Dead Sea 'to disappear by 2050' (if we let it happen.)

Environmentalists in Jordan are warning that the Dead Sea will disappear by the year 2050 if its level continues to drop at the current rate.

Friends of the Earth (Middle East) has stepped up a campaign entitled "Let the Dead Sea Live" to try to save the world's saltiest body of water.

environmentalists claim that the Dead Sea is now "dying" as the water that used to feed it is diverted for industry, agriculture and domestic use in both Israel and Jordan.

There is one simple question this topic needs to be asked.

Is profit more important then the natural wonders of the world? My answer is NO.

The fresh water that used to go to the sea is pumped to cities like Amman and that means that no more water is flowing downstream to the Dead Sea to support the wildlife along the Jordan River and its wadis and springs," Mr Abdul Rahman said.

He said the lake's water level was now dropping by over a metre a year, endangering indigenous plants and birds.

Friends of the Earth is warning that if things continue as they are at the moment, in less than 50 years, the Dead Sea will be gone for good.

Full article here.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

mod edit to use "ex" tags instead of "quote" tags
Quote Reference.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by sanctum]

Originally posted by selfless
There is one simple question this topic needs to be asked.

Yes. And that question is .. so what?

Things change. Things come and things go. Land masses move. Mountains are born, and then are worn away in time. Rivers change course. Seas grow and shrink. Islands are born and then sink again. Lakes appear and disappear. Ponds and streams too.

So what if the Dead Sea will be gone in 40 years? Really... So what?

"Change is the only constant." - someone famous said that, but I can't remember who.

i wouldnt miss the dead sea, really but the same thing has happened i a much larger scale elsewhere.
the Aral sea on the border of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan has faced the same problems of water being diverted. in this case for irrigation into cotton fields. the sea, once on of the largest inland seas, has now srunk to something painfully small. the island in the center, Vozrozhdeniya (voz-roz-di-ney), is now a peninsula.

it is really the principal that matters here, we as humans really need to sort our act together and think green for once. lets not let such things happen again in the future.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by funny_pom]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by selfless
There is one simple question this topic needs to be asked.

Yes. And that question is .. so what?

Things change. Things come and things go. Land masses move. Mountains are born, and then are worn away in time. Rivers change course. Seas grow and shrink. Islands are born and then sink again. Lakes appear and disappear. Ponds and streams too.

So what if the Dead Sea will be gone in 40 years? Really... So what?

"Change is the only constant." - someone famous said that, but I can't remember who.

Change is the only constant in nature.

When man steps in and messed things up, man has a duty to make things right.

We have been raping the Earth for all of our existence.

Don't you think its about time to stop doing so?

It was Asimov by the way.

When humans divert waterways for agriculture, it is up to us to fix it.

Native plant and animal species are dying out all over the world due to human actions. Should we just let them all die because change is constant?

You know what, forget it. Let's just let the rest of the food chain die and see if we're still alive.

See you in heaven in about 2 years if things continue the way they are going.

Use your brain, I know you have one.


[edit on 11-6-2007 by biggie smalls]

Yes, There's a difference between natural changes of the environment from natural occurrences and the exploitation of nature for illusionary greed purposes.

Natural aspects of reality like our lives and our nature is above all else when it comes to what's important, NOT MONEY...

There is only one dead sea, it's a natural wonder of the world, if we lose it there will be no longer any place like it on this beautiful planet.

Panda bears are so wonderful and beautiful creatures and yet we almost got them extinct. The point is, we can't continue to extinct our nature just for the sake of profitable experiments.

The ideological concept of money and economy is a false illusionary invention that won't last for much longer due to a never ending number of flaws. The natural environment and our natural coexistence with nature is something that will always be around in this reality and many others. Let's not ruin the one thing we have left that's not corrupted on this wonderful planet.

I'm normally all about the environment and protecting it but... I am an environmental health specialist, not an environmentalist. Do you know the difference? It means that I would drain all the swamps on earth with no respect to the loss of habitat to snakes and creepy crawly things if it protected the public health of humans, which by the way it does. So death to the dead sea!!!!!!! Oh, wait. It was dead already.

Originally posted by arius
It means that I would drain all the swamps on earth with no respect to the loss of habitat to snakes and creepy crawly things if it protected the public health of humans, which by the way it does.

And how does the death sea cause a danger to the health of the public?

I think i misinterpreted what you are trying to say?

Swamps breed mosquitoes. Mosquitoes kill more people than any other cause per year.

The dead sea is dead because it's too salty to support life. So, no mosquitoes.

The only real downside I can see for the Dead Sea drying up -- aside from the fact it won't be able to rightfully be called a sea anymore -- is the usefulness as a mineral bath to people suffering from skin ailments.

www.deadseahealth.com...

Originally posted by arius
It means that I would drain all the swamps on earth with no respect to the loss of habitat to snakes and creepy crawly things if it protected the public health of humans, which by the way it does.

this is a statement that simply emphasis the selfish acts that humanity does for its self preservation. come on please, destroying the environment for our health, thats ridiculous. we might aswell kill every animal that can bite us while we're at it too.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by funny_pom]

Originally posted by funny_pom

this is a statement that simply emphasis the selfish acts that humanity does for its self preservation. come on please, destroying the environment for our health, thats ridiculous. we might aswell kill every animal that can bite us while we're at it too.

I agree with your reasoning pom.

It's a paradox... We modify nature in such a way that is not compatible with our true nature and therefor, it changes into a danger for us and so we destroy it for the sake of our health but we are the ones who made it dangerous in the first place...

All because of illusionary ideological primitive invented concepts in our collective consciousness...

Modifying nature leads to disasters and unnatural results... it's the karma of Gaia.

every person who read this thread but did nothing about it is equally as guilty as the people diverting the streams. yes, myself included.

Originally posted by jprophet420
every person who read this thread but did nothing about it is equally as guilty as the people diverting the streams. yes, myself included.

Actually, I'm gonna have to go with a no on this one...

It's not our fault that they disrupt nature, I don't approve of these operations for profit but that doesn't mean that I can force them to stop...

If I were to forcefully stop them, I would be no different then those I want to stop in the first place...

The paradox of the light.

i have to agree with that one. as much as i want to destroy all those self minded de-foresters i can't, and wont.

they will one day realize what they have done, its just sad that they have to do it first though .

there aren't many ways to stop this, and in this case the government wont act too quickly, seeing as the diverted waters are required by industry and residential development which is always the #1 priority over conserving the environment. im afraid that this is one of those cases that cannot be prevented, at least until its too late.

for all our sakes, i hope that one day we will divert our thinking towards restoring nature, but that wont happen in my life time. it kind of makes me want to have been born 1000 years ago when nature was still around.