World's Water Crisis

[zurew]

The whole World use so much water it is insane, and we don't value water nearly as much as we should.

Here is a Netflix video about our insane water consumption : 

 

 

Here are some stats from the video:

• To create a bottle of coca-cola we need about 35 liters of water (for ingredients and for the packaging in whole)
• To create 1 glass of beer we need about 74 liters of water
• To create a cup of coffee about 130 liters 
• for a T-shirt about 2500 liters
• To produce 1 kg beef we need 15000 liters of water if we calculate almost everything into it

 

The Water crysis from a google stat: "Unless water use is drastically reduced, severe water shortage will affect the entire planet by 2040. There will be no water by 2040 if we keep doing what we're doing today".

 

The point of this post is not about planting fear in your mind, it is about making you more conscious about this issue. If we were to evaluate really every item's cost you use or what you consume you wouldn't be able to have it. For example, if we were to really put the right price for beef , you would need the price of 15000 liters of water for just only 1kg of beef. In this case were were only evaluating for the water quantity what is needed to produce the beef for you.

If we put this lense on  we can much more appretiate everything and every item we have. The solution from an individual point of view is that we really need to value basically everything much more, and not waste anything . Be mindful about every action you take or don't take, because overall it would be very costfull for you, to pay the Real price for everything.

Edited March 4, 2022 by zurew

[Willie]

Leo and the rest of Las Vegas will be the first ones to know when water shortages become a real danger...

 

[zurew]

@Willie Sure, but it wasn't only aimed at Leo or at only who lives in Las Vegas. Because it is a global issue, its good to have certain kind of information out there. Being more mindful about global issues is a net benefit for everyone.

[Willie]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

@Willie Sure, but it wasn't only aimed at Leo or at only who lives in Las Vegas. Because it is a global issue, its good to have certain kind of information out there. Being more mindful about global issues is a net benefit for everyone.

Nobody is taking it seriously as long as Las Vegas is still allowed to exist. How much water is needed to sustain a population of 2.4 million people, and their lawns, pets, and the extravagant tourist attractions there? All the water comes from an artificial lake that would not be there without the human ingenuity needed to build a dam. It’s the most glaring example of humanity not caring. It’s the first domino that needs to fall if the global community wakes up to this issue of water sustainability.

[PurpleTree]

27 minutes ago, Willie said:

Nobody is taking it seriously as long as Las Vegas is still allowed to exist. How much water is needed to sustain a population of 2.4 million people, and their lawns, pets, and the extravagant tourist attractions there? All the water comes from an artificial lake that would not be there without the human ingenuity needed to build a dam. It’s the most glaring example of humanity not caring. It’s the first domino that needs to fall if the global community wakes up to this issue of water sustainability.

i agree, tear it down

[zurew]

@Willie Most people don't give a shit about anything, the reason why i bothered to post this here, is because i believe most people on this forum are more conscious than an average person, but not necessarily knowing a lot about this problem, how serious it is. I think that if more people start to be more conscious about an issue the better.  Of course me posting here won't solve anything overall, but i wanted to get the information flowing, and also this post is concentrating on water, but of course it is not just about water, its about something deeper, its about how much we appretiate what we have and what we use.

 

What would be your solution to this problem? Do you think there is a solution where we don't need to wait around in our chairs until some country is even in a bigger trouble than it is now? Or we are damned until more catastrophes happen.

Also ,do you think, that we shouldn't even bother educating each other about these kinds of problems ,or do you think that it can hold some value?

Because most of us know about these kind of problems, but not necessarily in depth.

[trenton]

@zurew I think this post is excellent.  It clearly demonstrates how unsustainable out way of life is.  I share some of your pessimism in that societies often ignore serious issues until it's too late.  It makes me think that sometimes humanity has to hit rock bottom before it cares.

Even so, I think there is value in teaching people about this.  I think the water wars are the greatest threat to humanity and can be caused by climate change induced droughts.  One good health move you can make is to kick soft drinks and alcohol in favor of water.  The problem is that stating this is not enough.  I almost never drink soft drinks and rarely drink alcohol.  My individual efforts are not enough just like with boycotting the meat industry because of water use and factory farming.

A collective effort could be to combine the fights from various issues. 

One, slavery and cheap labor are often used in producing agriculture. For example, chocolate companies use unpaid child labor in their production.  If they can't use this, then they can't sell as much, therefore they use less water because of human rights violations.

