The world was not designed for our continual happiness and comfort. Deliberate acts by conscious, malevolent agents and acts of indifferent nature may bring death, severe injury, or loss suddenly and arbitrarily. Then there are the shortcomings of human intelligence, wreaking havoc left and right. That life deals an unfair hand is an unwelcome problem to which we have to continually reconcile ourselves.

A novelist, playwright, librettist/composer, or poet may offer an enactment of the very bad event which enacts tragedy in a particularly complete and satisfying manner. A successful piece of art acknowledges the unfairness of life and places us in that context.

Why do we derive satisfaction from the tragic art work? Because we must reconcile ourselves to the unfairness of life, again and again -- whether we use art to help us or not.

The pleasure part derives from us having the problem of an unfair cosmos depicted once again, and having our selves positioned as spectators of tragedy, rather than the subjects of tragedy. We'll be the subject of our own tragedies soon enough; we might be helped by remembering that we are also spectators of tragedy.

I prefer to think of the universe as an indifferent cause of suffering, rather than being focused on making my life as miserable as possible, with customized misfortune abounding. One of our tragedies is that our brother/sister sentient beings take care of focussed, customized misfortune.

two points against Hedges' viewpoint:

A very large share of Germans cooperated with the Nazi regime because non-cooperation (let alone opposition) was a high-risk choice. Yes, Post-WWI Germany was hungry, bitter, and resentful and was ready to punish somebody for their loss in the war and their further humiliation in the peace agreement. And yes, after WWII, many Germans sang the I Was Not a Nazi Polka

Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.

Deindustrialization began long before Biden won his first local election. The leather, shoe, and woven textile and clothing industries in New England started outsourcing manufacturing before WWII, and continued after WWII. Other industries followed suit over time. Cheap, non-unionized labor was irresistible. Other factors also contributed to job losses, among them automation. It took fewer workers to run a new, more efficient steel mill. Automation increased the per-man-hour of productivity, so fewer workers were needed. Moving unskilled manufacturing to benefit from extremely cheap labor costs picked up speed in the 1970s.

I don't want to let the political and economic elites off the hook -- their policies devastated broad swathes of America. Did Biden behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Will Trump behave any differently than other elite operatives? No. Ditto for Harris.

But I still think that incumbency is very powerful. — fishfry

Right. Incumbency IS very powerful, BUT as the calendar says, the November election is a little over 100 days away. No matter what the POTUS or VPOTUS does or doesn't do from July 23 onward, it's going to be a tough scramble.

No surprise here: our economy and politics are run by overlapping elites. That fact provides so much of the story behind the headlines. That, and the rocket-engine personal drive of people who want to be at the top, be they Democrats or Republicans. It takes a lot of drive to get to, and stay at, the top anywhere.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the prime example of holding on to his high office when he was in seriously failing health. Wilson planned on a third term, too, but had a stroke in October, 1919. Nixon held on till he faced impeachment and probably forced removal from office. Reagan served with diminished faculties. Trump has a now very familiar problem with the reality situation.

Dubai doesn't live of oil today already. — Tarskian

My mistake. Bananas still don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

What we call “democracy” nowadays is dressed-up oligarchy, modelled on the Roman republic. There is a ruling class, not a body of free and sovereign people. — NOS4A2

I disagree with you fairly often, but you are right on the money here.

The global poor want to move there because they can get handouts, i .e. free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on.

Who is supposed to pay for all of that? — Tarskian

If you really thought the poor could get "free housing, free healthcare, free education, welfare benefits, and so on" you would no doubt be in line to get those benefits yourself!

An only reasonably prosperous state can afford to assist its citizens who have fallen into poverty. How do they do that? Through taxes, of course.

Why do reasonably prosperous, and successful states have poor people? a) technological changes which render some skilled and unskilled labor obsolete; b) the business cycle (expansion and contraction); c) chronic disease and disability (not thinking of drug dependency here, but that's another factor); d) ordinary misfortune--like the Emir's limo runs over Mr. Tarskian, leaving him unable to work for the rest of his life--that kind of misfortune.

Reasonably prosperous and successful states don't have huge numbers of people on the welfare roles collecting general assistance and food stamps. Reasonably prosperous and successful states have most of their adult population of working age in jobs which the workers consider much superior to being either unemployed or on welfare (which in many industrialized states is fairly parsimonious). Reasonably prosperous and successful states are usually operate under some sort of democratic system. Workers and capitalists in reasonably prosperous and successful states are willing to be taxed to pay for the cost of being a civilized society which takes care of people experiencing tough times.

