Do not, my friends, become addicted to water

[Kane Starkiller]

Well exactly - that's why it is a good thing that the ecosystem generally prevents overpredation, and species that overpredate would die out! What an idiot you are, spectacular.

So, yes, you are a Luddite.

Thanks for your concession, dumbass. Considering that Japan has an atomized society which is suffering a severe reproductive crisis, and many are actually turning completely asexual, seems like human nature is a very elastic thing. ITT it turns out that you can actually manipulate and change so-called "human nature" over time, with great effect, up to people not wanting to have sex, which is kind of the most "unnatural" development ever, and one that also ensures no offspring, so goes against everything evolutionarily ingrained.

Neo, the answer is not that sex isn't in human nature. The answer is... there's no such thing as "human nature".

Well that decides it. A single Guardian article from 2013 that you just googled. What more do we need. Hey did you know that some humans commit suicide? I guess self preservation also cannot be called human nature right. It's all capitalism fault!

It was drained to make cotton, also because people who cared about the Aral Sea couldn't save it, but other people got cotton clothes instead. Same thing. Well, at least cotton clothes you can wear a long time and they won't give you diabetes. But tell me, you agree that these people, deprived of water, they need water much more than you need a bottle of Coca Cola? Or they are worthless, too low purch power?

And if I decide that those people need water much more than I need Coca Cola I can stop buying Coca Cola. Or the government can't ban water exploitation in a sensitive area. What does that have to do with the capitalist system?

Demand for transportation, and only that? The combustion engine is a versatile tool! There was more to it. So you agreed with my point: capitalism creates demand where there was none, then fulfils it, and so proceeds to the next stage. It's historical.

Transportation is an example. There are many others not the least being agriculture where mechanization drastically increased yields. Or are you going to say there was no demand for increased agricultural production. CAPITALISM inveneded it.

I tend to stop before I call a system where getting filthy rich on addiction and propaganda of addiction to millions of potential addicts "best", especially after considering the effects of said addiction and seeing some of the other side effects of the whole production cycle first-hand. You seem to have no such reservations. May your water be taken from you, and may you get fat and diabetic.

Capitalism enabled cost effective production and distribution of the substance X. It is up to human beings to have a moral compass and decide what they should produce and consume. I will not become fat because I take care that my food has no more than 10 calories per gram of protein. Not everyone needs a dipshit commie ideologue to protect them from the world .

Why oh why did I not notice the problem of bottled water being needed for me, being so convenient for me? It's not as if I had a lack of bottles... And of water... What's the convenience? Bottles are readily available (many from better materials than plastic), and so is water from the pipes. I hope you go out there and buy as much bottled water as possible. As they say, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Beats me I don't buy it. Many people do apparently. Capitalist system provides the supply and quite effectively. That you don't like it means you have a problem with human habits not with the system.

[ray245]

If you think that there was a black market of soft drinks in societies where they didn't exist for whatever reason, you, too, are delusional.

I'd hate to call you an idiot, ray. Don't make me do it.

I'm saying once society has discovered soft drinks, there will always be some sort of demand for such products. It can't be completely eliminated once it's been introduced.

Well, it is not that I said there's no start slate - there is. I just explained to you how unnatural and warped it could be. So if you transform the basic need to drink into a desire to drink liquified sugar, that's OK? Okay. I mean, you could condition people into being masochists, if you break them psychologically, there's a lot of stuff you can do. It's crazy, let's not get too deep in this.

I'm saying some of that stuff is tied to human's biological preference. We tend to desire sweet stuff over bitter stuff for instance. Those are biological conditions that aren't shaped by marketing.

Maybe it failed because drinking already was an established habit before the prohibition? It's like saying fighting addiction failed because we already had lots of addicts. Sure, once it's done, it's done. What do you want me to say?

I'm saying once people experienced something they like, there will be people who want to experience it again. That is a key driving force and people who provide those people with what they want accumulates power and influence.

You're right, but you don't know what kind of food can be preferred. It's mostly cultural conditioning. The basic need is a diverse diet, one that corresponds to our health as well. The induced desire to overconsume, get wasted, etc. - that's something else. Conflating the two makes for very bad outcomes. That's all.

Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that humans prefer sweet tasting stuff over bitter tasting stuff? Even without marketing of any kind. This isn't something that has to be induced. We need a balanced diet, but our basic biological preference seems to drive us towards unhealthy food.

The success of Cola drinks is in part due to good marketing, but I don't think that's everything. It's simply very good at exploiting human preference towards sweet-tasting stuff in my opinion. Marketing is responsible for increasing consumption, but it doesn't create the demand.

[K. A. Pital]

So, yes, you are a Luddite.

As always, you think you can insta-win with "LUDDITE!!! QUICK, KILL GENERAL LUDD! They're smashing the LOOMS!" Crawl back into your filthy pit, you slime. I just understand that if one industrial country could drain the Aral Sea, several industrial countries could destroy the world. Preindustrial civilizations had no such ability. Their collapse and rise was perhaps dramatic, but always had a limited footprint and impact.

Well that decides it. A single Guardian article from 2013 that you just googled. What more do we need. Hey did you know that some humans commit suicide? I guess self preservation also cannot be called human nature right. It's all capitalism fault!

That's true, I've dealt with this fact before, actually. Under a society with full caloric intake, adequate nutrition, etc. it happens that Foxconn workers are killing themselves. Are they tortured? Is it Dachau? No, doesn't seem like it. In fact people in Dachau seemed to be willing to survive at all costs, many of them. But in the atomized society, people often just kill themselves, end their life, although from a purely material standpoint it is fine. I mean, we've had people jump off the roof because they've lost a million $ out of, say, three. So like I said, human nature's pretty flexible and society gets to decide what's going to be good and what not. Gonna have Yudkowski's baby eaters if baby eating actually is good, lol. That's how it works. Language & ideology is programming, you're the biocomputer.

And if I decide that those people need water much more than I need Coca Cola I can stop buying Coca Cola. Or the government can't ban water exploitation in a sensitive area. What does that have to do with the capitalist system?

Because the capitalist system of distribution is a market; there is no needs-based distribution, but only purchasing power decides who gets what. That's why runaway production of Coca Cola can coexist with thirst. Someone doesn't have enough purch power to allow clean water, because the water's gone to the highest bidder. Another can drink Coke like water, even pour it out into the drain if he had enough.

Transportation is an example. There are many others not the least being agriculture where mechanization drastically increased yields. Or are you going to say there was no demand for increased agricultural production. CAPITALISM inveneded it.

Capitalism allowed to industrialize agriculture and thereby increase human population beyond the previously-possible capacity of prior formations, to crazy numbers. But we are not in a strategy game, and we don't win by numbers, mass-produced people aren't a tickbox achievement.

Also you fail to understand that there are consequences of each decision, and they compound. If today you decide to start working on wired electricity, for example, and not on wireless, then tomorrow the world will be full of wires. If you made a different decision at the starting point, another technology would have been developed and the world could have looked completely different. You act as if people, environment, etc. are just fixed things, set in stone, and there are things which are created because it couldn't be otherwise. That's childish.

Capitalism enabled cost effective production and distribution of the substance X. It is up to human beings to have a moral compass and decide what they should produce and consume. I will not become fat because I take care that my food has no more than 10 calories per gram of protein. Not everyone needs a dipshit commie ideologue to protect them from the world .

Chemical addiction is not dependent on "moral compass", dumbass, just like disease isn't asking you if you're a highly moral person or a shitbag. Go tell the addicts they need to check their moral compass and that the cartels did nuthin' wrong. You're such a total fuckface.

I'm honoured that you think I am an ideologue who can protect the vulnerable from the world. Lofty goal. Seems like parenthood or teaching. Perhaps one day.

I will not become fat

Uhh.... well, well, genetics can be a bitch, y'know.

Beats me I don't buy it. Many people do apparently. Capitalist system provides the supply and quite effectively. That you don't like it means you have a problem with human habits not with the system.

