Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/3L8OzfB6r1VbOfeAeinnSw
Podbean: https://revolutionnow.podbean.com/
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-now/id1530637420

Episode Summary:
In Revolution Now! Episode 19 (February 24, 2021), Peter Joseph continues his discussion on post-scarcity potentials, focusing on fresh water abundance and the challenges of global water scarcity. He highlights the critical need for efficient water management and technological solutions like purification and desalination, pointing to the inefficiencies in water use and waste. Joseph emphasizes that direct potable use and better reuse of water could alleviate many global water shortages, yet progress is hindered by the profit-driven market system.

He also critiques ideological biases, particularly conservatism, arguing that they prevent societal progress by reinforcing power structures and resisting change. Joseph touches on recent events in Texas to illustrate how market inefficiencies exacerbate crises like the energy disaster during a cold snap. He explores the potential for localized and portable purification technologies to offer sustainable water solutions, arguing that current technological advancements could easily resolve the global water crisis if properly implemented.

Joseph promises future episodes will delve further into post-scarcity potentials, including food abundance and automation.

Transcript:
Good afternoon, good evening, good morning everybody. This is Peter Joseph, and welcome to Revolution Now! episode 19, February 24th, 2021. Today we’re going to continue the discussion on post scarcity potentials, specifically fresh water or potable water, and if there’s time food abundance and some basic design organizational aspects required for a responsible, sustainable abundance in general. And I’ll note that as we go along in this series section I’ll plan to talk about the proper place of automation both physical and via artificial intelligence and the trends related, though again, I don’t think I’m going to get to that today. It seems like I start off thinking about all this stuff I’m going to get to and by the end of the program I’m not even close.

But first a quick program note. Looks like I found a decent venue for my upcoming lecture and as I mentioned before titled “On the Future of Civilization”. The event will take place in downtown Los Angeles on March 28th, which is a Sunday. Sadly, there will not be any public attendance at this point except for assistance and maybe some friends as it’s just not worth the effort given how few would be allowed into the space, anyway, if any, given COVID.

I do plan a live webcast and a multi-camera shoot to output the talk in a clean way for internet digestion of course, and I will also be posting a kind of outline and promotion fairly soon for the event which will be structured in a public health setting with a diagnosis, a prognosis, and a treatment, gesturally speaking. This public health framework is really the only legitimate angle as far as I’m concerned because it’s absent traditional ideologies. By ideology I’m referring to culturally-perpetuated belief systems that are not necessarily rooted in anything epistemic, epistemic meaning rational, justifiably, rooted, defendable knowledge, things we can test and test again, corroborated from multiple angles to make sure a given idea is actually sound, at least for the time being.

And to briefly expand upon that, as we all know beliefs are not created equal. And the purpose of scientific inquiry including the falsifiability of science is to keep the pattern of known, objective reality unfolding as best we can, scrutinizing and then eliminating beliefs that are proven erroneous as we go which is inevitable. Ideologies don’t operate this way, by definition. Ideologies are handed down through tradition and they tend to expand by way of belief system mechanics, schemas. They tend to create internal feedback systems that perpetually reinforce themselves from multiple angles, which is why for example a conservative ideology tends to share certain common characteristics between people.

For example, if you believe that everyone just simply gets what they work for you will likely not have much sympathy for poor people nor support social welfare programs. If you believe that there are no structural forces that inhibit and distort people’s behavior over time, then you will likely not have much sympathy for people that end in prison, disregarding the negative life conditions that may have influenced that trajectory: preconditions.

If you believe that social status through wealth and power is the ultimate social goal, our culture of winning, odds are you will not care too much about socioeconomic inequality or class; lower class oppression and probably support the very system that perpetuates it, particularly the higher up the ladder you go- the more you like it. And to continue this if you believe that the free market religion will provide as needed, you will then likely see governance in and of itself as an inhibiting force and hence posture as such, blaming the government for problems that really are the result of the social system itself. It’s interesting with the false duality between left and right because whatever happens in society, since no one has any vocabulary or understanding of the system, they don’t understand structural forces, they blame one side or the other as we bounce along through time.

