M1ch431

We need to redefine society if we want to truly unify, and it starts with an universal human bill of rights. Ensuring individual and community-based sovereignty with guiding concepts like direct democracy are important first steps. Dependence on externalities and reliance on impersonal entities like corporations (which largely capture governance, science, and everything else they can) needs to stop if we want to realize a world that is worth living in for ourselves and future generations.

Society is our doom if we continue to allow pollution, waste, and destruction of our environments on levels we have never seen before, while experts and other people in the know stand silently and cover the situation up, or are largely ignored if they are actually crying out. Environmentally-caused disease and chronic illness are rising to levels that we can no longer ignore or cover up.

Modern sewer systems are safe

They produce biosolids which are probably very contaminated and are presently jammed into landfills if they are not (from my understanding) unsafely repurposed. I'd like to see people openly entertain the various uses we could have for our waste. Our systems aren't good enough quite yet to close the book on.

connect with high speed rail isn’t feasible

From my perspective, high speed rail is very feasible for freight and transportation. Does it make sense to connect to every remote and mostly uninhabited region? Probably not.

We need to work on our communities

Hard yes. I just feel that it's very difficult to connect when you are so vastly disconnected in current cities.

and make cities safe for people to live in

We'll have to get very serious to tackle our pollution and polluting practices to do so. I think a large number of cities will have to naturally relocate/rebuild as the situation shifts in the coming decades and that is what I was attempting to touch on.

get rid of cars etc. spreading out isn’t the answer

I'm not explicitly arguing against centralization or arguing for dispersion into rural areas, and I do agree with you largely. I think accessible high speed rail is one way that we can get rid of cars and other vehicles.

I was attempting to communicate that I would sooner argue for eating insects over lab-grown protein mainly because of the danger I see in the concept of a food source that is only able to be produced in a lab, not that I am going to seriously argue for insects to be seen as anything other than a potential option for protein. Plenty of other cultures utilize insects in food willingly, and I'm all about arguing for consent and what's best for everybody individually.

I think we will have to get very creative to solve our problems with agriculture and food production, and I think all options should be fairly entertained if they can be done in a way that is truly safe while prioritizing the will of the people. I'm of the opinion that our food sources should be more natural and that's also what I was attempting to touch on.

I’m talking about centralization. Expecting countless individuals to be able to do something as well as specialists can do it just doesn’t make sense to me.

As far as I know, there is no existing and modern example of centralization that I am aware of that isn't some form of state authoritarianism with capitalist or other class/status-based elements. So in my mind, the concepts are at least loosely interlinked, unless we are framing this in the context of the world already being at least slightly utopian or having overt socialist elements. Which I'm happy to entertain, or just purely entertain the concept of centralization in a vacuum.

I overall agree that centralization could be made very efficient, but in its current form, people are limited/controlled in a number of ways (such as lacking ownership of their property), and those that control centralization efforts are not designing cities or economies of scale that are even remotely healthy and in the best interest of humanity or the planet.

If we have no meaningful way of getting rid of or utilize biosolids besides landfills and other, more harmful practices, it doesn't seem like the most amazing thing to do in the tried and true way moving forward.

“Personal responsibility” is a red herring

If I have to give my power away to external entities to meet my needs and tackle all of my problems, and they persistently show a pattern of wanton disregard for my health and safety and of those around me, I'm going to find ways of taking matters into my own hands and show others how easy and inexpensive it is - that you don't need to be an expert to tackle certain realities of life that are vastly over-complicated by those in power.

Off-gridders are primarily dilettantes who have the money to pretend they’re disconnected from the system.

Of course nobody is truly disconnected, on the contrary, we are all connected. It is, however, disingenuous to imply that you need vast sums of money to accomplish such a lifestyle. The system is also, in my view, not solely responsible for all existing innovation and culture that off-gridders/etc. benefit from.

The modern world is moving along at a very slow pace, and it's doing so kicking and screaming at every small step of progress because of concepts like "expense" and the diminishing/false quantification of value of people to excuse inaction or the blatant disregard of the health and safety of those that reside in it.

I'm of the view that unless a city/centralized location is able to support its basic needs in the geographic region its occupying (and moving forward), it's probably in the wrong spot. Am I against centralization or proponents of it? Of course not, but there has to be a valid reason for specific projects and solid grounding for it besides what is best or convenient for capitalists.

From my perspective, there also needs to be guiding principles, a universal bill of human rights that is never eroded, and a commitment to ending/creatively solving polluting practices and actively remediating said pollution.

TIL, and of course I echo the sentiment of the other commenter that those words don't truly exist here in the US, and I agree with you that the world is a much larger place than the US. I just would hope that European countries (or whatever other countries are concerned about the health of their people) lead the charge if such a solution to our protein came to be.

Just trying to ground things into our current reality. But yeah, I think in a world where there is an incentive to do good, it's a no-brainer that we could do stuff like this in a lab and in a much more efficient way than agriculture or raising livestock/etc. for protein sources.

I would sooner argue for eating insects vs. lab-grown protein made by a corporation. I have no trust for corporations to produce safe and emergent solutions to the problems we face as a species and world. They have no incentive to do the right thing and put the brakes on when things are looking bad.

