This stuff feels good on a personal level and does absolutely nothing to "save the planet" or our ailing bodies. Still tons of plastic everywhere throughout our lifestyles, primarily from industry and infrastructure.
The entire chain of things you listed are riddled with plastic. Tools in the manufacturing and shipping processes, to build the roads, insulation, millions of miles worth of pipes for fuel, insulation, water, all the packaging for the food and products, packaging for shipping the products, metric tons of single-use disposable things, large and small, used in all kinds of industry, in our air, food, water. Fucking everywhere.
Oh but thank God I planted a tree and reused a little plastic shopping bag. That'll really hedge against the hell wrought by the plastic-industrial leviathan that's coiled around every part of our lives.
Small actions on a personal level can help people feel efficacy and engage on a larger level. Political and economic action is absolutely what's most important, but humans have weird psychology. Some for instance will not engage in the larger political action because they feel they are not virtuous enough (they don't bring a plastic bag along, they don't recycle) and if they can't do the small things that they misconstrue as essential, then f*(& it might as well just run the F-150 all day in a parking lot with the windows open and the AC on and vote for drill and burn politics.
In a rock band, you have a guitarist and a drummer and a singer and a bass player. Not everyone does the same thing. We all need to contribute in different ways at different times.
Plastics are indeed everywhere and have made some aspects of daily life better while making other aspects worse. Neither of the extremes of overemphasizing personal virtue and nihilism are useful.
8 -> copper is toxic. People with some genetic traits will suffer cirrhosis and shouldn't use it for water storage. Cooking on copper pots specially should be avoided. Iron and Aluminum are safer.
This is me. I'm a clutz and I use mason jars in a little cloth sleeve. I drop like 2 a year and I end up with a wet bag of glass. That sucks but I just buy another $2 jar from a thrift store and I'm back in business.
You use Mason jars for drinking? You could also try kombucha bottles. They have a nice cap and the glass is stronger because it needs to withstand pressure, so it survives falls better.
It depends on the type of glass. Some glasses are incredibly resilient, and some of them are flexible. They all look the same, so people who don't know tend to think of all glass as the same substance.
Some glass is also plastic. But I think outside technical discussions and deceptive marketing glass is usually used to refer to borosilicate or soda-lime since those are what most widespread glass products were for a while. Recently there are more varieties of glass that are marketed as glass to take advantage of the good reputation (in some ways) of borosilicate and soda-lime. But this is like using the term fruit in a technical way, it is just not what most people mean by the term glass.
Iphones had the same problem. Solved it with an outer rubber skin protecting the tablet. Should be easy to do the same with glass bottle while avoiding algae grow at he same time
You should reevaluate what you consider common. Schizophrenia, a condition you probably rarely witness in every day life, is around 1 in 100. You don't interact with 30,000 people even over the course of a year.
Here's what I want to know, has anyone done any studies on what happens when sugars enter the penis? Is it better or worse than drinking the beverage? OP might be well advised to avoid fucking his beverages.
It's also a required element so I guess a question might be how many micrograms of copper are consumed per day by using a copper lined bottle. Adults should get 900 micrograms daily unless they are also consuming a lot of zinc and then one must do more math. Gastric bypass surgery is thought to be a risk factor for copper deficiency. Usage of proton pump inhibitors may also contribute to copper deficiency by reducing the ability of the body to absorb dietary copper.
Most homes have copper water pipes. That's probably more important to test as corrosion in water bottles should be easy to spot. There are test kits one can buy to test their water at home.
My home was built in 1970. Most homes in my area were built in the 70's and 80's. When I rebuild my home I do plan to use PEX. I also want to use the ManaBloc port adapters because that was a damn cool idea whoever came up with it. Then I will just have to worry about chemicals leeching into the water such as MTBE and tert-Butyl alcohol unofficially of course but I don't drink from the well water anyway.
My plumber prefers copper pipes. He's replaced a couple of leaks (in PVC pipes) with copper at core junctions in my house. I never knew it was dangerous.
Copper is also more expensive, more showy, and probably easier to manipulate. But what it provides more benefit for the plumber is not necessarily the best for the client.