Like I thought, you are a total fuckface devoid of any shred of empathy. In your world, people are fundamentally and originally, by nature, stupid, evil and deserve to suffer; capitalist system provides them with that suffering and quite effectively, but remains blameless, because it's always the riffraff, they're at fault for their peril, always the people. Such individualism! Such ruggedness! Fucktard.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm saying once society has discovered soft drinks, there will always be some sort of demand for such products. It can't be completely eliminated once it's been introduced.

Who knows, you're thinking short-term, I' think long term, like hundreds of years. Could we wipe out soft drinks then? Maybe yes. Could be good. If someone's still alive, of course.

I'm saying some of that stuff is tied to human's biological preference. We tend to desire sweet stuff over bitter stuff for instance. Those are biological conditions that aren't shaped by marketing.

That's correct, I said there's a starting state and biological necessities and preferences. They are also subject to alteration, but it just takes longer.

I'm saying once people experienced something they like, there will be people who want to experience it again. That is a key driving force and people who provide those people with what they want accumulates power and influence.

Or maybe these people don't have any power and can't do anything; and their habits die out. Also happened. Or they die out. Also happened.

Is it unreasonable to make the assumption that humans prefer sweet tasting stuff over bitter tasting stuff? Even without marketing of any kind. This isn't something that has to be induced. We need a balanced diet, but our basic biological preference seems to drive us towards unhealthy food.

Not everyone, you conflate the West's obesity, overuse and abuse of sugar and junk food epidemic with reality. Which is that a lot of people prefer a balanced diet. It takes ages of corporate propaganda to push you to excessive unhealthy eating habits like overconsumption of sugar, and that propaganda also needs to happen in an age of wealth lest it falls on deaf ears. Sugar itself as a quick calorie additive had success, but its most unhealthy forms required a corporate push since the 1940s. And as we're in capitalism, there was no one to stop the corporations. After all, they are doing the good work... whoops.

[ray245]

Who knows, you're thinking short-term, I' think long term, like hundreds of years. Could we wipe out soft drinks then? Maybe yes. Could be good. If someone's still alive, of course.

Can you cut off access to soft drinks? We can't even control access to drugs even with the harshest laws in existence.

That's correct, I said there's a starting state and biological necessities and preferences. They are also subject to alteration, but it just takes longer.

Like how are you going to alter human biological preference for sweet stuff?

Or maybe these people don't have any power and can't do anything; and their habits die out. Also happened. Or they die out. Also happened.

Is preference for sweet stuff just a mere human habit? I'm more inclined to think it's biological.

Not everyone, you conflate the West's obesity, overuse and abuse of sugar and junk food epidemic with reality. Which is that a lot of people prefer a balanced diet. It takes ages of corporate propaganda to push you to excessive unhealthy eating habits like overconsumption of sugar, and that propaganda also needs to happen in an age of wealth lest it falls on deaf ears. Sugar itself as a quick calorie additive had success, but its most unhealthy forms required a corporate push since the 1940s. And as we're in capitalism, there was no one to stop the corporations. After all, they are doing the good work... whoops.

Unhealthy eating habits existed long before there was capitalism. Do people prefer a balanced diet, or were they limited by their means?

[Kane Starkiller]

As always, you think you can insta-win with "LUDDITE!!! QUICK, KILL GENERAL LUDD! They're smashing the LOOMS!" Crawl back into your filthy pit, you slime. I just understand that if one industrial country could drain the Aral Sea, several industrial countries could destroy the world. Preindustrial civilizations had no such ability. Their collapse and rise was perhaps dramatic, but always had a limited footprint and impact.

That's not a no.Do you want human technological level and output to decrease or not?

That's true, I've dealt with this fact before, actually. Under a society with full caloric intake, adequate nutrition, etc. it happens that Foxconn workers are killing themselves. Are they tortured? Is it Dachau? No, doesn't seem like it. In fact people in Dachau seemed to be willing to survive at all costs, many of them. But in the atomized society, people often just kill themselves, end their life, although from a purely material standpoint it is fine. I mean, we've had people jump off the roof because they've lost a million $ out of, say, three. So like I said, human nature's pretty flexible and society gets to decide what's going to be good and what not. Gonna have Yudkowski's baby eaters if baby eating actually is good, lol. That's how it works. Language & ideology is programming, you're the biocomputer.

