Is bottled water morally wrong?

[BubberMiley]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Apparently some religious groups are opposed to the environmental and ethical implications of massive trade in the liquid of life. Personally, I think virtually anything should be allowed to be freely bought and sold, except explosives and other hazardous materials. There should just be a better program for the return and recycling of those damn bottles.

[gc1765]

I have no ethical problems with buying bottled water, but I just don't see the point. Water is practically free, but most companies charge ridiculous amounts of money for bottled water. So, I generally don't buy bottled water because I don't want to pay the high prices.

[betsy]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Apparently some religious groups are opposed to the environmental and ethical implications of massive trade in the liquid of life. Personally, I think virtually anything should be allowed to be freely bought and sold, except explosives and other hazardous materials. There should just be a better program for the return and recycling of those damn bottles.

I personally hardly drink bottled water (my husband does). But mine does not stem from any religious or ethical reason....I just think that I only weaken my system by OVERLY protecting it from pollutants. I think that my system should evolve with the times. Besides there are nutrients in the water that you lose when you drink bottled or filtered water.

Btw, have you heard of bottled Oxygen? It's being promoted on tv sometime last month...

Well, as usual...crafty business men will create a "need" in order to have something to sell.

[Charles Anthony]

This quote from the article demonstrates the complete stupidity of this "religious" war:

And last month, the United Church passed a motion urging its nearly one million Canadian adherents to leave bottled water on the store shelves, unless alternative sources of safe water aren't available.

I wonder how these "religious" warriors would deliver water to a drought stricken part of the world???

[geoffrey]

People whine about the cost of gas for their cars, but pay far more for water. Pretty silly if you ask me, those that buy bottled water on a regular basis are really irrational people, there are less standards regulating bottle water than that coming out of the tap, as well.

Where do you think the water comes from anyways, the stream of eternal life? It's all the same water that the rest of us drink for about 0.5% the cost.

Religious opposed? Nah. The best argument against bottle water is from a consumer protection standpoint, these people are getting ripped.

Evian backwards is naive....

[theloniusfleabag]

I say that this is another case of someone trying to 'do the right thing' the wrong way. Water (and air) are essential to life (as is food, but of the three, you can go longest without food), and they used to be free and reasonably untainted. The issue of paying for water (or air) isn't a big deal now, but what of when you won't be able to drink any other form. We certainly are headed that way. Nature cannot filter at the rate we pollute (or, interfere), as evidenced by mass extinctions. Will it be ethical to charge for water (or air) sold by a company if there is no other alternative to stay alive?

I will note, while we do this for food, there is some ability for subsistence farming. Further, for those religious folk, the bible clearly states that the earth freely provides for those that dwell upon it, humans are the only ones that can (and do) deny access to others based on selfish conduct.

[August1991]

Apparently some religious groups are opposed to the environmental and ethical implications of massive trade in the liquid of life.

When I read that article, I was depressed that so many well meaning individuals could be so ignorant about how billions of people manage to co-operate and work together.

The fact that we buy and sell water in a free market is something to celebrate - not something to fear or denigrate. It is a sign of the sophisticated co-operation our species is capable of.

[geoffrey]

Will it be ethical to charge for water (or air) sold by a company if there is no other alternative to stay alive?

You pay for water from your local government right now, the reality is everyone pays for it. Even those on their own wells are sometimes charged a watershed access fee type thing, don't know the exact arrangement or what it's called.

You can't drink from any stream anywhere safely... well you can, but that's if you don't mind sitting on the toilet for a month.

[gerryhatrick]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Apparently some religious groups are opposed to the environmental and ethical implications of massive trade in the liquid of life. Personally, I think virtually anything should be allowed to be freely bought and sold, except explosives and other hazardous materials. There should just be a better program for the return and recycling of those damn bottles.

There are issues with where the water is being taken from. Dasani has caused water shortages in areas of India.

And yes, the bottles are a huge problem. The manufacture requires oil, and also produces greenhouse gas which (as most of us know) causes global warming. The transport of bottled water also contributes to global warming.

People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

[jbg]

People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

I believe in the friggin' free market; if people want to waste their money, let them. I do agree with requiring a deposit on the bottles, though.

[Remiel]

You're entitled to your opinion, August, but the way you say it so excessively... melodramatic.

[bk59]

This quote from the article demonstrates the complete stupidity of this "religious" war:

And last month, the United Church passed a motion urging its nearly one million Canadian adherents to leave bottled water on the store shelves, unless alternative sources of safe water aren't available.

I wonder how these "religious" warriors would deliver water to a drought stricken part of the world???

I think you've missed the point of the boycott. They aren't objecting to bottled water per se, they are objecting to how water has been turned into a product. The United Church specifically talks about how access to water is a basic human right and that the value of fresh water to the common good should take priority over commercial value. Clearly in the case of a drought they would support getting water to the affected people. Even if it came in bottles. As long as that water came to the people freely, and someone wasn't trying to charge the people for it.

[August1991]

You're entitled to your opinion, August, but the way you say it so excessively... melodramatic.

Maybe so but then I read this...

They aren't objecting to bottled water per se, they are objecting to how water has been turned into a product. The United Church specifically talks about how access to water is a basic human right and that the value of fresh water to the common good should take priority over commercial value. Clearly in the case of a drought they would support getting water to the affected people. Even if it came in bottles. As long as that water came to the people freely, and someone wasn't trying to charge the people for it.

IOW, the United Church simply does not understand what a price in a free market is. How can you discuss the speed at which a building falls with someone who has no understanding of Newtonian physics?

