171–180 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them.
Gimmick? Maybe, I’d love to try something like this.It may not save time, but i bet it feels glorious.
Hence it's a gimmick.
Though I bet it would get old really fast.
Reminds me of my high school, where the gym showers were a car-wash arrangement, a corridor of sprays through which all the guys were herded nude after gym class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most people take showers but most people don't irrigate their fields.
Most people consume produce from irrigated fields. So it depends on how you want to allocate the consumption: to farmers or consumers? (It's just an accounting question.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
us: the humanity in general, today: the state of world water stress level [0], [1], eligible: the correctness of the thing you are doing regardless of the legality of the thing you're doing. IOW, "I pay the bill, now get off my lawn" is something you can do. But should you really do it, just because you can do it? [0]: https://www.wri.org/data/water-stress-country (This is decade old, we're worse now) [1]: https://ri…
How would conserving water in, say, Germany help with water stress in Australia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but getting rid of chemicals and returning it to a non-poisonous state for the nature is a big plus. You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!".
> You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's your problem now, nature. Cope!". Nature couldn't care less. Nature works on much larger timescales than humans. It's the humans that are impacted. Just like climate change, plastic, and all other environmental issues -- humans are paying (or will pay) the price, not nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your vision lacks the ultimate destination: This will replace the bed.
That sounds like that one guy a few years ago who wanted to replace all kitchen cupboards with dishwashers. Gonna steer clear of those directions. All things in moderation, etc.
You can buy two small dishwashers, keep clean stuff in one, dirty in the other, then run the dirty one and swap.
Or you can also just have one plate and wash it by hand after every meal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like that one guy a few years ago who wanted to replace all kitchen cupboards with dishwashers. Gonna steer clear of those directions. All things in moderation, etc.
I think this works. You can buy two small dishwashers, keep clean stuff in one, dirty in the other, then run the dirty one and swap. Or you can also just have one plate and wash it by hand after every meal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people consume produce from irrigated fields. So it depends on how you want to allocate the consumption: to farmers or consumers? (It's just an accounting question.)
I'm convinced there's a pareto distribution of crop water usage. We're depleting our aquifers to grow sileage crops and almonds (which aren't even that good).
You are right that me consuming almonds in Singapore can indirectly cause trouble in California, where they grow the almonds. But the well-known solution to that is proper water rights trading, like they do in Australia in water challenged areas.
Before I clicked through, I was hoping this was going to be about right-to-repair washing machines for clothing.