Hmmm, copper is an essential trace nutrient found in the soil. Your body will not survive without it. As always, devil's in the details, but it is believed most humans are low in copper. Aluminum is a disaster for your body and the bodies of other creatures as far as we know.
I assume that the list from less toxic to more toxic is:
silica -> iron -> aluminum -> copper
With a logarithmic scale unit between each step or so. We ingest and tolerate much more aluminum than copper in our daily journey and we could drink water with much more iron oxide dissolved on it than aluminum oxide without suffering permanent problems
You should be careful of leaded glass, I've read research that shows it leaches into the liquid it contains (this is a problem in e.g. decanters where the acidic wine sits for several days).
How careful? Everything is a trade-off, without numbers on the quantities, extraction rates, and what levels are tolerable for short or long-term exposure we can't make a reasoned choice.
Titanium in perfectly pure form is very reactive and it would be dangerous in contact with organic matter.
Fortunately, it is pretty much impossible to come in contact with pure titanium, because whenever it is exposed to air it becomes immediately covered with titanium dioxide.
The ratio between electric charge and radius of the titanium ions is such that titanium dioxide is one of the least soluble oxides. It is practically inert in water or blood.
This inertness of the titanium dioxide ensures that titanium is one of the safest materials for making implants that will have to stay forever in a human body or for making objects that will be in contact with food.
While glass remains the best food-contact material, titanium is a decent choice for applications where glass might break, e.g. spoons.
On that scale, titanium would be placed between silicon and iron. It should be kept in mind that the position on that scale actually refers to the behavior of the oxides, not of the pure elements, because all the elements mentioned are oxidized quickly in air and they are oxidized even faster in a living body.
Titanium dioxide is more inert than silicon dioxide, so less of it can become dissolved, but once the two oxides are dissolved, the silicon dioxide is safer, because most living cells have mechanisms to deal with it.
Plague is (was) worse in terms of its mortality rate, but Covid is worse in that we still don't have a way to eradicate it, so it's going to continue to be a health risk for some time to come.
I guess not for drinking. OP is planting trees, so assumably has land where some kind of forestry/agriculture is in being carried out. That needs quite some water. (eg. freshly planted trees need irrigation to have a fair chance of survival)
Also washing, showering can be done with rainwater if you are really a minimalist.
You shouldn't be washing your car in the driveway. Even if you use environmentally friendly soap, or no soap, the water coming of the car isn't exactly clean.
Professional car wash places are required (depending on location) to collect and dispose of their waste water in a safe way. When you wash the car in the driveway, the waste water will either go into the ground or the storm drains, neither of which will ensure that the waster is cleaned before reentering the environment.
I solved this problem in minimalist way - I wash my car maybe twice a year. It sits in my driveway in rain anyway because my garage is waiting for some spare time so that I can finally reuse all that pallets I collected since last year (mostly clean pallets I've already made some nice yard furniture for myself and family, all those pallets already have planned use but I don't have enough time).
For moving around town i just walk, maybe sometimes I use my 20yr old bike. My car is used only to travel from my town to nearest city, because it takes 3x more time to go with bus->train->taxi to where I need to go and is a little more expensive. Then it sits idle 5 days. It's more like 1.2tons and is not that guzzling, 7L/100km. Diesel or hybrid would be guzzling even less, but they break more and/or are more expensive. I'm not a eco freak, I do what I can, but some people really do need to own some transport. In Poland, if I see someone with a big pickup, it typically means he actually DO uses it to pick up various things otherwise it would be too inconvenient to own such a big car.
You said "mostly clean" and I assumed that this was about dirt and debris, and the stuff they're treated with is not visible. There is a stamp on the side which shows how they have been treated, though.
Yup, I worked at a car wash and the water coming off of cars is absolutely disgusting. Had to wear some sort of hazmat type suit to clean the trench as we called it.
We're gonna preserve our quality of life one exception at a time all the way to societal collapse, it seems. How much quality of life can we have when billions are on the move due to heat dead zones, collapsing one government after another?
>There are lots of "grey water" uses that don't require drinkable water, like watering plants, flushing toilets.
Yes. I've heard/read grey mentioned many times in permaculture articles.
I like the fact that permaculture takes a systems or holistic approach.
Another nice, small but useful example of permaculture design is the concept of guilds, when it comes to planting crops around a house.