I await with baited breath for you to explain what that has to do with the capitalist system. USSR under Stalin used a literal slave workforce from the gulags to build infrastructure. How does Foxconn compare with Great Leap Forward? What does such corruption and tyranny have to do with an economic system?
Of course human nature is flexible. Who ever said people can't stop drinking sugary drinks or having sex if they wanted to? The point, which keeps bouncing off you, is that there is absolutely nothing surprising about people craving sugar or sex so that you need to explain it with a certain economic system.

Because the capitalist system of distribution is a market; there is no needs-based distribution, but only purchasing power decides who gets what. That's why runaway production of Coca Cola can coexist with thirst. Someone doesn't have enough purch power to allow clean water, because the water's gone to the highest bidder. Another can drink Coke like water, even pour it out into the drain if he had enough.

Purchasing power doesn't exclusively decide who gets what. Capitalism is not law of the jungle. People can't buy nuclear weapons and cruise missiles on a bazaar in any developed capitalist country. Countries are perfectly capable of enacting legislation to protect environment or to provide clean water and pretty much all developed countries do. Where does water for US served Coca Cola come from? Iraq? All these beverages are filled locally.

Capitalism allowed to industrialize agriculture and thereby increase human population beyond the previously-possible capacity of prior formations, to crazy numbers. But we are not in a strategy game, and we don't win by numbers, mass-produced people aren't a tickbox achievement.

Also you fail to understand that there are consequences of each decision, and they compound. If today you decide to start working on wired electricity, for example, and not on wireless, then tomorrow the world will be full of wires. If you made a different decision at the starting point, another technology would have been developed and the world could have looked completely different. You act as if people, environment, etc. are just fixed things, set in stone, and there are things which are created because it couldn't be otherwise. That's childish.

You're rambling. We wanted to communicate with each other over long distances. First it was runners, then pigeons, then postal service, then telegraph, telephone, mobile phone. Motorola didn't deviously invent the need for wireless communication.

Chemical addiction is not dependent on "moral compass", dumbass, just like disease isn't asking you if you're a highly moral person or a shitbag. Go tell the addicts they need to check their moral compass and that the cartels did nuthin' wrong. You're such a total fuckface.

Trust me you are stupid enough as it is. No need to intentionally pretend you missed the point. The moral compass is that of the parent and the companies. If you don't have a moral compass then you don't have it regardless of the system. What company is legally producing drugs? What are you rambling about?

Like I thought, you are a total fuckface devoid of any shred of empathy. In your world, people are fundamentally and originally, by nature, stupid, evil and deserve to suffer; capitalist system provides them with that suffering and quite effectively, but remains blameless, because it's always the riffraff, they're at fault for their peril, always the people. Such individualism! Such ruggedness! Fucktard.

Your need to declare how special and morally superior you are in almost every post is most fascinating I have to admit. Where do you think bottled water in US and Europe comes from? Do you think they are importing it from Egypt or something? I mean it was just floating cities and transporters and roads made of gold in the third world before the rich countries started making bottled fucking water right .

[K. A. Pital]

Can you cut off access to soft drinks? We can't even control access to drugs even with the harshest laws in existence.

No, why? Just make it very hard to get. Perhaps a price hike alone would suffice. There's conditioning. Australia practically demolished the tobacco industry by comprehensive legislation.

Ban, choke, suffocate or outright kill these corporations, allow a generation to grow up and be used to not smoke and you'll see.

Like how are you going to alter human biological preference for sweet stuff?

Repeatedly subjecting a population to stimuli that bitter has good consequences (hormonal shot), while eating sweet has bad consequences, could alter it right now. If it keeps happening over generations, evolution itself will have a say. Not that it is needed, just that it is possible.

Is preference for sweet stuff just a mere human habit? I'm more inclined to think it's biological.

No, it is, I just pointed out that many addictions could be cured. Not sure if the sweet one could be, though.

Unhealthy eating habits existed long before there was capitalism. Do people prefer a balanced diet, or were they limited by their means?