Two, uses a lot of water, is unsustainable and ruins farmers lives. People need to appreciate that water is becoming more scarce.

Three, oil and gas companies cause a lot of water pollution all over. They need to be held accountable and regulated strictly.

Four, factory farming is cruel and causes people health problems.

Five, fixing the leaky pipes and replacing lead pipes will draw people's attention to water issues.

Six, The epa and fda guidelines for clean bottled water are poorly enforced.  Stricter standards are needed for pfas, mercury, arsenic, and more on the food and water.

Seven, we need to break up corporate monopolies on water, gas, electric, ect.

Eight, we need to fight poverty and ensure everybody has access to basic necessities like food, water, and shelter.  Perhaps parts of Africa can form a union of nations to better use their resources and fight poverty.  Don't forget about homeless Americans.

Nine, we need to fight the wild fires that are being worsened by droughts and climate change.

Ten, we need to educate many different people on many different issues.  Different issues make people click because we have different values.  Perhaps you could try advertising based on which of these issues concern people most given a local area.  I'm thinking of a billboard that says "scarcer than you think" with water running from a tap.  I don't mean to scare them, but it would put this issue on their radar.

A seemingly unrelated one would be to decriminalize psychedelics.  If this happened, then people could become more compassionate and therefore more interested in helping mankind rather than not caring. A start can be marijuana which most states have decriminalized.  If enough States jump on board, then sooner or later the federal government will have to budge.

Basically, we need to love each other or we are going to kill each other over water.

[Loba]

I remember seeing somewhere when I was in my nature documentary phase that the Himalayan mountains are melting, that it supplies a river to India and a few other countries, and if the ice melts in the mountains, the river will dry up and something like a billion people will be without access to fresh water, and that this is serious.

 

[zurew]

@trenton Thank you for your detailed response. Decriminalizing psychedelics is an interesting one. But for sure the more people feel more connected to everything and the more people can be more emphatetic, more action will be possible.

In my opinion, one of the core factors is the economic system right now. Of course, it's just one from all the causing factors, but the reason i point this out is because most people's motivations coming from money. Our economic system is basically our global value system. If no company is incentivesed, to start to take action (minimum not losing money or gaining more money to take certain kind of actions), then most stage orange companies won't do anything. Of course there are some stage green companies as well, but even for them to take action sometimes will be very hard, because they will lose so much money doing so.

Most people on the planet is stage orange or below, we need to figure out how to motivate them to do certain kind of actions or to help them climb the spiral. The problem is , that we don't have so much time left for certain kind of actions.

 

"Three, oil and gas companies cause a lot of water pollution all over. They need to be held accountable and regulated strictly"

This is true, oil has to be regulated for other reasons too. Right now one of our most valued energy source is oil. We use oil for so much stuff, and we use more and more as time goes by. We need more energy to keep up the GDP growth. We don't just use it for energy source we use it to make plastic, gasoline, diesel and so on. The problem is we can't just replace oil with renewable energy immediately. To produce renewable energy sources we need oil for that also. We use oil for mining. It is one of the cheapest energy and this is a problem. As long as it is really cheap compare to other energy sources, companies will use it a lot because from an economic standpoint its good for them. We should probably think a lot about kinetic energy as well, because some say that would be one of the best for the long term. 

"There are 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world as of 2016. The world has proven reserves equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This means it has about 47 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves)."

If we run out of oil completely thats going to be a disaster in an of itself. The short term solution for this would be making other energy sources and making the oil price right.

Our economy right now is very far away from pricing everything right. For example, if i go back to the water problem, we could never afford 1 kg beef, if we had to pay for all the energy to produce that meat, and also we couldn't afford 15000 liters of water price to produce 1kg beef. We should price up certain kind of items but of course it is easy to say for me, because i am only looking this from the enviromental pov. I am sure it wouldn't be easy to do it and probably it could make other problems that i am not aware right now.

Edited March 5, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

@Benton Yeah, i saw some of his efforts too. For example i saw his video about the soil erosion. It's an other global problem that we will face in the future.

[trenton]

@zurew I get what your saying about the economic incentives.  If stage orange companies make way too much money this way, then they will lobby against so many necessary bills.

What these companies overlook is that they are concerned with short term profits.  One example is raising the minimum wage.  Although companies lost money up front, the workers started spending more money because they had more money.  This ultimately made these companies more money in the long run.

