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.
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.
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.
We will have to ban single-use plastics (and plastics being used unnecessarily), planned obsolescence as a concept for product development, non-repairable/disposable electronics/products, etc. to really make a dent on landfill usage. But as you say, it's hard to get around landfills completely when capitalism is this out of control.
We need to produce products that can actually be recycled (without the use of toxic chemicals or PFAs), produce more products locally vs. shipping them across the world (using glass to replace most plastic use). We likely need to reinvent garbage collection (what's acceptable to throw out), a revolution in recycling and product design, education campaigns on recycling and proper garbage disposal, and DIY movements to restore older electronics to their glory using open and free solutions.
Not everybody craps in plastic trash bags and throws them in the trash. There's a number of setups that do not rely on landfills/etc. to do the disposal. I think campgrounds or other parking spots for RVs/etc. and those who live in them, are a perfect first-target for regulation that rethinks waste disposal and the implementation of environmentally-friendly disposal, reuse, and remediation.
Hopefully we don't have to always be dependent on so many other people and services to have basic dignity and sanitation.
People who live off-grid, van/rv/etc., homestead, etc. lifestyles are pioneering a future where we don't need services that aren't likely that great for the environment - such as public sewage, our reliance on fossil fuels to power and heat our homes and electronics, or unsustainable agriculture that isn't in balance with the environment or even nutritionally-dense.
I am grateful to the people who enable our standard of living to survive with some semblance of dignity, and especially those focused on solutions, so we can get to the point of self-sufficiency, sustainability, and balance in our environment as a species and planet.
Who the hell wants a replacement that is gimped in performance after months of crashing?