They plant by category, in concentric bands called guilds, with the guild nearest to the house having most commonly used plants such as herbs, then vegetables, then grains, then fruit trees, etc.
So you have to walk less to tend to or harvest them.
Edit: I may have used the term "guild" incorrectly.
The Wikipedia article on permaculture uses it differently, under the section "Guilds".
Yeah you're talking about zones. Zones refer to the intensity of maintenance / how often you'll be harvesting from them. Zone 1 around the house is most frequent - zone 5 is way in the jungle where you harvest wild guavas once a year.
Guilds are about companion planting - they're combination of plants that form a small ecosystem where they provide benefit to each other. E.g. comfrey is often used around fruit trees to break up subsoil (it has very long taproots, to 10 feet or so), and as a prolific mulch producer (cut it back every couple months, and chop and drop the leaves in place). Nitrogen fixing plants are common, as a way of providing nutrients. Etc.
>> 5. Collect rain water and/or use less water
>
> Not sure about that -- With modern pollution rain water is not likely to be safe to drink (depends on your location)
Water availability is also very different from country to country, region to region, and even town to town. How your water usage affects the environment depends on so many things.
I collect rain water but use it on the veggie garden. So either it is safer because I ma not drinking it directly OR it is worse because the planet are bio-accumulating it. I don't know.
At my parents' house rain water was collected in a well and that was used for things like flushing toilets and watering plants. This was already in place 30+ years ago mainly cause it's "free water" (apart from the cost of building the well and the pump)
Over here, your water bill has 2 components, the price of the fresh water and the price of the waste water. Waste water is at least as expensive per m³ as fresh water, sometimes more than double. If you are using rain water, you save on the fresh water price, but you have to still pay for the waste water. And since waste water price is calculated from your fresh water consumption, you either have to have a second meter for the rain water (expensive) or you pay for an estimated amount of rainwater calculated from the roof area you are collecting from. Also very expensive, because the estimate is always not in your favour.
So not really "free" at all, and rather expensive enough that nobody does it...
This also depends a lot on your locality. If you live in an area where septic tanks are allowed you don't have to pay for city sewer usage.
You can also skip that entirely with a composting toilet. Again depending on your local laws, gray water can often be drained directly outside, potentially through a leech field if required. Plenty of areas allow this for specific uses like washing machines, the only reason it can't be done with standard toilets is because of the solid waste.
A bit less minimalistic: ride your (non e-) bike, scooter, skateboard, kayak, sled, basically anything non motorized. Use best tire quality so you don’t change then often.
A bite more minimalistic: prefer walking barefoot anytime you can. Shoes are tire that wear out.
King of related: still looking for shoe/soles that last. My grand mother used to wear wood clogs, not sure where to find some that fits me.
How are you going to transport heavy goods without some kind of motorized or motor-assist vehicle? Unless you want to keep horses or donkeys.
Ebikes are a godsend. Without one I'd have to get things delivered by van.
This is the problem with environmentalism-as-actually-practiced -- the conversation starts with plastic pollution, you look away for five seconds, and suddenly there are a bunch of ascetics one-upping each other in the "LARP as a third-world peasant" game. There is no social defense mechanism against it. Normal people look at this and think "no thanks". It's all about focus on minimizing downside and (implicitly) self-flagellation for the sin of living in a rich country; there is no focus on things with upside potential, like "how do we increase the supply of clean energy so we can have cheap material abundance".
I don't want to live in squalor. I want to enjoy a hot shower of crystal clear desalinated water, heated by electricity made in the searing heart of a nuclear reactor, and it all costs a fraction of a penny to run.
I want to live in the same world as you but we’re not here yet! Our best way to get there is to use our current tech and ressources as they are precious while keep on advancing tech, instead of using those ressources to build the maximum throwable stuff we can and disperse the waste.
It’s not about copying thinks third world but about health, resource management and public space enjoyability.
For shoes, due to my health they get limited use and I can't really tell how durable they are but my first pair of Ahinsa shoes has lasted a couple of years without much wear. Not minimal in that they use high-tech ingredients (and are made on the other side of the world from me :/ ) but very nice shoes that seem likely to be reasonably durable (the thin sole takes some adjustment if you aren't used to it) and are produced in the EU (less labor exploitation than many places).