And by the way this is of course the old Reagan/Thatcher propaganda, the need to limit big government as if government was ever really the problem as an idea. It’s one thing to be critical of a particular government or arrangement, there is certainly great reason to object to the behavior of most governments of the world today. However, it’s another thing completely to say that government or governance itself is somehow a conceptual error. Without governance and system management there would literally be no order whatsoever on this planet since the free enterprise system, specifically, is completely unstable and prone to fascism by force of the power structure it creates routinely. It’s not a viable system in terms of systems theory, as markets cannot efficiently self-regulate.

Anyway, it’s always been amusing to me when I reflect upon the fact that on a certain level the Republican and conservative constituency in the United States and beyond really don’t even believe in the merit of their own positions by force of their free market religious ideology. So, ideologies are like viruses and once subcultures develop and group identity gets involved, manifests, it can be very hard to change people’s beliefs as they become defining identity characteristics. You take away their beliefs, you take away who they think they are, which of course is really the ultimate activist communicative challenge.

If everyone really took to heart the fact that everything one thinks and believes is effectively taught to them with belief systems emerging and fortifying as a result, they would likely be more consciously flexible. Sadly, we don’t see that very often. The current educational system makes a little effort in developing the mechanics of critical thought and self-evaluation and the ability of people to not feel apprehensive when they are definitively wrong about something.

For to be wrong in this society is to be inferior, to be wrong is to lose credibility, so most people consciously and subconsciously refuse to ever admit it. Your job can be at stake, your reputation can be at stake. I mean, just look at the former president of the United States. He is an archetype of someone who refuses to ever accept responsibility or be wrong because of a completely diluted reputational orientation.

Anyway, back on point here, ideologies are cultural and structural outcomes that generally lack an epistemic basis. Capitalism for example is a known structure as practiced. Socialism and communism as another example are more theoretical concepts and yet each has created an associated collective ideology. In the context of capitalism the ideology is formed not only by propaganda in regard to free market theory but also behavioral patterns reinforced by the system itself, the culture created. If you’re born into a competitive society of this nature you’re likely going to develop an ideological loyalty toward that competitive ethic for if you do not you may not succeed in the system, you may suffer.

You may not become a “winner” as it were, hence the ethic of apathy, the soft sociopathology I always talk about. Not really caring as much about other people or the world because of the nature of the sociological effects of social stratification, status-seeking, artificial scarcity, fear, hence competition, hence the structural oppression and harm and structural violence and everything else that I’ve covered repeatedly on this podcast.

The point here is ideological biases for mental schemas or networks of interrelated thought and over time those traditional ways of thinking are nothing but inhibiting. The point here is ideological biases form mental schemas or networks of interrelated thought and over time those traditional ways of thinking are nothing but inhibited: baggage. I mean, consider the notion of being politically conservative. On the most basic level you are saying you do not want some degree of change, that’s what the word conservative means. As is also empirically clear historically, to be conservative means you generally want to keep that the same, that’s the basic ethic.

And who does that really serve? When it comes to power and wealth to be conservative generally means to preserve the current power structure itself. It wasn’t the conservative or right-wing mindset that ended slavery, it wasn’t the conservative mindset that developed critical social programs and social safety nets to try and help people. It wasn’t the conservative or right-wing mindset that attempted to alleviate poverty or advance women’s rights or civil rights or human rights and beyond.

In fact, when you look at the development of conservative thought it really comes down to class war at the root. The greatest threat to the upper-class owners, the true people in power is always the lower class and any attempt to use politics or activism to disturb their power and wealth will be fought. Established power never wants change, it’s conservative by nature. It doesn’t serve elitist interests to equalize the playing field to reduce socioeconomic harm and so on.

And by the way, it isn’t necessarily a malicious disposition. This is why wealthy people gravitate toward those who favor tax cuts for them on average, it’s simply basic self-preservation. They’re not thinking broadly about how it harms other people. In fact, most people of this nature are completely ignorant to true causality. Again, this is what I mean by the soft sociopathology. So when you really dig deep into the history of this kind of thinking, this conservative ideology, this example I’m using, what you realize is that to keep things the same is to be conservative and it is to fight back social justice and hence economic justice. That’s what it means to be conservative in the political context. That is the outcome, even though those self-identify conservatives would never admit that.

And by the way I’m not talking about polarized contemporary institutions. In other words, I’m not saying in America that the Republicans are the conservatives and the Democrats are the progressives, no, both the Democrats and the Republicans are conservatives, one is just slightly less conservative than the other. There is no active progressive party in the United States or in most of the world, which once again is excellent for establishment preservation because it provides the illusion of the duality when really the differences are ultimately marginal.