How can citizens in a merely reasonably prosperous and successful state afford to take care of unfortunate people? They can because they produce a surplus of wealth, some of which can be spent on welfare.

BTW, readily available education, housing, and medical care are not a frill -- they are essential components of a successful society--both socially and economically.

And where are they going to grow the food, if they keep expanding? — Tarskian

One might well ask the residents of Dubai where they will get their food when the age of oil is over --certainly not by their own efforts, being in the desert as it is. Bananas don't grow on Burj Khalifas.

A problem of comparing democracy to monarchy is that there are few ruling monarchies with which to compare democracy. There are many more non-monarchical states that are authoritarian or so politically dysfunctional they are failed states. Somalia comes to mind, as does Venezuela and Sudan.

Martin Luther said that people were better off being ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian. A risk of highly concentrated power (despots, kings, presidents) is that there is a large risk that they will be of the "dumb" variety rather than the "smart" kind, like Donald Trump.

"Democratic countries" vary quite a bit in their actual democratic performance. The United States is a prime example of variable (sometimes dismal) democratic performance.

after that, he'd be just fine. :halo: — frank

I'm not quite that generous. Significant brain damage, but recoverable after at least 4 years of intensive therapy for people who have brain injuries. Additional therapy will be needed to rehabilitate his faulty morals and his poor comprehension of the reality situation. Since his misfortunes are self-induced, he would need to pay for this out of his own funds. Once he's impoverished by the medical industry, Medicaid will kick in to cover some (???) level of services.

herd of rabid jackals — fishfry

An apt comparison, but even rabid jackals, never mind healthy ones, form 'packs' or 'tribes'. As in 'a pack of wild dogs'. Jackals are canids.

If Joe Biden is too cognitively impaired to run for President; then isn't he too cognitively impaired to BE President? — fishfry

The question should be, "Is he too cognitively impaired to BOTH run for president and be president?" There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected.

I was in favor of him NOT running for another term before the famous debate. Both Biden and Trump are too old, and Trump has even more cognitive problems, particularly with the reality situation, than Biden.

Kamela has more than enough on her plate successfully campaigning, never mind trying to become an experienced incumbent in just a few months.

Just the kind of detailed information I live for!

I can't think of one good thing to say for barbed wire fences. — Vera Mont

Per the eminent anti-ranching Bing Crosby & and the Andrews Sisters

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in

Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in

Could be.

Future generations (if there are any) will have a long list of things about which to judge us harshly. Unfortunately, we will not be able to criticize them for their heinous errors.

I like meat. I do not object to the more traditional farming practices of producing and slaughtering animals for food.

I do object to heavily industrialized agriculture -- for both animals and plant crops -- which is driven by the usual capitalist impulse to cut costs and maximize profits. Two examples: a) producing corn for ethanol as 10% gasoline and b) massive feedlots which are harmful to both ecology and animal health.

The way we produce plant food, requiring heavy inputs of petroleum and chemicals, is a disaster area.

We are in overshoot. — unenlightened

It isn't clear to me, at this point, what a "balance" between our species and "nature" would look like. When were we in balance with nature, and what did that look like? We could at least move toward balance, even if we can't reach it.

Rural life in the 1950s looked more balanced. Farms tended to be quite a bit smaller; herds of beef and hogs were tiny, compared to the huge feed lot operations now. Farming was mechanized, but the equipment was not yet gargantuan. Nostalgia? Probably -- back then agriculture was changing towards what it is now.

Dutch Elm Disease took out elm trees across this continent in the 1960s -1970s, just as another blight took out chestnut trees years earlier. There are some presumably DED resistant varieties available. Two trees of this variety are doing well on my street.

their farts are doing it on our behalf — Nils Loc

It's their belching rather than their farting.

Seems to me I can control what I can or can’t do or decide to do or not do in the future. — kindred

This is the sort of self-confidence that makes the Universe laugh. In my humble but highly valued opinion, we should just shut the fuck up about "free will" -- not because we certainly do (or do not) possess it, but because we can never be in a position to prove it, one way or the other.

