We mine and manufacture nutrient dense fertilizer at massive environmental cost.
We use the nutrients to grow plants
We eat the nutrients in our food
We expel 95% of these nutrients in our waste
We dump our waste into the rivers and oceans with all the nutrients (often we purposefully destroy the nitrogen in the waste since it causes so much damage to rivers and oceans)
We need new nutrients to grow plants
Before humans there was a nutrient cycle. Now it's just a pipe from mining to the ocean that passes through us. The ecological cost of this is immeasurable, but we don't notice because fertilizer helps us feed starving people and waste management is important to avoid disease.
Poop indirectly on crops. Systems like this or the Aztec chinampa system, basically try to keep nutrients in the loop with fish and other aquatic organisms. Obviously, there's a disease risk if you do it wrong, but that's also true for modern water treatment.
You can sterilize waste pretty easily, we do it all the time, and you should before reclaiming not-water for reuse. Otherwise you're gonna end up with epidemics like it's the 1700s.
Like evasive chimpanzee said we need to poop INDIRECTLY in crops. Hot aerobic composting for example has excellent nutrient retention rates and eliminates nearly all human borne diseases. The main problem would be medication since some types tend to survive.
Also urine contains almost all of the water soluble nutrients that we expel and is sanitised with 6-12 months of anaerobic storage. So that's potentially an easier solution if we can seclude the waste stream. Again the main issue would be medications.
I don't have the answer, if it was easy we would have done it already. The main issue is we don't have a lot of people working on the answer because we're still in the stage of getting everyone in the world access to sanitation. Certainly the way we're doing it is very energy and resources intensive, unsustainable in the living term, and incredibly damaging to the environment. We've broken a fundamental aspect of the nutrient cycle and we're paying dearly for it.
The other problem is, like recycling, there isn't a lot of money in the solution, so it's hard to move forward in a capitalist system until shit really hits the fan.
Investing everything in engines and abandoning battery development in the early 1900s. Lead-acid batteries were heavy but usable, and electric cars were more popular until electric starters were added to engines. A disproportionately big, short-lived reason was the lack of sufficient electrical grid for electric cars trying to go far.
Nobody in government was thinking ahead, so everyone was forced to trying to make their own money NOW, and that's how we get inhumane tech in general. Same thing happening in computers for decades now. We need centralised R&D free from market influence for the benefit of all life.
We need centralised R&D free from market influence for the benefit of all life.
So you're actually saying holding on to capitalism past it's useful point was the mistake because it created the conditions for these things to happen?
The election of Richard Nixon. I sincerely believe that's where we traded the "flying cars robot butlers" timeline for the "worst inequality of literally ever" timeline.
My friend and I argue this occasionally. The difference IMO is that Nixon was a politician while Regan was an ideologue in a politician suit. He wanted to push his agenda no matter the negative consequences. Nixon pushed the car down the hill, but Regan started it up and floored the accelerator.
For me, this post is right under the person who said "Agriculture" and the response "Because it lead directly to feudalism and other forms of autocracy?"
And if unqualified businessmen ruling instead of experts in their "given fields" isn't a perfect way to describe feudalism, I don't know if irony has survived.
Opting for gasoline over electricity early on when cars started to become a thing, we were already going electric, but a smear campaign put fear into people's minds about electric and switched tk gasoline.
Batteries could have been standard for a bit longer, but it seems to me that eventually the need to go faster for longer would have forced combustion engines to be a thing. All they had were lead-acid batteries (or primary cells, but that would be dumb) and new more energy-dense chemistries didn't show up for a long time after. Maybe they could have found one if they really needed, but it's a tricky science even today, so I'm skeptical.
It's possible, I suppose, that infrastructure could have been rolled out for both en mass, but I don't see an even mix lasting through the whole 20th century. Probably not even past WWII.
Or, y'know, there's a war on and you can't stop to recharge, or you need to cross a desert, or you just want to do an express route with one vehicle...
Combustion is just a superior vehicle technology vs. lead-acid electric, assuming you don't worry about emissions, and that will show up in plenty of contexts. Eventually, lead-acid would go the way of the other workable-but-not-as-nice technologies like crystal radios or black-and-white film.
So... there isnt a war in the US right now, and there probablywont be one.
"Lead-acid electric..." when was the last time you looked at an electric car. Electric cars can now give you 400+ miles of range just like ICE vehicles, and I don't have to scavenge fuel from who knows where, all I need is a few solar panels and I'm good... eventually.
Also, IF this was a war zone, I'd rather be whisper quiet than to tell everyone around that I'm driving by with the sound of an engine. Oh and it's easier to remain undetected by food than on a vehicle anyway.
Yeah, I know, I'm not arguing against electric now, or even as a concept then. This was an alt-history exercise, remember?
Batteries could have been standard for a bit longer, but it seems to me that eventually the need to go faster for longer would have forced combustion engines to be a thing. All they had were lead-acid batteries (or primary cells, but that would be dumb) and new more energy-dense chemistries didn’t show up for a long time after. Maybe they could have found one if they really needed, but it’s a tricky science even today, so I’m skeptical.
It’s possible, I suppose, that infrastructure could have been rolled out for both en mass, but I don’t see an even mix lasting through the whole 20th century. Probably not even past WWII.
Ohh it's much worse than that. Usually humans would live to around 60 if they survived infancy before that. Their diet was varied and since food was a limited resource, there was no way of population blasts. But agriculture just fucked it all up. We stopped moving around since the land needed constant maintainence and since the diet became mostly carbohydrates, combined with back breaking work, our life expectancy dropped to 40. We didn't domesticate wheat, wheat domesticated us.
It took modern medicine... ie 20th century to get the average life expectancy up again.
I recommend you read the book called Sapiens. It's an eye opener.