Because keep in mind, it’s not that we have political parties alone that are fundamentally conservative, the entire social system reinforces a conservative mindset because of the power structure, the market system of economics and consequentially capitalism is an elitist preserving structure by nature, which is why you always have more downward pressure on the lower-class and upward alleviation for the upper-class, socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor as Martin Luther King Jr. Said, or as George Carlin put it, “The upper-class keeps all the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class pays all the taxes, does all the work. The poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class.”

And as a final note on this issue it’s really interesting to think about that while we can understand why the wealthy business power political interests would gravitate toward a conservative mindset to preserve their positions in the class hierarchy, you also see a lot of poor lower-class, deprived people embrace the same ideology. Why do people in poverty support leaders and parties, not to mention a whole social system, that actively keeps them in deprivation, that actively works against their most basic public health interests.

And I think the answer has to do with the broader belief systems that become generated. For example, conservative thought is often linked to religious thought. In fact, in terms of general conservative value systems you tend to find God, free markets, patriarchy, ethnic identity, freewill, ironically, and other characteristics all kind of wrapped into one spooky package. And it’s by way of all this confluence that I think a poor person living in deprivation, barely surviving, still went out and voted for Ronald Reagan or George Bush or Donald Trump, while listening to Rush Limbaugh. It’s really quite sad.

Anyway, I didn’t want to take up so much time with this but it’s worth noting that as with everything you have immediate sensibilities and relationships, and then you have long-term, multi-generational ones that unfold over time and are transferred through cultural memes via family, society, and beyond. Suddenly a Ferrari drives by a poor person and that poor person, having no idea the toxic nature of socioeconomic inequality and how it really affects them, sees the person in the Ferrari as a success story, as a hero, as opposed to a symbol of systemic oppression and harm which is really the correct view.

And I know people will debate this issue and say that’s all relative: “how much is too much? Who is to decide?” And I’ve talked about this a few podcasts back but the fact is, and you take a simple broad view of extremes in our society, given how much suffering there is, anyone expressing conspicuous consumption driving around in a $300,000 car, living in a multi-million dollar mansion, flying around in private jets is instantly an asshole. Whether they intend it or not, they are victims of culture and they do not know what they’re doing in most cases. But this is why social shame does have an activist relevance as I’ve talked about before.

So, let me round all this back out to say you don’t need an ideology to understand physics, math, engineering, natural science, and act upon those understandings. You don’t need an ideology to realize the characteristics that can create peaceful coexistence and maintain a sustainable abundance and sustainability in general, and what patterns of behavior are required for that. Just take the position of a train of thought rationally and logically inferred and ignore the ideological lure. While truth is always going to be a moving target from an epistemological perspective, it doesn’t mean everything is hence an ideology. Knowledge becomes fluid, which is why I always argue against categorical thinking in general, as much as we can help it.

Now, circling back to the subject of post scarcity and energy as we’ve covered in the last two podcasts, I do want to say a quick word about what happened in Texas recently as it’s perfectly contextual. For those that have listened to this podcast I don’t do much with topical issues in general as I try not to date the show, but very often a perfect contemporary situation pops up that reinforces what I’m talking about. So about a week ago Texas gets hit with a rare cold streak and snow storm, something in all probability indicative of the general climate destabilization we are seeing where extreme hot and cold are emerging and consequentially disturbances of the hydrological cycle.

So the weather freezes the hydrocarbon energy infrastructure and shuts down power to millions in Texas. The first question is why wasn’t Texas prepared? There are plenty of other energy grids in colder climates that do just fine. And the answer to that question is twofold. First of all, Texas is a conservative state that doesn’t like governments so their grid is literally detached from the rest of the country, which is hilarious, because they don’t want big government or the federal government to interfere with the Texans. And more importantly, however, they did not bother due to financial costs to fortify their own infrastructure, thinking that they would never experience this type of cold which actually, by the way, had been predicted prior.

Remember the last podcast when I talked about why I’m not in favor of nuclear power, not because the technology is flawed but because of the high risk of events that are unforeseen. And since we live in a cost-cutting monetary system, you can rest assured that disasters are going to happen because of folks not wanting to simply spend the money on better preventative measures.