Is the real world fair and just? — Gnomon

Can a planet be fair and just? Who's asking? Who or what could answer the question? Maybe our planet is indifferent?

'The world' has been in business for 4.543 billion years. Things have changed over time. Life started on earth about 3.7 billion years ago and filled the oceans with lots of microbes. Later, new organisms came along and wiped out the old life (killing it with poisonous oxygen). Fair? Just? The earth got hotter, cooler, wetter, dryer. and so on. Every change benefitted some things and ruined others. The earth is what it is--a dynamic rocky planet among many in the galaxy which is among many in the universe.

Fairness and Justice had nothing to do with it and such ideas didn't come along until VERY recently. Was it fair and just that dinosaurs were killed off? It wasn't their fault, after all. They were what they were. Big rock plows into the Yucatan Peninsula. Climate changes drastically. Sic transit gloria dinosaurs. Lots of other creatures survived. Birds, mammals, insects, plants, fungi....Will it be fair and just when our species dies out?

As allegedly sentient beings who like to toss around terms like "fair" and "just" when talking about planets and persons, we COULD do better. Why don't we? Because we are what we are, and being good, fair, just, honorable, kind, loving, thoughtful, humble, and so on, is not something we are able to be more often than some of the time, Some people have difficulty being good ever. One day we will be plowed under like millions of species before us by indifferent forces.

In any case, it does't matter, because fairness and justness applies to the species that thought of the concept and has spilt much ink on the matter. We could do better, and that would make life on the indifferent planet more pleasant, but don't hold your breath, because we are what we are.

Hidden authoritarianism in the Western society — Linkey

There is a layer of authoritarianism in any society, because "society" requires some sacrifice of personal prerogatives for the benefit of various parts of society. Because people are not robots who readily do whatever they are told to do, a certain amount of force is required to get people to obey at least some of the time. Generally force is used incrementally, ranging from only potential deployment to open deployment of violence.

Nothing new here; it's a long-established practice, going back to.... as @Vera Mont noted, "4000 BCE.

The terms "Left" and "Right" in US politics at least, can be quite misleading. The two parties generally support capitalism, the class structure, privilege for the rich and duty for the poor, the military, the church (as long as it's useful), and so on. Donald Trump is notable for a remarkable level of tasteless behavior and a poor understanding of what being Chief Executive means in a civil society. But in a lot of ways, he is no renegade. Democratic and Republican Presidents have been hated long before Trump came along.

I don't know what you mean by "middle class". Most people throw the term around with zero precision. Here's what I mean: The "middle class" is composed of professionals who are entitled to operate relatively independent once they have a license (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.); successful entrepreneurs whose businesses employ 50-100 employees (receiving standard wages); higher levels of management, below the highest levels; and so on. The Middle Class composes the wealthiest 10% of the population, give or take a couple of percentage points.

The "middle" class is between the ruling class (possessing the most power and wealth - 2%of the population) and the working class, which ranges from prosperous but not wealthy at the top end to destitute at the low end, and receives an income in exchange for labor. Note: The richest and most powerful layer of the population do not depend on labor for their wealth. The goal of many middle class is to accumulate enough wealth to retire early and live quite well after retirement.

The Middle Class, as defined here, is not being squeezed out of existence. The group that is being squeezed is the working class, which is being squeezed for more and more to support the middle and ruling class.

As for consequential greed — FrankGSterleJr

When is greed not consequential? The love of money (cupiditas) is the root of all evil (radix malorum). Or we could say, the unending search for financial growth opportunities is a big root, if not the tap root of evil.

One big profitable pollution case is in my back yard and in your blood stream: 3M is/was a leading manufacturer of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) which are used in a myriad of products--Teflon for example, and fire fighting foams) and which do not readily break down in the environment. The PFAS products were profitable; people got paid for making them; the profits were distributed among stockholders, including employee profit sharing; the wastes from PFAS production were externalized -- dumped in land fills. All par for the course.

Evidence appeared by the 1970s that PFAS accumulated in our bodies (and in other animals). As a general rule, industrial chemicals should not be released to bio-accumulate. Never mind. They were and they did.

Now, 50 some years after first signs of bio-toxity started to be found, PFAS is found pole to pole, around the world, just about everywhere. It doesn't degrade, so every molecule released circulates in the environment forever, aka a long time. Should you worry?