Gobi boots from VivoBarefoot are my favorite. Re-used ones are available at revivo.com, and I've worn each pair continuously for 3 years: working, hiking, sun, rain, etc.
I have a pair of ENIX Sandals I bought 6 years ago that I wear when it's really hot. They're also great.
I want to make a case for the e-bikes: they are less strenuous than the traditional bikes but require a good degree of cardiovascular exercise. This is a good incentive for older people
I’ve had a lot of water bottles over the years. This is quite an unpopular take, but I believe PET to be lesser of all evils.
I’ve spent a lot of
money on numerous steel and plastic water bottles. They all break and good luck recycling them. Most likely they end up in landfill.
PET bottles use less raw resources, are cheap, lightweight, extremely durable, and when they reach end of life they’re easier to “recycle” (downcycle is probably more accurate).
Modern PET bottles shouldn’t leach into your water. You can at minimum use them until the expiry date on the bottle. If you’re concerned about leaching, don’t take my word and do your own research.
Steel is mostly recycled. Pet is very much not. Pet does leach (as microplastic). No point in buying plastic bottles unless they're pla. Just reuse a water/soda bottle you bought on a whim.
I read PET actually is recycled extensively. I mean, you need to recycle it, but it's economically viable to actually recycle it rather than just make it "someone else's problem".
Iirc it gets downcycled, not recycled. You can't make bottles out of it anymore, it goes into textiles or something. And that's in the highly optimistic case in which it makes it to a recycling center, which doesn't happen for 80% of plastic.
Steel is not recycled by consumers. You cannot put steel in a recycling bin.
You _ may_ be able to take steel to a resource recovery centre. However if the travel uses oil or electricity that comes from coal, I wouldn’t be surprised if this ended up being worse for the environment than a PET bottle.
With regards to leaching, the FDA has declared PET bottles safe for repeated use.
Electricity coming from coal is not something you address by using plastic bottles.
There's almost nothing worse than forever plastics at this point in time. They're everywhere, they're toxic, and we don't know how to fix it.
Steel is recycled as often as it's economically feasible to do. It's not hand selected by consumers because there's already a whole process for dealing with metals in general that's been in place for a hundred years. Which is ideal really, the less I have to select by hand the better.
Here it's scavengers stripping it out of refuse (and everything that's not bolted to the ground, really). In the US it's probably put on a barge and stripped in Mexico or something, no idea. It's rarely thrown out though, as it's very expensive and very useful.
The FDA is also cool with BPA, pfas, teflon, etc. Don't rely too much on it. PET is safe, ish. As i wrote: use it, avoid buying new. It does leach microplastic but those are everywhere so it's "safe", and by that I mean it's unavoidable "background pollution" these days, as there's microplastic even inside produce.
> Electricity coming from coal is not something you address by using plastic bottles.
That’s not my point and I think you’re deliberately misinterpreting it.
> In the US it's probably put on a barge and stripped in Mexico or something, no idea. It's rarely thrown out though, as it's very expensive and very useful.
This sounds like wishful thinking. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? “Don’t worry, just trash it and it’ll probably get sorted in Mexico” doesn’t inspire confidence.
Is your particular bottle going to be part of the 20%? IDK... but it's more likely by definition that the PET one is going to be part of the 70%, and is also more damaging in every possible way.
Oh and a note I neglected to make: the recycling failure scenarios are wildly different for steel and PET: steel is easily disposed of by the environment, and doesn't really cause any problems, in fact it's a great oceanic fertilizer.
Sure, for walkable destinations. Having a bike is more efficient (calories per mile) and hugely increases the practical range. Commuting, even grocery shopping, and being social is hugely more practical on a bike then walking.
I dont think cooking at home necessarily produces less plastics.
Most (in Norway) veggies, meats, some spices, sauces, etc come in
plasticcontainers.
This is good since it preserves the produce, so it has a longer shelf life.
but the drawback is plastic.
Not being a fan of sugary drinks is fine, but as long as people buy water
coffee, etc in pastic it is not a clear win for the environment.
It is a win for a persons health.
It does not seem that easy and does not seem that important to be honest. Donating 100 dollars monthly to sensible causes seems more beneficial than all combined and easier for lots of people.