The second interesting thing about this is how conservative media in the United States tried to blame renewable energy for the problem, which was just preposterous. VICE News did an excellent article to show how ridiculously made up most of these stories actually were, but once again it shows the conservative state of mind. Conservative media and right-wing politicians largely funded and supported by traditional energy systems, energy companies, through advertising or lobbying tried to find any blame they could rather than what was obvious.

And the third thing of interest is what happened when this occurred with people freezing and dying, living in their cars, going to the hospital because of carbon monoxide poisoning, because of all the alternative means they’re trying to put forward to stay warm – well, the free market prevailed. People that once paid $40 a month now had to pay $10,000 for their energy bill a month, cumulatively.

There was one article I read about a woman that had to pay $1000 a day as everyone was competing for what little energy could be pumped out of the grid. Complete sickness, lunacy. And as reported there was actually a conference call with one of the energy executives associated to these grids named Roland Burns, and he profiteered the entire circumstance as people died, saying, “This week is like hitting the jackpot with some of these incredible prices.” Needless to say this is not the way the world’s energy systems should be operating, on multiple levels.

Okay. Finally, let’s talk about fresh water or potable water abundance. As absurd as it really is, water scarcity is increasing globally and has been for a while. According to the United nations about 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity by 2025 with 66% of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions. The OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 report stated that freshwater demand will rise by 55% by 2050 corroborating the UN stress water statistic.

Using the OECD demand estimate to 55%, we can then expect about 4 billion people to be living in water-stressed regions by 2050. Professor Jonas Bogardi of the Global Water System Project has estimated that severe water shortages will affect more than one half of the world’s population by 2050 sparking mass migrations followed by destabilizing political tensions. The related study concluded, “In the short span of one to two generations the majority of 9 billion people on earth will be living under the handicap of severe pressure on freshwater, an absolutely essential natural resource for which there is no substitute. This handicap will be self-inflicted and is we believe entirely avoidable. Mismanagement, overuse, and climate change pose long-term effects to human wellbeing and evaluating and responding to those threats constitutes a major challenge to water researchers and managers alike.”

So, how do we fix this? First one should recognize the vast level of inefficiency in use, working to reduce waste. There are so many things that could improve efficiency from domicile construction that has reuse infrastructure, such as the very basic idea of water going from your sink or your shower to then be used in your toilet as a bathroom design, to a complete and total revision of agricultural methods since agriculture accounts for about 70 to 80% of the freshwater footprint of humanity by some estimates. And 33% of all of that comes from animal agriculture, and by the way when you factor in all the other negative outcomes related to animal agriculture, to which there are many, logic does gravitate toward a non-animal product-based diet.

And I’m just pointing out the obvious, I’m always surprised at how apprehensive some people get when they hear such commentary. In fact, speaking of ideological struggles this is a particular one. It says though people are offended by vegetarians or vegans as if mankind eating animal products has some kind of existential relevance, defining our nature at the top of the food chain or something. As an aside in my film InterReflections I have a scene where there’s a silent film character and she finds herself in Times Square.

Everything is moving backwards and you began to see a dollar floating across the ground in forward motion, eventually arriving at the character’s foot. The character looks down and sees the dollar but does not immediately pick it up in some kind of impulsive grab: “oh there’s money!’ But in that hesitation, everything around her quickly slows to a complete stop and the figures in Times Square, including the people on the billboards in a kind of surrealist horror concept, all stop and stare at her in contempt.

She realizes she’s being looked at, confused by the experience, not understanding, and one of the observers of her looks at the dollar and looks back at her and then she intuitively realizes she has to pick up the dollar, and when she does the entire scene resumes with everything moving forward as normal. The scene is then followed up by a quote by Alan Watts that says, “Insecure societies are the most intolerant of those who are non-joiners. They’re so unsure of the validity of their game rules that they say everyone must play.”

If the scene isn’t obvious enough, it really deals with the fundamental materialistic greed, identity, acquisition, money, and conformity to the value system that supports all of those things. And if you do not conform to that value system as a non-joiner, as Alan Watts put it, you are dangerous to that culture. And the same logic applies here when people get so apprehensive about others that have a different diet than them, seeing it as a threat and it’s really quite bizarre.

Whether you choose to be vegan or vegetarian or not is up to you of course, but the logic is sound from a sustainability standpoint and a public health standpoint and arguably from an animal rights standpoint. But the bottom line is everyone should be supporting everyone else who has the discipline to not consume animal products because systemically it is more sustainable, even if you don’t choose to do that yourself. So circling back to my general point, there are design changes; there are lifestyle changes that can very dramatically affect future water abundance, and that’s something to keep in mind.