Cities are more efficient than rural communities.

They can be in some respects, sure. They are also vastly more unhealthy to reside in, will likely fail to meet energy needs and water needs in the face of a shift in climate and in precipitation, and are suffering from vast amounts of pollution in every direction.

Concentration of people is better than spreading everyone out.

I disagree with your opinion, but in a more healthy world I would probably agree with you.

You’d see much more environmental destruction if everyone moved rural.

With today's world and consumerism, you are probably correct.

Plus it’s much harder to get resources to rural communities.

This country is ripe for high-speed rail infrastructure for freight. I think local communities should be less dependent on the global/national economy to meet their needs. If we can put Walmarts everywhere and stock them to the brim with junk from China (etc.) we can provide people the basic necessities.

Modifications should be made but everyone pooping in the woods in a bucket isn’t a good idea either.

I don't think we need to poop in buckets and I wasn't suggesting it. Overall, we need completely new systems that are known to be safe and effective, regulatory bodies that are functioning and on the side of the people (or humanity as a whole), and a mass banning of chemicals like Europe.

I apologize for the quick and perceivably chide responses, I think we both want a better world and we likely agree on a lot of things. I see your good intentions. Thank you for sharing your perspective and I really do appreciate your responses and time - I just don't personally see the path forward in ultra-capitalist hellscapes like cities. There is too much complexity, mindless dependence on the existing systems, and too much overarching parasitism standing in the way in those areas for meaningful progress unless there are vast shifts occurring which I do not have the foresight or eyes to see.

It's certainly not the very well-meaning capitalists, the fossil fuel executives who buy our governments, the "defense" industry, or the corporations who produce the products we consume that are driving the ship for a more sustainable and healthy future. It's incompatible with profit, their short-term goals, and their existing industries. Academics and researchers are neutered and mostly silenced and well-meaning individuals who try to effect change are only able to make very small strides to their causes because of the immense resistance our systems engage in to stop progress.

The only way things change is if people start taking personal responsibility, and extend that responsibility and care out to their communities. People who live off-grid/etc. lifestyles are probably more involved than the average person in their local affairs and I do believe they are raising their consciousness about their impact on the world around them and are taking responsibility at a much greater level than the average person.

We outsource our responsibility to people and entities who really don't care if we are poisoned; they just care that their products and solutions sound good on paper and don't sound alarms to those in the know. Like this: https://www.propublica.org/article/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-pfos-inside-story

Our water is absolutely full of PFAs (remediation is only just beginning to start) and our waste is being used to grow the food we eat https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/02/texas-farmers-pfas-forever-chemicals-biosolids-fertilizer/ (without proper testing, completely disregarding human health) - I can't imagine it's wonderful even as a soil additive.

There is so much pollution from our practices. When you look at the maps that show pollution, it's really hard to believe that we know about every little bit or even a small fraction when corporations knowingly poison our waterways/etc. en masse like this: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/wastewater-from-tyson-meat-processing-plants-is-polluting-u-s-waterways-report-says

As for denser areas like cities, of course some solution or slow evolution will be needed, but I don't think it can't be solved by simply filtering the water better or adding more complexity to broken systems. I think it will take a lot more than that to truly ensure clean water in areas that already are very unhealthy to reside in.

I'd say putting caps and restrictions on what chemicals we can produce (that we cannot meaningfully dispose of) and limiting household and commercial chemical use (because there is no proper way to dispose of them) is the bare minimum. Moving essential industry away from densely populated areas and waterways might also be necessary because these companies cannot be trusted and regulation is broken (or functioning as intended because the cost benefit analysis decides people should just get sick and die instead of corporations losing profit like with asbestos).

I'm of the opinion/understanding that we can't fully purify water at scale with current/emerging practices or meet increasing water needs with a shifting climate and lower precipitation using the means we rely on currently.

Off-grid/etc. lifestyles push the envelope on what is possible on a smaller scale. As most people have to get very creative to meet their needs, such as where their water comes from and solve their waste in a sustainable way. Some people have very primitive and environmentally-unfriendly setups (even when considering the small scale of their pollution/etc.) and I'm not pointing to them, I'm pointing to the people who eliminate their black water output (through composting or other means), and limit the chemicals/etc. that go into their grey water and find ways to reuse it.

I'm of the perspective that we put far too many things down the drain and that sewage/black water shouldn't be circulated in the way that it is, because it is too contaminated for further use - be it used for irrigation, as a fertilizer, or as a soil additive. Even grey water I doubt can be fully purified at scale with the amount of chemicals being dumped by the average person or industry.

I'd like to point to rising cancer rates and general levels of disease as evidence that our practices aren't sufficient. People aren't magically getting cancer at massive and increasing rates because they are simply genetically-prone, I believe there are major environmental factors and uncomfortable truths that are not being accounted for because our government is not operating in the best interest of the public that it serves.

The way I see it, people who implement these setups on a smaller-scale will be positioned to influence their local policies and governments, alongside the people they share their lifestyle and solutions with, for a better future.

Thanks for sharing!

Unfortunately, I don't think the world's emerging situation will allow people to live en-masse (in ever-growing numbers) in cities in their current form for too much longer.