3. 4. 5. 4. are barely positive if positive at all (considering environment, some are definitely healthy)
Preferring walking is a big one, definitely worth more than “donating“.
For most, it would require living in a smaller space, in a more urban area and is probably the most people can do to reduce that impact on the environment.
The energy spend that comes from living in detached single family home that multiplies all the distances mass has to travel back and forth from that home (and subsequent homes) dwarfs everything else.
Walking is healthy and often is a signal that you live in a walkable place. Living in walkable place (concept similar to lately popular 15-minute cities) is important from environment perspective.
But, for example, preferring walking to more energy efficient cycling means you need more calories => eat more => affect environment more.
Very often living healthy is at odds with being environment friendly. I do not say you should live unhealthy but lets not confuse those two things.
I feel the same way. One private jet flight would take 100+ years of OP’s “minimalism” lifestyle to be carbon neutral. Want to know how many private jet flights left the Super Bowl in 2023?
And that’s just one event.
Being politically active and pushing for a carbon tax would do far more than any amount of individual lifestyle choices.
Depending on the carbon footprint of the food you eat to power that bicycle the effective MPG may actually be quite poor. A e-bike has lower emissions than a cyclist powered by lentils.
You should look into the battery supply chain. It's quite horrible for the environment. There's no way of consuming that will save us, we need to consume drastically less. We won't turn society around before hitting rock bottom because that's who we are.
Not OP, but ag land can be under €10,000 an acre (well under in some places) which puts it in the "pricey but not unobtainable for the serious tree-planting enthusiast" category.
Putting a seed somewhere has a pretty low chance of producing a tree some years on. Conditions need to be good enough, and there's fierce competition in the plant world, as well as animals and lawn mowers that curb growth.
Which is why I asked, what OP actually did.
I know folks who have planted trees on public land and on land owned by corporations, which seems cool but also kinda stressful.
What I have been wondering is, as an one mere person, trying my best to save the planet is really helping the earth while the industry is ruining the earth by tremendous impact? I mean, I am doing my best what I can to save the planet but sometimes I felt it is a droplet into the ocean so I want to find some logical reasons why I keep doing that.
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares (and free an area as big as Africa for wildlife/reforesting)
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
>Your pet is more harmful to the environment than your car.
as do their human companions. I mean if you're going to Modest Proposal pets, why stop there?
And here's #13: turn off your phone, your laptop, your desktop computer. Read a book if you want edification. Go talk to someone in person if you want to express your opinion.
No. The problem is overall resource consumption. Which is a product: people * consumption/person. Since consumption per person has a lower limit, there has to be an upper limit for the sustainable number of people on the planet. Since standard of living should be at least equal to that of your ancestors, resource consumption per person will also be above the bare necessary minimum. And since the normal mode of population growth is exponential, any change in consumption per person is meaningless anyways, the overall resource consumption would be exponential nonetheless. So yes, we are always on the verge of overpopulation, followed by catastrophic collapse. We only avoided collapse in the past because technology (industrialization, green revolution) enabled exponential growth in resource production. But that might be a one-time thing.
Wrong. Pollution per person is extremely unequal across the world. There's a significant fraction of human population living in a completely sustainable manner and another fraction that is destroying life on earth.
Don't try to blame the first group for the sins of the second.
The population growth trend is already declining in many (western) countries and is projected to go down in a few decades max everywhere. Best contraceptive is education, prosperity and urbanization.
IMHO the best way to limit our negative impacts is
- stop exploiting other countries (there are almost no poor countries, only overexploited ones)
Good luck trying to convince Russia or China to stop exploiting other countries, abandon fossil fuels or stop animal agriculture.
Here is the unsolvable problem of the climate activism. They can't save the climate, but they are capable of destroying their own homeland, playing right into the hands of those authoritarian monsters.
Well then you didn’t understand the point of climate activism. It’s not about “saving the climate” but instead “keeping our home habitability”. You can choose to:
- keep packing more fellow on your homeland, our children with them. Don’t change anything but wish them good luck, the Science and Industry will solve everything as it always did anyway, right ? Guess what, it won’t make the two giants stop being authoritarian.