There's unhealthy and there is abuse of sugar. The latter is not just unhealthy, but a very specific type thereof.

[Tribble]

Sooooo, apart from killing everyone with capitalist leanings and banning coke, what other things can address both the immediate crisis and long term? With the focus on Cape Town, though I suppose other areas are having shortages too.

Is mass deployment of desalination plants a viable long term option, or would it cause more problems than it solves?

[K. A. Pital]

That's not a no.Do you want human technological level and output to decrease or not?

I don't want them to grow in a destructive fashion. If that makes me a Luddite, OK. Maybe I should go to the amish, who knows, they might be better human beings than fuckfaces like you.

I await with baited breath for you to explain what that has to do with the capitalist system. USSR under Stalin used a literal slave workforce from the gulags to build infrastructure. How does Foxconn compare with Great Leap Forward? What does such corruption and tyranny have to do with an economic system? Of course human nature is flexible. Who ever said people can't stop drinking sugary drinks or having sex if they wanted to? The point, which keeps bouncing off you, is that there is absolutely nothing surprising about people craving sugar or sex so that you need to explain it with a certain economic system.

Um... do you realize we're talking about the fact that human nature is changeable and is historically developing and being modified by society, so saying that a society of addicts demands opium and they even built a whole system to produce it doesn't say us anything about the nature of humans. But it tells us everything we need to know about the social system of the addicts, or, indeed, the social system that turned them into addicts in the first place.

Purchasing power doesn't exclusively decide who gets what. Capitalism is not law of the jungle. People can't buy nuclear weapons and cruise missiles on a bazaar in any developed capitalist country.

Do people need to buy nuclear weapons and cruise missiles in a market, though? I mean, you're a total fuckface, but you can't be that much of a fuckface, right? You can't be saying that a totally unnecessary thing which costs beyond most people's purchasing power ability, not being sold in the market openly, is progress. That's gotta be the most idiotic reply I've ever seen to the actual fact that purchasing power disparity is depriving the poor in India of water.

We wanted to communicate with each other over long distances. First it was runners, then pigeons, then postal service, then telegraph, telephone, mobile phone. Motorola didn't deviously invent the need for wireless communication.

How the fuck is that relevant? I said that deciding to invest in a given technology defines the future and the consequences. Deciding to invest into plastics resulted in the Great Pacific Garbage patch. Investing in a different material would've provided different results, maybe better, maybe worse. Fucking moron.

The moral compass is that of the parent and the companies. If you don't have a moral compass then you don't have it regardless of the system. What company is legally producing drugs? What are you rambling about?

You said it is a fact of human nature that people get addicted to sugary drinks. So, this must be a scientifically known fact then. Which means companies are legally producing health-damaging drugs, yes, and selling them legit, because it wasn't banned. You said it's on the people not to abuse. Same can be applied to opium, or any other drug. So people are at fault, addicts hur hur stupid, capitalism blameless. As always. RUGGED.

Your need to declare how special and morally superior you are in almost every post is most fascinating I have to admit. Where do you think bottled water in US and Europe comes from? Do you think they are importing it from Egypt or something? I mean it was just floating cities and transporters and roads made of gold in the third world before the rich countries started making bottled fucking water right .

Bottled water comes from all over the world, including Fiji (crazy, I know) and China, which has its own water scarcity issues.

But don't let me distract you from ridiculing, mocking the poor people (I especially like the gold bit, very delightful, genocidal conquistadors and the gold of the Americas, so true). It's delightful.

[K. A. Pital]

Sooooo, apart from killing everyone with capitalist leanings and banning coke, what other things can address both the immediate crisis and long term? With the focus on Cape Town, though I suppose other areas are having shortages too.

Is mass deployment of desalination plants a viable long term option, or would it cause more problems than it solves?

It's a good solution for the short-term.

Long term, climate change is a total disaster. Think turning a previously densely inhabited zone into an arid desert, which will no longer be able to support the population even with desalination.

Not to mention the landlocked countries.

Also - this attitude towards water-intensive goods could be good:

Soft drinks tax is a good start. Hope this shit industry gets crushed like it deserves.

