I could use a new head.

At least, when it comes to Tokyo.

Let's invade the moon!

OK, now I think you are just being stubborn. . . You are doing yourself a disservice. Think about this for a while:

1) We were keeping all other factors constant and only changing mortgage period.
2) In this scenario, mortgage period only impacts monthly payments of principle.
3) Prepayments are payments of principle above and beyond what is determined by the mortgage period.
4) Accordingly, you want your required principle payments as low as possible because you can also prepay to turn your mortgage period into any mortgage period shorter than your originally contracted period. For instance, I could get a 60 year mortgage and pay it off in 30 years by prepaying every month (it would look identical to a 30 year mortgage)

I hope human life is extended just so that you live long enough to understand this concept.

Here is a more simple explanation. You have two choices:
A. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $1000
B. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $500 but can also prepay another $500, if you want (depending on alternative investment opportunities).

Option B. allows me to choose between both options, every month. If I choose option A, I am stuck with option A every month. Consequently, a rational person would choose the longest mortgage period possible because they could artificially create ANY shorter mortgage period option through prepayments.

Seems like if you are in the desert, the cost of water is a bigger issue than the environmentalists. . .

Sure, until you start considering technologies like NGCC, NGCT, PV, and wind. Might be related to why, in the U.S., that is where the major investment in power is going. . .

Please note my:

Assuming income is the same in both situations, if I am not earning higher than 3% on my investments, then why am I not paying off my mortgage with my surplus monthly net cashflow (which is higher in the second scenario)? If I am earning higher than 3% on my investments then I am earning a spread and making easy money, like a bank (I am earning a higher interest rate than I am being charged).

Twice the mortgage period length gives me twice as long an opportunity to take advantage of advantageous investments when they are above 3% (earn a spread), so, all else equal, I am better off financially.

Repeat after me: Evaporation and boiling are not the same thing

Yeah, that was my thought: desert, very hot water (at least 2/3 of overall energy output is lost to heat), and cooling pounds. . . Me thinks that evaporation would need to be significant to get the water cool enough to run back through the plant.

Is this better than letting the water run downstream and be utilized for other purposes? Is this really "water conservation" or "water cost minimization?"

Yes. . . you do remember that thing they call the "Internet." Technology is just making the real world more like that. . . You can wish people were different all you want, but, for better or worse, it is what it is. You cannot change human nature. . . best to accept and move on.

NK already kills people all the time for just being human. I think that is a problem with the NK regime, not human nature.

What could possibly be done to prevent this? You really do not need to announce something like this to the world (like through Kickstarter). Technology to do something like this exists now and is just getting cheaper and cheaper. People have been sending balloons over for years. . . just a matter of time until they start sending drones. . .

It is simply the new reality we are living in. If NK starts killing people over it, it is only a testament to how out of touch with reality their regime is. . .

I agree that I am not understanding your point. However, I can't help but think that our disagreement stems from your seeing this as a zero sum game. Robert Wright has very compelling arguments that human civilization is moving towards nonzero sum games, and this is improving the lives of everyone. I recommend you test your views against the arguments he makes to support this claim.

Computational technological advances have greatly increased our ability to generate wealth. Your point seems to be about wealth distribution. However, it is far easier for a society to redistribute wealth than it is to generate wealth (this is easiest to see in developing nations). The harder problem is already being addressed by technology. Technology's propensity to decentralize concentrations of power will eventually solve the easier problem.

Overall, it is hard for me to accept your point that longer, healthier lives will not make people more wealthy. Most mortgages are ~30years. If you double the time period people can work without having to worry about a mortgage, you definitely have improved their financial situation (assuming some level of rational financial decisions).

The longer people live, the higher probability they will be directly impacted by short sighted decisions, like not increasing the retirement age. Longer life will result in more long term thinking.

If aging can be postponed, then so can retirement. Also, perhaps work will become more pleasant without the pressure of having to rush and save up for retirement.