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not denying that different people on this planet have tremendously different lifestyles. Some are far richer than others. Nor am I saying that markets always work perfectly. It's just that the United Church position is Ptolemaic in a world where we have robots driving on the surface of Mars.

I can understand why someone in 1506 might believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe but not in 2006.

[gerryhatrick]

People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

I believe in the friggin' free market; if people want to waste their money, let them. I do agree with requiring a deposit on the bottles, though.

What about the water shortages being caused by bottlers in India, impacting the population?

Does the free market trump that?

[geoffrey]

People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

I believe in the friggin' free market; if people want to waste their money, let them. I do agree with requiring a deposit on the bottles, though.

What about the water shortages being caused by bottlers in India, impacting the population?

Does the free market trump that?

India shouldn't sell their water. Their fault. The hell if I'd drink water from a third world country where they dump their dead into rivers when I have clean Calgary tap water 10 feet away.

[bk59]

IOW, the United Church simply does not understand what a price in a free market is. How can you discuss the speed at which a building falls with someone who has no understanding of Newtonian physics?

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not denying that different people on this planet have tremendously different lifestyles. Some are far richer than others. Nor am I saying that markets always work perfectly. It's just that the United Church position is Ptolemaic in a world where we have robots driving on the surface of Mars.

I can understand why someone in 1506 might believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe but not in 2006.

I see that we've upped the melodrama...

I think the United Church understands free markets just fine. At the very least, more than you're giving them credit for. They seem to be more concerned with keeping water as a public resource, paid for and taken care of by public institutions rather than private corporations. In the drought example obviously someone has to pay to get the water to where it needs to go. I think the UC position would be that forcing people to pay more for it by buying from a private company is wrong.

[August1991]

What about the water shortages being caused by bottlers in India, impacting the population?

Does the free market trump that?

If there weren't free markets in India, there wouldn't be water shortages because people would be too poor.

You are arguing that people spend too much money on books and so there isn't enough to teach people how to read.

[Hicksey]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

Apparently some religious groups are opposed to the environmental and ethical implications of massive trade in the liquid of life. Personally, I think virtually anything should be allowed to be freely bought and sold, except explosives and other hazardous materials. There should just be a better program for the return and recycling of those damn bottles.

There are issues with where the water is being taken from. Dasani has caused water shortages in areas of India.

And yes, the bottles are a huge problem. The manufacture requires oil, and also produces greenhouse gas which (as most of us know) causes global warming. The transport of bottled water also contributes to global warming.

People should just drink the friggin' water from their tap, unless it's known to be harmful. The scare mongering over tap water is mostly conducted by bottled water companies or water filter companies.

There was a water study I heard about in the city of Toronto where the water there was found to be some of best in the country. They also highlighted a study in which they claimed that bottled water was as bad for you as it is claimed to be good. Apparently the lack of fluoride (in some brands) in most brands the absolutle inferior amount it is causing a serious decline in the condition of the teeth of school aged children. Remember when we had to rinse with fluoride in school? Well, they put it in the water to eliminate the need, and now because nobody drinks the water the problems have resurfaced.

I am looking for the study now. I heard about it on the Mark Elliot show on 1010AM (CFRB) radio in Toronto.

EDIT

Apparently the fluoride is as dangerous as anything. More to follow tomorrow.

[rover1]

I think the the United Church would do better if they stuck to their area of expertise, that is how to go to heaven, and similar.

As for buying and drinking bottled water, my view is that you can't protect people from their own foolishness.

Governments and laws ought to protect resources where it is shown that excess depletion is taking place, so as to ensure a continuous supply into the future. Those who don't, ought to be dealt with by their electors.

[MightyAC]

What about the water shortages being caused by bottlers in India, impacting the population?

Does the free market trump that?

If there weren't free markets in India, there wouldn't be water shortages because people would be too poor.

You are arguing that people spend too much money on books and so there isn't enough to teach people how to read.

Free markets rarely benefit citizens of less developed countries.

Western multi-nationals routinely rape and pillage the resources of poor countries. In this example Coke is harvesting and filtering the water of India with (likely) little benefit to the Indians. European companies harvested endless plane loads of Nile Perch out of Lake Victoria in Africa while those that live on its shores starve. Child labourers along with overworked underpaid South Asians are used and abused so that we can pay a little less for t-shirts and Nike shoes.

All of these examples are depressing but I still buy DaSani, Nike shoes, cheap t-shirts, etc. Is it wrong for Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc to sell these products if I'm willing to buy them? No, of course not.

Am I a bad person for buying items I know hurt others so I can save a few bucks? Probably... Should Westerners in general live in a manner that hurts others and kills our environment simply because we can afford to? Probably not... but how do we change that?

As I see it the United Church is trying to just that, by using it's influence to change the tastes of consumers. If consumers decide not to buy bottled water or cheap t-shirts or Nile Perch then the market will respond and companies will produce less of those commodities.

Large organizations issuing orders to its followers can be another moral problem itself. Massive Christian groups in the US use their influence to exert pressure on companies for all sorts of reasons they consider to be moral. One group boycotted Ford vehicles unless Ford vowed to stop advertising during so called immoral television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen. To me the anti-gay actions of that religious organization are immoral, but to them it is an ethical cause. So what could I do to counter act the (IMO) evil deeds of this organization? I guess I could buy a Ford, or I could help build a large organization of secular, puppet, activists to counter act the actions of groups that I think are immoral. Either way the system works.

So I guess what I conclude from my ramblings here is that the free market works just fine. If there is a demand for a product it will be met by somebody. If enough people have concerns about the product or how the product is produced then demand will erode and people will stop supplying it.