These are the tactics we need for convincing these kinds of companies.  For example, plastic is filling the ocean, killing the fish.  This combined with overfishing will lead to the inevitable collapse of economies which depend on seafood like Japan especially.  This is worsened by oil spills.  Companies which depend on sea life may be more willing to lobby in favor of environmental conservation.  Otherwise their company will die and go bankrupt.  Overfishing is profitable now, but not for long.

Can you come up with more strategies like these?

[zurew]

@trenton What we are ultimately talking about is demand. Because if people don't want to spend their money on things that is unnecessary and even harmful for the eviroment ,then companies would be forced to change what they do and how they do it. Of course again this is just one side how to view this problem. 

What we can't forget here is that there is a so called artifically created demand nowadays. You buy things you don't necessarily want to buy but you are manipulated into it or companies exploiting your weak psychological traits and using it against you, and tricking you into buying more and more stuff that you don't want or need. We could use maybe some techniques to create certain kind of demand that would be more benefical enviromentally speaking. Or we could attack this from other side, we should think about how we can regulate these companies in a way where less and less artifically created demand possible, and people really can decide what they want. I think this naturally would bring down the pollution, because most people are buying things and food that they are addicted to.

So we could talk about the psychological effects how those playing into the enviromental problems.Or we could talk about how our culture plant certain kind of beliefs and ideas into us, that make us  buy things we don't really need, we just think we need, and it ultimately creates more and more pullution and also more energy will be spend because of it.

What you are talking about is basically the whole system taking care of itself in a certain level. And as time goes by and things get more serious for some companies they are forced to take action and change because they created their own hell. So catashropes driving actions for sure, but not quickly enough to solve certain kind of issues.

I agree that the education factor is big. Using 21 st century technology to bring more attantion to issues like this is very important and beneficial. If most people won't even see there is a problem, then actions can't be taken. The more mind is focused on certain kind of topics the more solution we can come up with.

One other big force could be  making different kind of laws that can drive certain kind of companie's actions, what they can do , what they can get away with and what they can't get away with.  So we go more deeper and we go to the politics.

If we elect certain kind of parties who is minimum stage green level, than we have a chance that certain kind of laws will be made, and other actions to start to solve some of  these global problems. Ultimately everything is interconnected, and these problems will only be solved if almost everything will change. But of course we don't have to wait around for the laws.

The problem is, that we still have a system where i can get benefit from  you losing some of your value (rival dynamics).So if i am greedy or a sociopath, i am incentivesed to be manipulative to create artifical demand to make everyone addicted to my goods or services. As long as rival dynamics is possible, we can't really solve these kind of problems on the root level, because real collective action won't take place, because almost no one is incentives to do so. This system won't change any time soon so we need practical solutions. System not changing doesn't mean we can't do anything though.

Individual action won't mean much, but what we can do is that we build ourselves up to a certain level where we can take action, and we need to find a lot more likeminded people where everyone is concerned about enviromental problems and then collective action can take place.

 

[trenton]

@zurew

https://bearfoottheory.com/top-environmental-groups-you-should-know/

This site brings you to many environmental groups. They have petitions we can sign and letters to send to law makers.  I have tried signing some petitions before, but I doubt its effectiveness.  If we try sending it to sites where a lot of people can see it, then it may be labeled spam.

I also remember that there is wolf pac.  Leo talked about this in conscious politics.  Government corruption is the root of this problem.  Not only does lobbying and the filibuster kill any meaningful legislation, but the government misrepresents what the majority of the United States wants.  On various issues we lean more to the left collectively than the government is willing to admit.  If voting rights were protected, then this would help liberal politicians get elected.  It would also make it harder for republicans to win because they consistently lose the popular vote without gerrymandering, moving polling stations, and cheating more than the democrats do.  Remember, the Republican party is distracting from meaningful progress with their lies, conspiracies, and misguided culture wars and fake moral panics.  They stand for nothing but obstruction of progress.

Wolf pac is currently focusing on an amendment to ensure free and fair elections.  This is because the supreme court is killing their attempts to get money out of politics.

I am aware of revolutionary optimism because too many people are becoming doomers.  Even the college teachers told me and the class that it's over.  To be honest I still feel pessimistic, but I continue to look for whatever hope there may be.  

[a7xKingz]

I watched this documentary the other day, as well as the one about oil. 