[ray245]

No, why? Just make it very hard to get. Perhaps a price hike alone would suffice. There's conditioning. Australia practically demolished the tobacco industry by comprehensive legislation.

You can weaken it, but you can't cut it out completely.

Ban, choke, suffocate or outright kill these corporations, allow a generation to grow up and be used to not smoke and you'll see.

I don't think it's possible. There will be people who like the experience of smoking, and as long as it exists, the industry won't go away. It can be weaker, but it won't disappear.

Repeatedly subjecting a population to stimuli that bitter has good consequences (hormonal shot), while eating sweet has bad consequences, could alter it right now. If it keeps happening over generations, evolution itself will have a say. Not that it is needed, just that it is possible.

Unless you are actually willing to enforce such a measure, it won't be physically possible. Even getting people to consent to get vaccinated is hard enough. Getting people to get injected just to change their preference is simply not possible.

No, it is, I just pointed out that many addictions could be cured. Not sure if the sweet one could be, though.

You have to show it's actually biologically possible to change human society en mass from their preference for sweet stuff.

There's unhealthy and there is abuse of sugar. The latter is not just unhealthy, but a very specific type thereof.

But such desire will always be present in human society unless you are somehow genetically engineering that away from people. And that has its own sets of issues.

Yes, you can reduce the amount of sugar that people are consuming. But that doesn't mean there won't be demand for it. Sugar doesn't have to be part of people's daily diet, but I doubt it will be gone from people's annual diet.

[Kane Starkiller]

I don't want them to grow in a destructive fashion. If that makes me a Luddite, OK. Maybe I should go to the amish, who knows, they might be better human beings than fuckfaces like you.

Oh I don't know. I doubt any group on Earth can measure up to such a special and compassionate person like you.
Hey economies of the world? If you could just not grow in a destructive fashion that would be great. K. A. Pital is really upset. I mean he has no fucking clue how that less destructive system would look like and whether slower growth would adversely influence people but you know. Just do it. He gets really emotional about this.

Um... do you realize we're talking about the fact that human nature is changeable and is historically developing and being modified by society, so saying that a society of addicts demands opium and they even built a whole system to produce it doesn't say us anything about the nature of humans. But it tells us everything we need to know about the social system of the addicts, or, indeed, the social system that turned them into addicts in the first place.

Will you please get to the point where you explain what any of these historical incidents have to do with the economic system known as capitalism.

Do people need to buy nuclear weapons and cruise missiles in a market, though? I mean, you're a total fuckface, but you can't be that much of a fuckface, right? You can't be saying that a totally unnecessary thing which costs beyond most people's purchasing power ability, not being sold in the market openly, is progress. That's gotta be the most idiotic reply I've ever seen to the actual fact that purchasing power disparity is depriving the poor in India of water.

Yep my reply is so idiotic you had to snip away half of it and pretend it doesn't exist. Fuck off dipshit.

How the fuck is that relevant? I said that deciding to invest in a given technology defines the future and the consequences. Deciding to invest into plastics resulted in the Great Pacific Garbage patch. Investing in a different material would've provided different results, maybe better, maybe worse. Fucking moron.

Human activity has an impact on the environment. You are a fucking genius. Yes if 100 years ago we were prescient enough to foresee the problems with plastics and developed biodegradable materials that would've been awesome. How you think that is a point against specifically capitalism as opposed to general human activity is anybodies guess.

You said it is a fact of human nature that people get addicted to sugary drinks. So, this must be a scientifically known fact then. Which means companies are legally producing health-damaging drugs, yes, and selling them legit, because it wasn't banned. You said it's on the people not to abuse. Same can be applied to opium, or any other drug. So people are at fault, addicts hur hur stupid, capitalism blameless. As always. RUGGED.

My God but you are getting desperate. I said that human beings crave sugar because it is a great source of energy and throughout human history energy was hard to come by. You can get fat eating to much bread. Should we ban bread as well? And for the umpteenth time how is this an indictment of the economic system known as capitalism? All kinds of substances and activities are band in many countries regardless of the economic system.