It is perhaps too late; 'the cat is out of the bag' and has been out for quite some time. Its various biological effects (like its resemblance to hormones) are happening.

Perhaps 3M will pay out huge sums in penalties and will stop making the product. That would be considered justice, but no amount of penalties will call the chemicals back. The same can be said for many toxic chemicals (in pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.) that are sprayed all over the place.

I'm 23 and have a rather nonexistent collection of social relationships. Workaholic coworkers... — substantivalism

A possibly useful idea I can share: It takes time to become a person situated securely 'in the world'. 23 is too soon to arrive. You've had some immediate success in school and work, and that's good. But don't be too impatient. Our brains aren't even fully formed till around 25 or 26. After that, it's a slow process to build a good life--one in which we know where we are going, we know what we desire to achieve, we have some kind of plan, and we are on our way. There are no guarantees that one will be successful.

It took me quite a while to figure all this out--I have had just the last few years to enjoy knowing who I am, understanding where I have been, what's coming up (at 77, one is into the last few chapters (maybe pages) of the book). I'm not complaining; my life was, over all, good. I had good friends; I loved and was loved; I had pretty good health; I was reasonably happy much of the time. Regrets? Sure. Mistakes? Absolutely.

So, good luck to you.

Judging by your post of 3 days ago, you are performing at a perfectly acceptable level. That's an important element in judging one's state of mind.

I love The Seventh Seal, and several other Bergman films, but he's not your go-to director for sunny up-lift.

The maddening nothingness that others attempt to intellectually obscure with manufactured certainty and the absurdness of continuing on. To play chess with death rather than give in to his beckoning call. — substantivalism

Gloom and doom can be as manufactured as certainty and absurdity. I don't know whether you are clinically depressed or are just doom-looping. If it's the latter, well... stop doing that. Depression gets tossed around too much. IS someone really clinically depressed, or are they lonely and angry? Tired? Isolated? Frustrated? Burdened with too many problems to deal with? Antidepressants will not help those sorts of things.

Meaning and satisfaction in life (as opposed to meaninglessness and nothingness) comes out of relationship with others. The deeper and more complex the relationships, the ore meaning and satisfaction. There are many ways to relate beside the primary love/sex connection. Friendship, co-workers, colleagues engaged in common cause: politics, the environment, participation in sport, religious activity... whatever.

Just for reference, how old are you now? What kind of connections do you have with other people, at work and outside of work? Family? Friends? Romantic partner?

Many of my 77 years have been shadowed by what was diagnosed as depression. Looking back, I'd say some of the depression was self-inflicted by ignorance and bad decisions about life, work and romance. I was at times too stupid to figure out how to live a more satisfying life. Now that I'm an old man, it's much clearer what I should have done -- 20/20 hindsight about 50 years too late.

I don't know if this helps. Does it?

Contrast death with life which can not end--living forever--in this world, not in some afterlife.

I view death as either unfortunate (if it happens too soon and is brought about by accident) or a release (if it happens to old people who are ready to die).

I'm 77; I'm not quite ready to die yet, but my brother (83) is in hospice and will be released from multiple sufferings. I expect that in due time I will be in the same boat. If I should die suddenly (heart attack, stroke, run over by truck, etc.) I do not view the prospect as regrettable -- I've lived a reasonably long, reasonably good life.

All life ceasing to exist is a matter of vastly greater weight than our individual death. I'm in favor of life. The anti-natalists are welcome to not reproduce if that's what makes them happy.

I read the same version you read. I modified my narrative for narrative purposes and to harmonize with what Vera Mont had said (about sailing, volunteering to help abused donkeys) and so on. Flights of fancy are a drug I abuse periodically, but I never abuse donkeys.

it can be hard to feel loved — Tom Storm

That's how bicyclists feel when they get rained on a lot -- "It always rains on the unloved!"

an emotional imbalance or ennui. — Shawn

I'm not quite sure what an "emotional imbalance" is. Say more.

Ennui does not seem like a sufficient cause. Ennui -- listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement.. "he succumbed to ennui and despair". The definition (and many synonyms) don't seem to be sufficient to cause a flight to hard drugs for escape: boredom, tedium, listlessness, lethargy, lassitude, languor, restlessness, weariness, sluggishness, enervation, malaise, dissatisfaction, and so on. Someone who is "sluggish" would be more likely to resort to coffee than meth, wouldn't they? (They would if they were good Methodists, but I suppose a lot addicts are not Methodist.)

