouds. This desalinated water could then be channeled to areas requiring freshwater. Even if this water eventually falls as rain elsewhere, the potential is enormous. The cost of such a project would be far less than that of military conflicts such as the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

To put things in perspective, global demand for freshwater is approximately twenty times greater than the annual flow of the Danube River. A desalination project on a scale comparable to the Danube's flow could be executed for a fraction of the cost of the war in Afghanistan, while meeting a significant portion of global water needs.

It is thus time to shift our focus toward innovative and feasible solutions, rather than succumbing to catastrophic scenarios that only hinder progress and restrict freedoms.