- not doing (much) more children in your homeland so no descents will suffer from the density. The “authoritarians monsters” will probably profit of that.
Do you really value democracy and freedom (I value it a lot, me too) so much that you continue gambling with descents’s home habitability?
It’s not about giving up but about recognizing that adding more soldiers won’t stop the war.
I absolutely agree on trying to become a better person in terms of producing less waste. My point it, little effort won't work. We need radical solutions that could work on the global scale.
I want people to think big. Instead of carrying a water bottle and use paper bags focus on how you can help a whole country like India or China or even a whole continent like Africa.
Set goal of stopping Coca-Cola from dumping their plastic waste in Afrika. This would include much more effort than just carrying a water bottle or sleeping 8h.
There are two possible answers to climate change: avoidance and preparation. Avoidance means that the world reduces its CO₂-footprint to zero or less to limit global warming or even to revert it. Preparation means that, if global warming cannot be avoided, states prepare for the changes in weather, sea level, agriculture, etc.
Avoidance can only work if all nations worldwide do participate to reduce their CO₂-footprint. If some big nations do nothing, or even worse, if non-consumption of fossil fuels by western nations causes a price drop and a shift of fossil fuel consumption to the rest (instead of an overall reduction), avoidance by the west is pointless and a waste of resources. All the world has to participate for avoidance to be successful.
On the other hand, preparation mostly works on a more local level. Nations with coastlines invest to protect those, nations threatened by water shortages invest in countermeasures such as maybe desalination or storages, etc. Even if the rest of the world doesn't care, preparation will mostly work for the local community.
Both avoidance and preparation need a lot of resources. But allocation to avoidance is only sensible if every nation agrees to it, otherwise those resources are wasted and far better spent on preparation.
The problem is, the general preparation problem is even harder than the avoidance problem. How do most countries handle 60m+ sea level rises from a complete melting of Antarctica? Where is going to get to a regular wet bulb temperature above 35 degrees? Can we handle the level of ocean acidification that business as usual will result in? We need to prepare, but let's not pretend we don't also need to avoid as best we can.
I'm sure there were anti-natalist groups in the thousands of years of human history but well they weren't so numerous a 100 years ago, and they probably won't be so numerous a couple of hundred years from now either.
Would you elaborate on your thought? Why questioning the demography is “enemy of mankind”? Is there other subjects/sciences we should avoid completely to be friends with mankind?
When three companies move nearly all the food around the globe, and we throw away between a third and half of our crops in transit, telling me to change the menu to save the planet is a bad joke.
> Is it safe to drink water from copper bottle everyday?
> If you have been drinking water that has been constantly stored in copper bottle or vessel, chances are high that you might be at the risk of copper toxicity. It can cause severe nausea, dizziness, abdominal pain and can result in liver and kidney failure.
No thank you. I get the struggle to not use plastics, I try to avoid it myself too (especially buying water in plastic bottles in shops is something I never do), but alternatives are subpar, either very heavy, fragile and overall impractical for outdoor sports (ie glass), or some other issues. What happened to stainless steel? Heavy but at least should be inert and nearly indestructible, no? I mean those without some crap BPA lining inside, like thermos but single walled.
I stopped using plastic bottle because it tends to accumulate biological matter or whatever, and a smell / bad taste builds up over time.
I switched to stainless steel and couldn't be happier. Decathlon stores in europe sell very good stainless steel bottler for different size.
Nothing happened to stainless steel bottles, they're available. About twice as heavy as a plastic bottle, when empty that is. Full it's more like 900g vs 750g.
Won't it also kill you if you put something acidic in the bottle? Like water with a spritz of lemon? That's why copper pots have a lining, anyway.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdigris
Yup, and although correct about coppers antimicrobial effect it only kills bacteria on contact. So I suspect a majority of any bacterial contamination in the water, will never come in close enough contact with the copper walls for it to have any real effect.
Water bottles, if not cleaned properly with a soap and brush on the inside, will be coated with a bacterial "lawn". Copper prevents that. Lots of bacteria need such a lawn to propagate, only some can multiply without a substrate. So even if the "free" water part won't be desinfected, copper has an overall positive effect on the bacterial content of your drinking water.
