Availability of water can't be compromised
I think we are all missing the point.
Sir James Lovelock, of Gaia fame, would argue water is part of the planet and an essential ingredient to all life on it. Sir James would go further and argue this planet is a living thing, albeit in a multi-modal, distributed and interacting way. This view does not require any supernatural definition of life.
An anthropocentric view of water, as is any species centric view, is mistaken. The water cycle depends on complex processes in which biology actually maintains the quality of water. Pure water is actually of little biological value. If this argument is accepted then our use of water is no more privileged than any other species. In fact, the value of water is in its sustainability for all life. Thus, we are entitled (as a species) to use water but we therefore must not compromise its general availability.
Stuart Mathieson
Portobello
