Acess to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of a commodity

I thank my peer for such an extensive response. My peer has made many good points, and I will attempt to refute each in turn. First I cede that the supply of resources in the planet is indeed finite. Yet is drinking water one of those that need be a problem? There is indeed a solution to the dwindling fresh water supply, a solution that is obvious enough. Considering the majority of the earth is composed of water, we need only look at the oceans to solve the problem. Yes, seawater is not drinkable, but it is as such because of its high saline(salt) content. We are able to desalinate water though, and have been doing as such for hundreds, if not thousands of years, "Desalination/Distillation is one of mankind's earliest forms of water treatment, and it is still a popular treatment solution throughout the world today. In ancient times, many civilizations used this process on their ships to convert sea water into drinking water. Today, desalination plants are used to convert sea water to drinking water on ships and in many arid regions of the world, and to treat water in other areas that is fouled by natural and unnatural contaminants. Distillation is perhaps the one water treatment technology that most completely reduces the widest range of drinking water contaminants.[1]" This solution as simple of a concept as it is, would require a massive global effort. Yet with the stakes being so high as my peer has stated, it is a step that must be taken. My peer also has falsely stated that by negating water as a right we would prevent a nuclear war. Yet even if we were to take this step, other dwindling resources would cause the same outcome. Therefore the situation has turned into one of, "damned if we do, damned if we don't." Logically speaking, whether or not a solution for water is found, another scarce resource, such as food will cause the same outcome. On the note of climate change, I can only assume my peer realizes that .76 degrees Celsius temperature change within a 100 year period is well within the norm for previous temperature changes in Earths history. Indeed .76 degrees is quite mild as compared to, "The ice core showed the Northern Hemisphere briefly emerged from the last ice age some 14,700 years ago with a 22-degree-Fahrenheit spike in just 50 years, then plunged back into icy conditions before abruptly warming again about 11,700 years ago.[2]" Yet he is correct in stating that it will affect the worlds freshwater supply negatively. As such we must begin taking steps immediately towards seeking alternative means of freshwater(desalination). The bonus to the warming would be, well, becoming warmer, "Agriculture in the U.S. and other industrialized countries is expected to be less vulnerable to climate change than agriculture in developing nations, especially in the tropics, where farmers may have a limited ability to adapt. In addition, the effects of climate change on U.S. and world agriculture will depend not only on changing climate conditions, but will also depend on the agricultural sector's ability to adapt through future changes in technology, changes in demand for food, and environmental conditions, such as water availability and soil quality. Management practices, the opportunity to switch management and crop selection from season to season, and technology can help the agricultural sector cope with and adapt to climatic variability and change." One need only be prepared, and if indeed there were such a catastrophe approaching us, the effort must be global. Also one important factor in this, as the planet becomes warmer, habitable land will increase, think Greenland, and Iceland becoming moderate temperature zones. This will increase available land for agriculture as well. If, and I will stress IF, humanity prepares properly, climate change(warming) could be beneficial. I will state that warming has the possibility of being beneficial, if it were to get colder(a distinct possibility) indeed much colder, think mini ice age, and scientists are saying that it is possible, if not likely, "The supposed ‘consensus' on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum' in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24' – which is why last week's solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun's surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.[3]" Indeed if this were the case, it would signal an increase in available freshwater from glaciers/snowmelt, but would spell disaster for agriculture, thus shifting the cause of a war from water, to food. Which supports the aforementioned statement, that a nuclear war over resources is likely regardless of whether or not water is scarce. Indeed water is perhaps the one problem that we can easily solve if enough effort is put into it. As we already have to technology to desalinate water in mass quantities, one need only build sufficient facilities to meet the need. Continuing, my peers point is true, that government ability to secure drinking water is indeed failing. Yet this is not because we do not have the ability to meet the need. It is because there is not enough effort to solve the problem. In terms of survival of a species, need wealth even be necessary to undertake steps to solve problems? It shouldn't, yet sadly it is. This is more of a failing on humanities part, not because we do not posess the means and technology to do so, but rather because we do not see the unnecessary deaths of billions to be an urgent issue that must be solved now. A sad point indeed. In terms of population growth, again my peer is correct that this poses a serious problem. Yet again it is a problem that can be solved. Indeed it can be done without harming anyone. A limit upon the number of children a couple(or person) can have is a way to solve it. It would not immediately solve the problem but within a couple of generations population would decrease. Think 1 child for every 2 people, and within a 50 year span one could surmise that a 8 billion pop. could become as little as 4, if not even less as not every person has children. I cant say I wholly agree with that solution morally and ethically, but it is a better alternative to a nuclear war. Finally I will make one additional point, P4: Because we posess the technology/ability to ensure every person has drinking water, we have a moral/ethical responsibility to ensure that every person does, to not would, again, be equivalent to murder. 1) http://ga.water.usgs.gov... 2) http://www.sciencedaily.com... 3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...