As someone who washes my (steel) water bottle at most 1x a week, and drinks ~10-14L of water a week, I've never gotten sick from drinking out of my bottle before.
You can usually tell if the water in your bottle is going bad / filled w bacteria..
No. I was just explaining why copper is better in that regard, not that I would personally care that much. I do prefer stainless steel, because it is more robust, dishwasher-safe and cheaper.
Everybody uses glass for water even if it does not kill bacteria. Shouldn't be the main factor to choose one over other. People must filter their drinking water and remove the pathogens before filling their bottle in any case.
If this is not possible, take in mind that your immune system can take care about bacteria. In 99% of the cases after a learning period, local bacteria will stop being a problem. Unless your live in areas with very unsafe water sources or particularly dangerous organisms this shouldn't be a main factor in the choice.
A lot of the classic list of feel good things do little or come with giant asterisks and this is a good example.
Potable water shortages are a very serious problem... that affects particular areas at particular times.
A little town on a tributary of the amazon in the rainy season can use as much water as they want to water their lawns or bath in and it will cause no issues, while a drought striken area must preserve all their water.
I'm like you, just adding a bike (found in garbage), foraging (figs, medlars persimmons, oranges, lemons), collecting food at the end of garbage (lots of waste), no fridge, no hot water, no A/C or heating, €10/mo electricity bill
I think my two pieces of luxury technology I use are my laptop and by Fridge. Being able to preserve food without 'preservation techniques' is just so dang handy!
There are two possibilities for each human to try:
1. Pour all your effort into becoming a kinder, wiser human, and watch as it rubs off on the people around you in surprising and far-ranging ways, amplifying itself into the world through "network effects." Allow this to become a virtuous cycle.
2. Become cynical and bitter, and watch the opposite happen.
In either case, the world will present you with all the evidence you need that your way is objectively correct and that everyone who sees it differently is clueless (though in the first case, probably not with so much disdain and contempt...).
You can insurrect or revolt from either of those two conditions. My experience (not with country-scale insurrection, of course...) is that the results will be drastically different. These aren't things you do instead of acting, but attitudes and habits you develop through all action.
> China from senselessly expanding their industry and to convince the third world from developing
This is such a insane way to look at it.
The constant fight for increased profit has offshored manufacturing and created a market for constant crap to buy. China isn't expanding industry in a vacuum, to suggest degrowth should only be for the third world, that historically was exploited for the growth of the first world, is honestly a crazy stance.
I like to tell people that eco-fascists are easy to spot, when someone says "we need less people", ask them who goes first.
The west has driven us to this current state for the sake of profit. We ship plastic bullshit across the oceans burning bunker fuel to shave 6 cents a unit off the margin.
The west has built a society so alienated and so dependent on endless, unsustainable growth. The perfect consumer is entirely dependent on capital for their every need. Yet you point out the issue is the third world looking for some dignity after a century of hyper extraction capital.
I saw a silly tweet today, it went "In a way, we're all in a rich dude's poorly designed submersible".
We're all dying for those bastards RPG min/maxing. The real path is anti-profit, durable long lasting items, and interconnected local economies.
Oh I get it, I just think it's naive. I've read dune several times over the past 40 years, and the person I was in my youth would have agreed with you.
These days, not so much. I believe in building communities via mutual aid and support, and that if people have their basic needs meet they will produce incredible results. People want to do good, but are often too tired or too afraid or too burnt out to do it.
I was with you until the whole sleep away the day bit, then you lost me. It sounds more like a cover for depression or learned helplessness than a desire to do good. If that's how you see things then I question the rest of it.
Here is what i have been doing for a decade and would receommend
1. Reusing plastic bags (i love cotton bags but not ideal). Fold and keep one or two in your pocket before you leave home
2. Support and use light software so you dont need to upgrade your gadgets (12y laptop i use)
3. Prepare and eat home cooked meal (its 360d in my life). Good for your health and the environment
4. Plant Trees. i plant one every month on average
5. Collect rain water and/or use less water
4. Prefer walking over any other transporation
5. Dont fucking care about trends.
6. Sleep 8hrs. less waking hours means less consumation.. lol
7. Prefer quality over quantity everytime.
8. Carry a water bottle (copper ideal).
9. fuck sugary drinks.