Clearly this is an existential problem that needs to be taken seriously. 

The issue here is that as long as we continue to operate in a system where people and corporations can essentially buy whatever they want, I seriously don't see much changing until rock bottom is literally hit. 

And when I mean rock bottom, I mean all these billionaires literally seeing the threat of facing water scarcity themselves. 

These people will milk the cow as long as they can. As long as someone can get away with what they're doing, why not ? 

Accountability is non existent these days. 

I think both parties are a joke to be honest. The whole system needs to be ripped apart if we are wanting to survive as a species. 

The World needs conscious leadership asap.

 

[zurew]

6 hours ago, trenton said:

I am aware of revolutionary optimism because too many people are becoming doomers.  Even the college teachers told me and the class that it's over.  To be honest I still feel pessimistic, but I continue to look for whatever hope there may be.  

@trenton Yeah to be honest, if we are looking at it rationally, we need to be pessimistic about it, because a huge change is required in a lot of system and field to be able to survive the 21 st century. These systemic problems realisticaly, will only be solved if there is no other choice, but literally to solve them, so big corporations are forced to change.

Besides that, we can talk about huge plans, but, yes they will all sound ridiculous because a vast change is required, which is very unrealistic.But that doesn't mean things can't change, more and more people think about these problems, and thankfully more rich person start to focus on it.

Unfortunately, not enough yet. Just as our ego, most of our systems trying to spend as little energy as it can, so it can survive. Huge change means huge spend of energy and getting out of comfort zone. When the risk of human survivality will be an even bigger problem, at one point it will suprass the need for the current system's survivality,and then change will happen.

 

 

[trenton]

The philosophy I am attempting to approach this with is the idea that everything is connected.  I try to find connections where most people can't see them.  Look at the issues that concern people in various places today and try to find any indirect connection to environmental problems.  If there is any way to make any progress on any front, then all of it is positive.

It can happen with psychedelics and alternative medicine to make people more compassionate, but what else could there be?

There could be affordable healthcare and access to pharmaceuticals.  If depression is getting worse and more people become inactive.  The FDA has approved of lsd for medical treatment and it is an effective anti depressant.  If people could afford this kind of healthcare, then they would be less concerned with their own immediate survival.

Gun control could be indirectly related to climate change in that the media spends more time on school shootings than wild fires and droughts.  If there were even less crime then there already is, then maybe the media would cover other issues more.

If one government seems to stubborn, then we could look at other governments around the world and maybe they are more open to climate change action because different cities, states, and nations are affected to different degrees by climate change.  For example, California is more willing to take action because they are not by wild fires.  If you find something caused by climate change in your area, then maybe it could spark action.

A pro abortion argument is sometimes related to over population and crowded orphanages.  This becomes a polarizing issue and neither side is willing to listen to the other.  If there were free contraceptives to reduce the quantity of abortions, then both sides could be satisfied.  Currently, anti abortion is often too dogmatic for this solution. Slavery is also enabled by overpopulation because it becomes cheaper, thus there is more human trafficking and organ harvesting.

I'm not saying the pro abortion is good, but it is common.  Given proper distribution of wealth and resources, we could house a lot more people than we currently are.  This would involve raising the minimum wage for example.  This might not happen until wealth inequality becomes so bad that more movements like occupy wall street come about.

Progress anywhere is progress.  Can you find any indirect connection to environmental issues?

[zurew]

@trenton The more we study these problems , the more we can realise that everything is connected, and not just in a spiritual way, but basically every system has its own effects on other systems, and almost no system can operate and live without the other ones.

I think a lot of system need to be changed almost at the same time, to really have the impact we want. Such a change can only occur if the whole world works together, because there is a lot of problems trying to solve global problems locally. Different countries in the world operate on different kind of belief systems different kind of value structure and so on. There is so much difference ideologically too and even on an economic level that is insane. Such differences make global change really hard.

For example if our goal is to use less oil because we only have 40 years more left , than we can regulate the price. But if only the USA is going to regulate the price of oil and make it bigger, it will change the whole marketplace and USA will lose so much money because countries who got their oil from the USA before they will be incentivesed to get it from other places because it will be too expensive for them. So if we think about only the oil problem, change can only occur if all the countries change oil prices together, collectively, globally. This is very unrealistic for the reasons i mentioned above (different value system, ideology, spiral dynamics stages and so on).