Despair, though, that seems like a sufficient cause. Despair, anomie, untreated major depression, extreme poverty (not by itself, but in conjunction with other factors), intense loneliness, feeling abandoned, the sense of not having a future worth living for (but not leading to suicide), and so on.

emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. — Shawn

So yes, emotional regulation as you say.

Thrill seeking is probably a driver too -- one that can trap the thrill seeker into coming back rather regularly for more thrills.

Let's not overlook the fact that drugs are not only sought out, they are also pushed. Methamphetamine wasn't called into common usage by thrill seekers always whining about there just not being any exciting drugs around. Meth was introduced to communities across the country by motorcycle gangs (Hells Angels) who had an interest in developing a market. Same thing goes for cocaine and heroin. People in small towns didn't wake up one day and say, "You know, we need heavy duty uppers and downers here in this fine small town. Let's help our good neighbors out by setting up contacts with a Mexican drug cartel and start a business here."

No. It was the other way around.

Indeed, one could almost say that hard drug producing countries (Myanmar, Afghanistan (opiates), Columbia (cocaine), China and Mexico (fentanyl) are engaged in biowarfare by flooding the United States and Europe (and other places) with drugs whose long term (or in the case of fentanyl--short term) use may result in death or disability.

getting drunk — Tom Storm

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. Full disclosure: "flat out drunk" is something I have not achieved frequently. It usually ended poorly. Sociability is enhanced while one is getting drunk. One is livelier, wittier, more easily amused, etc. Once one is drunk enough to fall off the bar stool, lively wit is down the toilet (literally and figuratively).

Trauma does seem to be a factor -- trauma from childhood, trauma in battle, trauma in one's life... And some people (a fairly small percentage of the population) seem to be predisposed to addiction. For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver.

One abused donkey left the ship, joined up with a herd of elk and found happiness at last. Should @substantivalism consider living with a herd of elk? (Story was in today's Guardian)

Perhaps volunteer to take a ship of abused donkeys on a hike?

I already do those things. — substantivalism

Great. So you get that part.

So I've waited for an article on some journal, a post here, or some paragraph in the books I have in my possession to yield an excuse to feel the way I did before. To sort of return to a more blissful state of mind. — substantivalism

"Management of the mind" is a critical part of finding interest, meaning, or bliss in life. It is quite possible to think/read/talk one's way into a dead end of unsatisfying, unfulfilling, and depressing ideas. Sometimes we have to give our books notice that they just aren't being very helpful, and go look elsewhere for inspiration.

Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

Of course governments, as deliberative, law/regulation/rule making, data-gathering, society managing agencies, have a negative view of drugs. Agents within the government see large numbers of people very negatively affected by their use of meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco. They see large amounts of money going down the drain on untaxed products, and they see the costs of medical care for alcoholism, lung cancer, addiction, and general dysfunction. (Yeah, cannabis fits in there in various ways.).

Magic mushrooms might be useful as a means of therapy or enlightenment. But nobody thinks that narcotics are therapeutic or enlightening. They are essentially cash cows by means of rapid and strong addiction. Tobacco and alcohol are also addicting, of course, Neither of them are "healthful" in any way, but people can get away using these drugs without immediate severe consequences (which arrive decades later).

Do people find relief in using tobacco, cocaine, heroin, meth, fentanyl...? Sure -- they get "relief" from the addictive craving. Tobacco smokers swear that smoking is relaxing, It isn't. Nicotine is a strong stimulant. But when one's body is due for another dose 10 to 30 minutes after the last dose, it feels good. The craving is relieved, but the CNS is not relaxed.

So, an addict overdue for the next dose is not in a state of homeostasis. The next snort, injection, pill, glass, smoke, dose, etc. brings them back to their normal state, but It is NOT NORMAL to require cocaine, meth, or heroin to feel OK.

We need not judge addicts as immoral, and we need not call their need for a drug normal.

I still don't understand what I'm to do aside from get it over with — substantivalism

What you are expected to do, and most likely what you can, you must, you shall, and you will do (after you get it over with) is find a job; inhabit hopefully decent housing; pay your bills; gradually pay off loans; shop for groceries; do laundry; establish a short/medium/long term relationship; and more! It's called LIFE. Most people are reasonably happy doing this stuff a good share of the time.

