zurew

Nato try to debunk some claims that came from Russia, of course this is not objective, but this is one side: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c102

@Tech36363 Yes, if we are talking about an average person only, then you are right. But i don't think demonizing the internet is the solution for that. Making changes in the algorithm and also educating people better may be the better option.

@Carl-Richard Yeah for sure , everything and every source has to be taken critically.

@Tech36363 Internet gives you the ability to search for thousands of sources if you want to. Before the internet you could only reach for a handful of sources and it was harder to get more perspective on things. But you have a point there, and i think the reason why some sites for example facebook made political things much more polarized is because of its algorithm. Its optimized for time on site, so the AI tries to make you stay on the site as long as it can. It figured out that if some posts make you more agressive or emotional, then you will stay there much more longer. This is not because Facebook is inherently made it this way, but they just using this business modell to make more money, unfortunately it has democracy destroying consequences. But it must be said here, that if a person is serious about an issue he can use internet to research about things if he want to. The problem is most people's attention span is short and almost no one wants to understand the problem, rather they just want to be right. Also there is the time problem, some problems are very hard to make sense of. Just as with almost every tech if you use it wise and right it can become a very powerfool tool to use.

@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. 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. 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.

I don't think there is a high chance that Ukranians will get tortured . Also you can leave Ukraine if you want to, that way you can go to other places where you can live in more peace. My problem here is that i really can't see how Russia will lose this war, thats why i argued what i argued and thats why i asked the question that what is the best argument for Ukraine winning the war. I can change my position here, but i haven't seen any good arguments for that yet. Fighting for freedom is worthwhile however, if the chance of winning the war is basically almost zero, i don't think trying worth losing lives.

You can add basically a few more thousand soldier and civilian into it not just family or relatives, and i agree with you, this war seems unwinnable to me. The longer it takes for Putin the more lives will be lost, and the more angry he will get to finish what he wants. So basically the question is what is more important your pride or the lives of others. Because other wars could be fought later too ,but with the suprise of initiation. Why do we think that Ukraine can win this war, what are the best arguments for that? Because it's easy to argue in my opinion that Putin is not planning to stop any time soon.

@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. 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 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.

@Hardkill This is what i said in my other thread and i agree with you, that the more longer the war goes on, and the more resistance Ukraine puts up with Russia, paradoxically in my opinion the more damage it will suffer. Putin won't stop his invading. He has every incentive to finish his current "mission".

@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.

@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 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.

@Knowledge Hoarder True, and also why not be more strategic and not using shells near a nuclear power plant. I wouldn't call this either just collateral damage, i would call it being too risky and not being strategic enough from Russia's part . "Buildings at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine - the largest in Europe - have been damaged after it was hit by shelling".

@Knowledge Hoarder Yeah i agree with you, and i don't think either, that bombing near the nuclear power plant is a smart move.

@Knowledge Hoarder I can be wrong on this one, but as far as i know, Putin thought he can invade really fast and take over Ukraine. Now, because more and more time bassing by, Ukraine could really set up its defenses and its really really hard to invade even if you have a lot more military power than your enemy. The question is how much time Putin have left, because he is losing so much money every day and Russia's economy is in a really bad place right now. I don't understand why they attacked the nuclear power plant either. I don't know if it was intentional though. Because if something bad will happen there, it will be bad for Russians too. So i think he didn't want to hurt civillians but becuase he starting to be in a position where from his pov he has no other chance than using certain kind of bombing to fast up the invading pace. So he is more and more desperate the longer the war takes. If i know this correctly Russia is using its reserves right now to be able to continue the war.

@Knowledge Hoarder Now thats a valid point, but i don't think that Putin will stop until he can put somone on Volodymyr Zelenskyy's place. After that there will be potential inner wars in Ukraine to try to break out from the oppression, however its hard to break out from oppression if most people will already be dead due to the resistance they are forced into right now. Right now these civilians have no choice but to fight back Russia. Maybe you are right and Putin will stop if he has much more losses, but what i think is that this way, just more people will die and Putin will take over anyway. If he can't take over, my concern is that he will be pushed even more to start WW3 , cause if he can't take over Ukraine, from his pov he did this all for nothing and lost a lot of power over it (military,economy,politcal). What does a Russian man in power do if he has nothing else to lose? Thats my concern right now. Its a hard balancing between not forcing Putin too much into to a corner, and at the same time show him that what he is doing right now is not good and have a lot of consequences.

@Blackhawk Not let Russia take the entire planet, but from Ukraine's point of view can you list all the benefits fighting Russia back right now? Becuase as far as i can see, Putin won't take down his weapons and by the time passing will only get more mad and insane and won't ever stop his indavding. So in my opinion from Ukraine's pov its an unwinnable war right now, and the more defensiveness will kill more people only. So I will ask you again what is the benefit for Ukraine to fight an unwinnable war against Russia? Btw no one will let Russia take the entire planet, especially he can't take NATO countries, because he don't want a nuclear war. But if we pressure him too much and if the Ukraine war get longer and longer, Putin will be more and more pressured to the everything he can to take Ukraine without thinking less and less about civilian safety.

@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.

@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.

@Scholar Thanks, i will watch it in a minute. Its not easy to makes sense of this situation. I don't know if you have ever heard about this source:https://www.improvethenews.org. This site trying to show you the facts about a particular topic, and also the different kind of narratives. I don't know how reliable it is, but i stumpled upon it a few days ago, and it seems really good to me. It can save some time to use it, and you can mindfully search articles about certain kind of news.

@Scholar I agree with you on that there is a lot of Russian misinformation, and of course a lot of intentional misleading about the current events. However, in my opinion, this war could have been prevented, if the Nato would have made an agreement about the following: If Russia wants to invade Ukraine ,Ukraine will be automatically added to the Nato, but if Russia doesn't invade, then Ukraine will never be added to the Nato . This might be really harsh on Ukraine, but if our goal is to prevent a war, then we should do everything we have, to prevent it. Also when we know that we are dealing with a person ,who we know is likely to do insane things, then we should play the geopolitical games according to that. But of course, every country has its own incentives, and im not naive about that, and i won't expect any country or anyone to sacrifice a lot just for the global greater good, but i think a little bit more effort could have been added to try to solve this problem. Also what I don't really understand is that, why almost every country giving weapons for Ukraine, because in my opinion its paradoxically has negative effects on Ukraine, because the war will be longer and longer, more civil people will die. In my opinion Putin is in a position now, where he won't give this war up even if he lose a lot more money and prestige and geopolitical relationships, he sort of burned his bridges with almost everyone, and now he has almost nothing more to lose, so he won't stop invading Ukraine. I think Ukraine should have gave up and let the Russians in, of course its easy to say because im not Ukranian, but if the goal is to prevent the most amount of deaths then that would have been a solution for that. I don't see a scenario where Putin will just randomly give up his invading, from his point of view he just lose more things if he stops. So the question is what's the best questions to ask if you are the leader of Ukraine, what's more important, and what will you sacrifice for those goals.