Maybe if we give psychedelics to the world leaders,than it would change some stuff up, but not in a root level. I don't know if it would be possible any time soon to give so much psychedelics to everyone, that most people would become more compassionate and would care about this situation more.  Just as with almost everything different kind of substances and experiences will have different kind of effects on almost everyone. Your identity, spiral dynamics stage, your culture, your beliefs will determine how it will effect you. I don't want to write down psychedelics though, because it is one of the tools from many, that we can use to make the situation a little bit better. We can't really do so much more other than use the tools we can, so its not a bad idea, it can help, but won't solve it in an of itself.

Right now i can sound really doomer pilled, but i believe we have a chance, but we will need a ton of luck for sure.We can say that we can buy some time until we change things on the root level, because this is the most realistic option. To buy more time to be able to have more time to change things on the root level.

 

2 hours ago, trenton said:

Can you find any indirect connection to environmental issues?

Indirect tools:

• psychedelics(as you have already mentioned)
• education/inforamtion spreading about this issues
•  what we haven't talked  enough about is using technology to buy some time and to solve some problems. For example using water cleaning technology can buy more time. This tech already exist in different kind of ways but right now we can't clean enough water at the rate we use water. So building more tech might be good too.
• Using money: If there would be an organization that could for example buy a lot of oil reserves, they could dominate in that field, and by buying up lot of oil it could be safe, because no one could use it up if you don't sell it. This way we could shorten the time about change, and change could occur faster because places and companies and some countries would be forced to change their system up to be able to survive. We could use the same mindset for other problems too. This is a very hard and unrealistic one , but if  a lot of people would come together and put some money into it maybe interesting things could happen.

[trenton]

@zurew I feel a bit like a doomer too, but I think we have a chance if different people contribute in any way that matters to them.  Animal rights would be one to stop pollution, water waste, cruelty, and health issues.  I can see how all these systems affect each other.

I am glad you told me about the oil crisis.  I didn't know that we were running out soon.  If companies are forced to conserve oil in order to survive, then like the fisheries the companies will die if they don't become sustainable.  I don't know if oil companies know about this future crisis.  If they conserve oil and therefore use less, then this will buy us a lot more time for clean energy.  This seems more realistic than buying all the oil for ourselves, granted the idea is a creative way to force conservation.  There needs to be a much more vocal message about the world's oil crisis.  If we are running out, then this forces the companies to act or die.  The conflict of interest comes from short term vs long term profits.

2 hours ago, zurew said:

@trenton

•  what we haven't talked  enough about is using technology to buy some time and to solve some problems. For example using water cleaning technology can buy more time. This tech already exist in different kind of ways but right now we can't clean enough water at the rate we use water. So building more tech might be good too.

I believe there is an alternative to uranium that causes less nuclear waste and reduces CO2 emissions.  The reason we haven't used it is because uranium is more destructive and more research was done on that to help win WW2.  Uranium is doing its job very well by destroying the environment.  According to this site it is called thorium.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/4-clean-energy-alternatives-to-uranium.aspx#:~:text= 4 Clean Energy Alternatives to Uranium ,many better alternatives for nuclear power. More

There are some scientists advocating for this alternative energy source because it is not only more abundant, but also more environmentally friendly when it comes to nuclear energy.  This would buy us some time.

As for cleaning water, I'm not sure.  There is team seas and they used some kind of trash collector in rivers.  It worked well, but it is expensive.  The problem with this well meaning movement is that it doesn't come close to getting all the trash out of the sea and it gives volunteers a false sense of security.  This could ultimately make the issue worse.

I think we need to put more money toward developing machines that can clean water more efficiently.  I don't know what kind of technology is being developed aside from trash collectors in rivers.  Furthermore, a problem with cleaning ocean water is that it causes a lot of emissions.  I don't know how to eliminate this problem.  If we could, then we would be home free on the water crisis.  This is complicated by all the plastic in the ocean though.

If we want to educate people on these things, then we need to know what information to send where.  I would think to make sure oil companies know about the energy crisis.  Do you know the best way to spread the information for each of the issues we discussed?  Public forums may be limited to groups with one particular bias.  If we use the information which hits each of these biases, then it could encourage more activity.  I don't want to be labeled a spammer though.

 There is always Facebook and Twitter or something.  Is there something else that I am missing when it comes to better educating people?  Do we need to speak publicly?