Does this sound bleak and unsatisfying? It might be dreary at times, but another task waiting to be done is finding ways of making your life meaningful and interesting as an adult.

Based on my 77 years of experience, I recommend that anyone NOT expect life to be meaningful and exciting all or most of the time. Life doesn't work that way because maintenance is necessary, time consuming, and is not all that exciting. Meaning and interesting experiences ARE possible, though. Look for the opportunities as you go along.

Does this help?

were on anti-psychotics — Outlander

Had they stayed on anti-psychotics, maybe many of the victims would still be alive.

Actually, I don't know how many mass shooters were or were not on anti-psychotics.

therefore our very biological apparatus is not actually "made" for the modern world. — merloz

I wasn't around 50,000 years ago, but I would imagine that life was not perfect then, either. There were 4-legged killers lurking behind 3 out of 7 trees; there were sneaky, slithery creatures with fatal fangs--good luck if you got bitten; people were then, as now, extremely annoying; the weather was atrocious at times. Glaciation, dust storms, volcanos, tornadoes, floods, cold snaps, heat waves, cancer, etc. One could never be sure of finding enough to eat, or somebody else would take it away from you,

My guess is that our cave-dwelling Neanderthal cousins and Homo sapiens predecessors would have happily accepted an Rx for anxiety, depression, and the occasional psychosis had they been offered.

Here's a thought: perhaps the future of humanity will continue to be linked to the consumption of psychiatric medications, not only for those who actually have mental illnesses and disorders but also to help the average person navigate a modern world that is out of sync with our natural way of living from an evolutionary perspective. — merloz

Bear in mind that psychotropics haven't been around for very long, Barbituates, tricyclics, benzodiazepines, and the major anti-psychotic phenothiazines (like thorazine) were invented in the 20th century (except for barbituates which were first formulated in the late 19th century, though barbiturate use did not become common until 50+ years later).

Beauty is certainly a good thing, whether it is manifested in. person, a horse, a building, a forest, or the Milky Way. It is not the same thing or equivalent to goodness. A good house or a good man may or may not be "beautiful". People sometimes modify "goodness" with "beautiful". They may even mean that goodness is beautiful. It seems like "goodness" is a sufficiently high quality that it doesn't require further elevation,

Individuals have that opportunity, towns, cities and countries don't really. — Sir2u

Exactly.

It's good to bring these issues to the fore, not because we hand-wringing Cassandras need more reason for anxious predictions of doom, but because they are the facts of life and death.

The Southwest Quarter of the US and a Northern Quarter of Mexico have been (as far as I know) dry lands for many centuries. Not perpetually bone-dry, but rarely generously wet. As a result, population levels in these areas have always been appropriately low to match the carrying capacity of the land. The balance began to tip in the 19th century, with the westward expansion of the US. Major imbalance between water demand and water supply got going in the 20th century, as a result of population growth in the whole region.

The people and industries (factories and farms) that operate in this area have become water-debtors, and they are in deep and deepening debt. Just for example, the unsustainable city of Phoenix, AZ (pop. 1.6 million) operates a power plant solely to run the pumps that suck up water from the Colorado River and lift it over the mountains. California, Nevada, Arizona, Mexico, et al have claims on the Colorado that exceed conceivable supply.

The point is, there are no easy, cheap, convenient, or pleasant solutions to the shortfall of water supply, short of people, agriculture, and industry leaving for somewhere else (don't ask me where they should go).

This is a global problem, brought on by growing populations conflicting with climate change--8,000,000,000+ vs 1.5º+. Rain is becoming even more unpredictable than it has always been, between being the extremes of absence and falling in crop-wrecking, infrastructure-ruining, people-killing deluges.

There are problems too large to be managed into submission. My own Cassandra Prophecy is that global warming will create more and varied problems which will be insurmountable in many places.

Priorities? Certainly, some problems are more important than other problems, but those with the most resources in reserve are going to decide what problems are dealt with first. For many problems, help is NOT on the way.

Agreed. But I wonder if much of the billions of dollars goes into Coca-Cola for their bottled water and services related to that, rather than maintain an adequate public water supply.. — schopenhauer1

Elko New Market, a small but growing Twin Cities (Minnesota) suburb in Scott County, uses about 125 million gallons of water a year. The City Council last year offered more than $3 million in subsidies to California-based Niagara Bottling, which sells bottled water to Walmart and Costco, to open a plant in Elko New Market. The company plans eventually to draw 310 million gallons of city water a year to bottle, ship and sell across the country.