Bottled water comes from all over the world, including Fiji (crazy, I know) and China, which has its own water scarcity issues.

But don't let me distract you from ridiculing, mocking the poor people (I especially like the gold bit, very delightful, genocidal conquistadors and the gold of the Americas, so true). It's delightful.

Yes yes you are special and a very very very good person. We know.
I mean sure US consumes 355 billion gallons of water per day and 13 billion gallons of bottled water per year meaning that total yearly consumption of bottled water is less than 5% of daily total water consumption. #Resist #OccupyWallStreet #HackThePlanet

[Tribble]

Sooooo, apart from killing everyone with capitalist leanings and banning coke, what other things can address both the immediate crisis and long term? With the focus on Cape Town, though I suppose other areas are having shortages too.

Is mass deployment of desalination plants a viable long term option, or would it cause more problems than it solves?

It's a good solution for the short-term.

Long term, climate change is a total disaster. Think turning a previously densely inhabited zone into an arid desert, which will no longer be able to support the population even with desalination.

Not to mention the landlocked countries.

Also - this attitude towards water-intensive goods could be good:

Soft drinks tax is a good start. Hope this shit industry gets crushed like it deserves.

I suppose if fusion power becomes viable we could do desalination at a mass scale, without anywhere near the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

Theoretically if we can pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we should be able to take it out. Artificially I mean, not just via photosynthesis. Conserving our remaining biosphere and limiting emissions is crucial, but is there anything being developed that could start to remove what we've already dumped into the atmosphere? I imagine it would be energy intense, hence the need for power sources which don't just add to the problem?

[K. A. Pital]

So, other than mocking me for being compassionate, Kane, you can’t offer anything coherent. Just more ramblings which could be summed up (no kidding) to “humans’ fault, capitalism - blameless”. Boring, inhumane and uninspiring. When one is being mocked for compassion, rock bottom is hit. I have no wish to argue with a despicable being like you any more.

Ray, it is a good start if consumption could be moderated. After all, a moderation of consumption already would solve many problems.

Tribble, you are asking good questions, but how can you remove something from the atmosphere? If there is research to that end, please do point me to it. I’d like to know as well. It would give some reasons to be optimistic.

[ray245]

Ray, it is a good start if consumption could be moderated. After all, a moderation of consumption already would solve many problems.

I agree. I just think there's a limit to how much we can moderate things.

[K. A. Pital]

Ray, it‘s simple, really.

Out of the top ten cane sugar producers in the world, only China, Philippines and Colombia produce it in areas with little to no water stress.

In most other nations and most appallingly India, sugar production is a major contributor to water stress. In the most stressed region (Indus basin), it accounts for like 20% of total water withdrawals in one of the worst-affected regions in the world. India is the world‘s second largest producer of cane sugar.

50% of world‘s sugar is being used by fucking parasites like Coca Cola, Nestle, Pepsico, Ferrero (list of names can go on) to produce fucking horrible products, harmful to one‘s health. Also products that constitute a definitive and harmful luxury (the fact you can perfectly live a happy life without soft drinks is damning).

You can use all sorts of excuses, but the fact is, this is capitalism. This is how production is organized. Why produce cane sugar in the most water stressed areas, which is being used to make harmful sweets - mostly for the First World? Isn‘t it crazy? What is „efficient“ about this?

Water is being wasted on non-essential products while poor people are deprived of water.

Explain to me how this is not related to capitalism, and is just a human thing. Cause I sure as hell do not see it that way.

And Kane‘s a liar. Cane sugar is not sourced only locally in the First World, so by byuing soft drinks in the First World you are ruining the Third World.

[GuppyShark]

This is a social fault. Governments in drought-stressed regions should be increasing the cost to extract water (or just prohibiting it) until it becomes pointless to do so. Capitalism and economics understands the concept of a negative externality, it is the role of governments to stand against them.

[Kane Starkiller]

Water is being wasted on non-essential products while poor people are deprived of water.

Explain to me how this is not related to capitalism, and is just a human thing. Cause I sure as hell do not see it that way.