[zurew]

4 hours ago, trenton said:

As for cleaning water, I'm not sure. 

@trenton

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/articles/different-ways-were-cleaning-up-the-ocean-and-how-you-can-help-339618

that link above lists 6 different technologies that can help cleaning water.

Also when i talk about cleaning water, i don't just talk about cleaning ocean water or sea or rivers. I talk about tech that we can use to make fresh water from polluted water. There is already technology out there that can make frash water from sewage. Also i just googled it, there is a way to make drinkable water from  saline water. That is huge too. With that kind of technology we could buy a lot more time as far as drinkable water goes.

4 hours ago, trenton said:

There is always Facebook and Twitter or something.  Is there something else that I am missing when it comes to better educating people?  Do we need to speak publicly?

Right now, thanks to our low attention span, we need to find mediums that people use daily. If we target certain mediums that people use less, then it will be way harder to get any traction there. The question should be asked though what groups we want the message directed at, because different groups need a differently delivered message, to really hit home the information.

Tiktok could be used to get traction and to share some links and those links would give them more information. I people use more and more tik-tok especially the younger generations so it could be very good to target that age group.

Facebook is good for almost any age group, user usages starts to decline, however still a lot of people use that platform, and if the algorithm is being carefully studied how it works, and how you can make your post to be more seen, than it could be another good medium choice.

You mentioned twitter. Twitter could only be used if you are famous and already have enough traction. Yes it could be said for all the other ones as well, but i think an argument could be made why the other two is easier to get more traction.

Besides those platforms, some ads could be usefull too. For example facebook ads or youtube ads would be useful to get some traction. Of course this is heavy on the bank account, but if its not directed only at your bank account this could be realistic as well.

 

4 hours ago, trenton said:

If they conserve oil and therefore use less,

I don't know, if oil companies are the best to target the oil crisis message at. It could be useful, however, some economic arguments need to be made for them, why they should hold more onto their oil and not sell it right now. Because i still believe most of these companies won't drop any tear by telling them , that the world is falling apart, and there will be a lot of problem if we run out of oil. Some smart arguments need to be made and some graphs about why holding onto oil more is worthwhile. Then there could be a slight chance maybe to make them to reserve their resources.

Here is a video talking about energy and oil, sharing this video in an of itself could be powerful if it lands in the right places (Leo  have  already shared this link on his blog)

I assume you have already heard about Daniel Smachtenberger's name, he is a big one on the catastrophic risk field. He is a very intelligent stage yellow guy, and he is a super great system thinker. A lot can be learned from him and he is doing great work and effort to save Earth.

[trenton]

@zurew That was a deep and complicated discussion.  that is a lot to take in.  I didn't know about the Jevons paradox because that is commonly overlooked.  It seems plausible on the surface that it reduces energy consumption, but in reality the increased efficiency results in an increase of demand for what it produces.  If this leads to using the resource faster, than the energy consumption could get worse.

Aside from a few other minor points like renewables and externalizing the problem of cheap labor, I find the idea of a post growth economic system interesting.  As a super organism we are growing out of control and collectively we are in a deep denial that growth does not solve all of our problems.  We wish being more efficient would help, but this isn't enough.  This pursuit of growth comes especially when competing with other nations and it leads to something like game theory in which everybody has to cooperate or we're screwed.  If one group exploits this, then we will be under their foot.  It looks like this race to the bottom can't be stopped.  I can't say that I see our society getting the prices right until the resources are scarce.  My conclusion would be that we need more environmental activism to ensure that the cost of collateral damage is better respected.  Only if there is more collective action like this, can we begin to get the prices right and more toward a more sustainable living.  This seems to be the most promising way to approach this especially since it is easily framed as a human right's issue.  Do you know about the scandals with Chevron?

Do you have any other ideas for moving away from consumer culture,  Or is this too much to ask of our growth oriented society?  I want to be careful not to say "we are all doomed so fuck it."  There seems to be a real possibility that we could destroy ourselves from this.  I know that humans have been saying that for hundreds of years, but the research seems to suggest it.  To be honest, a lot of the video seemed very complicated and went over my head.  I should probably listen to more stuff like this over liberal podcasts which serve more so as entertainment than real education.

The ocean cleaning technology you sent me seems cool.  I remember one of them from Team Seas.  Where do we put all the trash after we get it out of the ocean?