But we’re going to now talk about direct solutions through technological means. And the two most dominant means which we’re going to discuss is desalination, removing salt from ocean water, and purification which is the reuse of water that has already been used by society or water taken from lakes and other natural freshwater sources that don’t have salt. So first let’s focus on purification which has a lot more potential than most people realize.

As with everything discussed prior you have large scale plants and applications and you have small scale localized applications with the technology inherent to all of it continually advancing. So knowing how trends are unfolding is, of course, important to foreshadow where we can end up and what we should home in on in terms of leverage points to speed things up.

Today, ultraviolet or UV disinfection, a germicidal UV light that can kill microorganisms is the most common large-scale method even though it often requires some preliminary filtering before the UV light hits it, but UV light uses no hazardous chemicals and doesn’t produce any material byproducts. So you have a lake, you have a purification plant, it takes in the lake water, it filters out the initial material and then it hits it with UV light killing the germs and boom, you have drinking water.

Then you have reuse schemes, so to speak. And this is where it gets interesting. What tends to happen with wastewater produced by society whether sewage or the like, is it’s treated by a treatment facility and it’s released back into the environment, back into the lakes and streams. And then it’s recaptured and goes through the same process we just talked about after it becomes mixed in and diffused with the natural water source, which serves as a kind of filter in and of itself. That’s termed in the industry indirect potable use or IPU. And while it does happen it’s actually not that common. For example, here in Los Angeles, hundreds of billions of gallons of treated sewage is dumped right into the Pacific Ocean each year, which means it’s basically lost potential because it’s now mixed in with saltwater and you have to use desalination, a far more energy-intensive process in order to purify.

However, there’s another process that’s very rarely used right now called direct potable use or DPU. This process is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It takes treated municipal wastewater and directly cleans it, putting it back into the actual drinking water system directly without going back to a natural source. And as studies have shown and as ultimately logical and obvious, the net energy gain with that, the net energy efficiency is far superior when you do it that way because you don’t have to go through all of these other cycles.

Interestingly, the earliest adopter of this technology, by necessity, which again, this technology is very sparsely used across the globe – is Namibia in South Africa which, of course, is in the desert, and they have water recycling plants that take wastewater directly and successfully and safely clean it and deposit it back into the system and they’ve been doing it for over 50 years, rather again than just dump the treated water back into the natural environment which is what the world tends to do right now on average. And Namibia’s tech is actually quite old without even using UV light in most circumstances, based on what I’ve read. What they do is they take the clean water and mix it back into the main water supply and it ends up being that about 25% of all the water people use continuously is actually recycled, which is huge.

And as would be expected it’s fascinating to look at the history of all of this because people are so viscerally ignorant, meaning they are so unscientifically oriented and fearful and aesthetically driven that when they hear the idea of recycling their wastewater directly they reject the idea because it’s simply sounds gross. And if you look into this, the derogatory phrase “toilet to tap” is common which is sad and pathetic. But with all the growing water scarcity in the world today, far more conversation needs to be happening with the emerging and existing technologies that do allow efficient reuse of wastewater directly.

This is clearly something that needs to be utilized more so, and once again when you take a systems approach along with strategic design, just like with the application of renewable energies, through networked, reliable efficiency as talked about before, the exact same logic applies to water processing and sourcing. That’s, of course, where efficiency rests with all of this. Once again I can’t emphasize that enough.

Now, one small deviation I’d like to touch upon is that in some areas there’s actually a mid grade water which is interesting to think about, water that’s used for irrigation, for watering grass and so on. Where it’s not potable, it’s not safe enough to drink because there might be some microorganisms but it’s not completely toxic and disgusting. And that’s something that people should think about as well. Generally today you either have wastewater or you have potable water and nothing in between.

While I’m not advocating this example but if you could engineer pipes in the city and you had a certain mid tier water that was used for things like toilets it may be more efficient. Something to think about from a reuse design perspective, because there are circumstances where slightly polluted water could still be very useful in some areas. Areas of agriculture, machine dynamics that need water for whatever reason and so on. So all of that touched upon, let’s now step back and run some existing numbers based on current methods.

