1. Do you seriously think the approach in the video you posted can feed tens of millions of people on the southern fringes of the Sahara?
2. Do you even understand what the word "sustainablity" means. That's a rhetoric question, we have long ago established that you have absolutely no idea what it means, but it needs to be pointed out again
3. You "green the desert" in three ways. You either concentrate the rainfall in some way, or you divert rivers, or you pump fossil aquifers. For the Sahel, the first approach does not work at all because it is a flat plain so there are few places where you can build dams, not that there are major rivers to build them on other than Niger, and on top of that rainfall is very seasonal and temperatures are very high, so evaporative losses are huge, even if you build them. And most importantly, there isn't that much rainfall to begin with. So that doesn't work. Diverting rivers is highly undesirable as the Soviet experience in Central Asia has shown, so that idea is a non-starter. Tapping fossil aquifers is the definition of unsustainability because those are usually gone in a few decades. The Saudis were self-sufficient in grain for a few decades after they decided to use their oil-drilling experience to drill for water. But that water is now depleted and they are back to importing food. One of the major accomplishments of the Khadafi regime was tapping the waters of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer in the southern parts of the country. But that water will too be gone by the end of the century too. What happens then?
Which brings us to the last, and most important point:
4. Every scheme we come up with to feed the people we can not feed today has one and only one possible result if it is successful - it magnifies the problem. Because once you can feed X number of people, in a culture of high fertility and low development, the population will qucikly reach and exceed that level and then you have an even bigger problem that you had before. That's the main reason why sending food aid is a futile and from a long-term perspective, actually harmful activity - because it temporarily keeps alive people who simply shouldn't exist in those regions. Places like Niger simply can not feed themselves but have a TFR of 6 or 7, and there is a major famine crisis every other year (this year too). Why is that?
And the same reasoning applies to the planet as a whole - every scheme we come up with to prop up the unsustainable a little bit longer only results in us becomening even more unsustainable and makes the eventual and inevitable crash even bigger. Yet the techno-utopians prefer to live in denial.
2. Do you even understand what the word "sustainablity" means. That's a rhetoric question, we have long ago established that you have absolutely no idea what it means, but it needs to be pointed out again
3. You "green the desert" in three ways. You either concentrate the rainfall in some way, or you divert rivers, or you pump fossil aquifers. For the Sahel, the first approach does not work at all because it is a flat plain so there are few places where you can build dams, not that there are major rivers to build them on other than Niger, and on top of that rainfall is very seasonal and temperatures are very high, so evaporative losses are huge, even if you build them. And most importantly, there isn't that much rainfall to begin with. So that doesn't work. Diverting rivers is highly undesirable as the Soviet experience in Central Asia has shown, so that idea is a non-starter. Tapping fossil aquifers is the definition of unsustainability because those are usually gone in a few decades. The Saudis were self-sufficient in grain for a few decades after they decided to use their oil-drilling experience to drill for water. But that water is now depleted and they are back to importing food. One of the major accomplishments of the Khadafi regime was tapping the waters of the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer in the southern parts of the country. But that water will too be gone by the end of the century too. What happens then?
Which brings us to the last, and most important point:
4. Every scheme we come up with to feed the people we can not feed today has one and only one possible result if it is successful - it magnifies the problem. Because once you can feed X number of people, in a culture of high fertility and low development, the population will qucikly reach and exceed that level and then you have an even bigger problem that you had before. That's the main reason why sending food aid is a futile and from a long-term perspective, actually harmful activity - because it temporarily keeps alive people who simply shouldn't exist in those regions. Places like Niger simply can not feed themselves but have a TFR of 6 or 7, and there is a major famine crisis every other year (this year too). Why is that?
And the same reasoning applies to the planet as a whole - every scheme we come up with to prop up the unsustainable a little bit longer only results in us becomening even more unsustainable and makes the eventual and inevitable crash even bigger. Yet the techno-utopians prefer to live in denial.
You aren't really a scientist are you? Probably a computer scientist?