Try reading less marxist propaganda pamphlets and watching more documentaries about animals around watering holes and observe how smaller and weaker animals get treated. Pay especially close attention to how predatory animals use the drought conditions to feast upon the weakened herbivores that congregate around smaller and smaller watering areas. That should help open your eyes to reality just a little bit.

[GuppyShark]

This is a social fault. Governments in drought-stressed regions should be increasing the cost to extract water (or just prohibiting it) until it becomes pointless to do so. Capitalism and economics understands the concept of a negative externality, it is the role of governments to stand against them.

The reason neither communism nor capitalism has been able to deliver a perfect model for human civilisation is that neither is a comprehensive model for human civilisation. Neither model has an answer for human cowardice or corruption. Capitalism has the edge because it does not pretend human greed does not exist.

I live in the driest state in the driest continent on Earth. The irony was not lost on me when I walked past a travelling "Water Wonderland" that setup shop in the Adelaide parklands during our latest summer heatwave. The last time I bought bottled water it was from these folks: https://thankyou.co/

EDIT: Just because I'm a perfectionist, I will add that I also think bottled water is incredibly dumb and I literally only bought it because I was virtue signalling (the company I work with is a Thankyou partner). It was over a year ago.

[K. A. Pital]

Try watching more documentaries about animals around watering holes and observe how smaller and weaker animals get treated. Pay especially close attention to how predatory animals use the drought conditions to feast upon the weakened herbivores that congregate around smaller and smaller watering areas. That should help open your eyes to reality just a little bit.

I said I have no intention to discuss anything with you. I see no reason to waste human words on an animal that you are. The greatest economic system is predation of the strong upon the weak, you say. That is good and does not require any rebuttals.

[ray245]

Ray, it‘s simple, really.

Out of the top ten cane sugar producers in the world, only China, Philippines and Colombia produce it in areas with little to no water stress.

In most other nations and most appallingly India, sugar production is a major contributor to water stress. In the most stressed region (Indus basin), it accounts for like 20% of total water withdrawals in one of the worst-affected regions in the world. India is the world‘s second largest producer of cane sugar.

50% of world‘s sugar is being used by fucking parasites like Coca Cola, Nestle, Pepsico, Ferrero (list of names can go on) to produce fucking horrible products, harmful to one‘s health. Also products that constitute a definitive and harmful luxury (the fact you can perfectly live a happy life without soft drinks is damning).

You can use all sorts of excuses, but the fact is, this is capitalism. This is how production is organized. Why produce cane sugar in the most water stressed areas, which is being used to make harmful sweets - mostly for the First World? Isn‘t it crazy? What is „efficient“ about this?

Water is being wasted on non-essential products while poor people are deprived of water.

Explain to me how this is not related to capitalism, and is just a human thing. Cause I sure as hell do not see it that way.

I never it is efficient. I'm saying demand would always exist for products that people like. The demand can be reduced, but there will always be a demand.

If sugar is affordable to people, there will be people who will buy it.

[K. A. Pital]

So its then okay to buy the suffering of another person?

Yes or no?

[Kane Starkiller]

I said I have no intention to discuss anything with you. I see no reason to waste human words on an animal that you are. The greatest economic system is predation of the strong upon the weak, you say. That is good and does not require any rebuttals.

Squirm all you like you little weasel but it's plain as day that my point was that predation and unequal distribution of resources predates the human race itself let alone the capitalist system not that I was making a moral judgement.

So its then okay to buy the suffering of another person?

Yes or no?

Is it OK to have firemen and policemen? Yes or no?

[K. A. Pital]

I was not talking to you or asking you questions, animal. You could not answer the question anyway, just spew meaningless and irrelevant gibberish.

[Broomstick]

Tribble, you are asking good questions, but how can you remove something from the atmosphere? If there is research to that end, please do point me to it. I’d like to know as well. It would give some reasons to be optimistic.

We routinely do that already. We concentrate oxygen for medical reasons, and even have small units for use in the home. The dry ice producer near me extracts it from the air. I don't know the details, but it's routinely done. The problem is scaling it up to a level that would make any impact on climate change, or how feasible that would be with current techniques.