The world’s largest UV drinking water disinfection plant in New York can treat 2.2 billion us gallons or roughly 3 billion cubic meters a year. The average person in the United States uses about 2,800 cubic meters a year, including fresh water used for industrial purposes, while the global use average is about 1300 cubic meters per year. For the sake of pure statistical argument, ignoring the highly needed changes in strategic water use, reuse systems and conservation possibilities through more advanced and efficient industrial applications and design, let’s assess the simple question of what it would require to disinfect all the fresh water currently being used in the world on average by the population through common, mind you, traditional methods.

Please note, I’m pulling this data from extrapolations I did a few years ago that are in my book when the global population was about 7.2 billion. Ratios of course will be the same today. So given the global average of 1300 cubic meters and a population of 7.2 billion we arrive at a total annual use of roughly 10 trillion cubic meters. Using the New York’s UV plant output capacity of roughly 3 billion cubic meters a year as a basis, we find that only 3,300 plants, 3,300 plants would be needed globally to meet all demand in theory. Furthermore, the New York plant is only about 3.7 acres. This means, in theory, that only about 12,300 acres are needed to facilitate a purification process of all the fresh water currently used globally by the population.

Now, again, I know someone’s going to nitpick and say, “Well, what about this? What about that?” Obviously there are other footprint factors that come into play here, power needs, location, I get it, but this is all about a general perspective. In fact here’s a fun statistic for comparison. The United States military alone with its roughly 845,000 military buildings and bases, occupies about 30 million acres globally. Only 0.04% of that land would be needed to disinfect the total freshwater use of the entire world, which of course is not even needed once again because once you add desalination and strategic reuse and design, it’s preposterous that anyone doesn’t have potable water today.

And it’s important to point out that there’s a lot of emphasis today when you look at water schemes out there to try and solve the water crisis, desalination is a popular subject and rightfully so. But really it’s not as needed as people think it is. Directly sourced and indirect and direct reuse water processing alone has the potential to meet the needs of the global population right now if applied properly.

So now let’s move on to localized applications of water purification. And this is where it really becomes enraging to me. You look at what happened in Texas and the pipes were bursting and people were taking snow and putting it in their bathtubs to convert to water, and then boiling it to drink, only to realize we’ve been sitting on portable efficient processes that can help emergencies and distant communities and be incorporated into normal household and neighborhood infrastructure. Generally, all that’s needed is some water source that isn’t salinated.

There’s an engineer named Ashok Gadgil of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory who has been leading research for a long time in this area, including the development of a portable UV system that can disinfect water at a rate of 15 liters per minute and it uses only 60 Watts of electrical power comparable to a table lamp. The system is efficient enough to meet the continuous drinking water demands of a community of 2000 people and can run off solar panels, of course, weighs only 15 pounds and has no toxic discharge. Boom, for all those people that are dealing with lake water or river water in so many areas of the world, here is a viable solution if they can gain electricity.

Similarly and more powerfully, there’s an inventor named Michael Prichard who designed the technology he calls Lifesaver, which, without UV can convert most all forms of polluted lake and wastewater back into potable water almost immediately. He developed a filtration system that works down to the 15 nanometer size, which is pretty incredible; no electricity required. The largest form of this non-powered technology, which needs no chemicals, is about the size of a commercial barrel and can clean 2 million liters of water providing for 300 people for six years if used daily. I’ve seen this, you can watch videos of this. It’s absolutely incredible, the simplicity and it works. And this technology has been around for years. If you were to buy one of these it would cost you about $11,000 right now. But imagine if they were actually mass produced with real intent. That number would become marginal.

So I’m going to stop there today with respect to purification as, in fact, a source of total earth water abundance. It could happen, it could work, especially with direct reuse if such engineering and R & D was really allowed to come forward, even though we already have places that are doing this successfully already. Which again is just one part of the tool set because holistically there are so many other avenues and potentials incorporating desalination and strategic design once again as I’ll talk about in the next podcast.

Last I checked today you have almost 2 million people that die of diarrhea every year, while in China the richest person, I think one of the richest people in the world, got all of his wealth from bottling water. So the whole thing is absurd and again, the market system is to blame because you can’t get these things in other countries without money and all of the dynamics therein. You have no real incentive for redundancy to equip homes with its own built-in tank for water reuse and on and on the train wreck goes. Anyway, I will be back the Wednesday after next to continue the post scarcity focus on water abundance. And this program is brought to you by my Patreon, I appreciate it. And I will talk to everyone very soon, be safe out there.