.

I don't like it. First, $3 million in subsidy smells like a city council desperate to get some sort of development project going, We don't know how much Niagara Water will pay for the water, or how much the large scale pumping will disrupt the water quality for locals. We don't know how long Niagara's pumping can go on before the acquirer is depleted.

A gallon of water sold in wasteful and polluting small plastic bottles is worth much more to business that the ordinary uses the local people use the water for. So, the locals get screwed.

I'd like to add to my OP, that I don't quite understand the 1960's that well. I know it was the counterculture movement; but, I don't understand why it became a fascination with drugs... I mean, it was about peace, love, and political activism; but, why the popularity arose to drugs? — Shawn

It's a very good question, "Why are drug so popular?"

I did not use drugs very often during the 1960s and 70s; I did not try mescaline when the rest of the group tried it. Never did magic mushrooms, LSD, or any thing else aside of tobacco and alcohol, and pot, once in a while, when somebody offered it. Clearly, many people find drug use a rewarding experience, for pleasure, for novel mental experiences, and so on. People who become addicted (opiates, cocaine, meth...) experience the pleasure of the drug and the pleasure of quelling the unpleasantness of the drug wearing off. That goes for alcohol and tobacco, too.

Today the German Federal Government announced that last year they had seized a shipment of something like 9 tons of cocaine valued at more than 2 billion dollars. That's a lot.

It's true now, it has been true for quite a long time, that drug production is an organized activity. The large quantities of drugs produced, be it big bales of weed or barrels of Fentanyl, demonstrate production prowess. Drugs are produced, distributed, packaged, sold, and promoted. Not saying there are hawkers on the street crying out that they have cocaine laced with fentanyl. But promotion takes place, none the less--a lot of it by and among users. Where a drug is legalized (be it tobacco, alcohol, cannabis...) promotion becomes overt.

if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. — Outlander

I think one could make a case for foreign actors attacking the United States through the smuggling/importation of addictive and toxic substances, like fentanyl. I have never might a frequent drug user (cannabis, cocaine, meth...) who demonstrated societal benefit from their drug use.

But my question was why that wouldn’t it be priority number 1. — schopenhauer1

If you get a stone in your shoe, you will remove it right away because it is immediately too uncomfortable. If you can get water somewhere, even if it is inconvenient and maybe not all that clean, one will adapt. If all of the water--pure or putrid--is gone. dried up, one will pull up stakes. People will make many accommodations where putting up with third best is better than nothing.

Life is full of examples, and not trivial ones, of people adjusting to poor conditions--because despite their low quality and inconvenience, they are just passable enough.

People who are trying very hard to earn enough money for food, clothing, shelter, maybe school for their children, and so on, likely do not have a lot of energy left over at the end of the day, Being poor in a poor country is exhausting. Organizing for clean water, good schools, better control of the sewage in the street, better wages (or wages at all), and so on takes more energy than the people have left at the end of the day.

Clean water is something a good government can, should, ought, and must supply to its citizens with the least resources. Alas, many governments are pretty bad. The point is, heavy infrastructure takes top-down effort.

A similar phenomenon has been taking place around cities like Nairobi, Kenya. Kenyans who can no longer make a living as marginal farmers move to an urban center. The built-up and serviced city center isn't designed to absorb new populations. The rural-to-urban transferees put up whatever housing they can, all crowded together. There are, of course, no provisions for fresh water, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on. Why, one might ask, would anybody put up with this? Partly because they didn't have freshwater, sewer, paving, drainage, and so on where they came from, and there are more opportunities in Nairobi, even if one is living in an a very makeshift community.

I grew up in a house with one cold water tap. Hot water had to be heated on the stove. There was one wash bowl (a bowl, not a plumbing fixture), and one toilet for 7 people. No tub. No shower. Was this a great privation? Were we ridiculed at school? No, because more than a few rural families lacked an indoor toilet and had no indoor running water. Did they think it was terrible to live that way? No.

Would I be happy going back to a wash bowl and taking a bath in a galvanized tub with a skimpy amount of water? Of course not. But it's one's recent history that determines whether one is moving up in the world, or not.