scientator

Right. The water isn't gone from the universe, certainly. But it's gone from the city/county water system. You've then got to wait for it to come back via the natural water cycle. Whereas it's a lot more efficient to keep as much water as possible in the human system and just keep cleaning and reusing it.

Using water to cool a data center is absolutely not equivalent to using it for farming. Once you irrigate a field, that water is gone. But if water is cooling something, then it can be collected and used again. Of course, that requires a city or county to have a water reclamation program.

Likewise, if you water a lawn, that water is gone. But if you flush water down a toilet or a shower drain, the water is potentially reusable. Just needs to be cleaned.

Waste water can also be used for cooling. I believe that's how the Palo Verde nuclear plant outside of Phoenix is cooled.

I'm sure any wealth tax would only apply to wealth above a certain amount. For instance, inheritance tax only applies to $15mil and above. Likewise, when you sell a house the first $500K (I believe) in capital gains from the sale is tax free.

I don't think people with savings of $15mil and above (assuming that would be the cutoff) are in danger of going bankrupt in 20 yrs from a 1% wealth tax. Assuming your 3% return, they'd be earning $450,000 a year that wouldn't be touched by the wealth tax.

Why would environmentalists be concerned about shading canals?

The underlying problem is that the number of representatives hasn't increased in about 100 years (not counting addition of Alaska and Hawaii). Increase the number of reps, as was regularly done up until early 20th century, and a lot of this gerrymandering nonsense will disappear. Of course, the powers that be don't want to do this because it would make the system more fair and democratic.

The idea of rent suggests that you're paying a use fee to an owner. But if you live in a house that you own, and therefore lose the potential rental income, who are you paying that use fee to? Is the loss of potential income really the same as rent? Because in that case almost every choice/action in life involves a potential loss of income. There's probably always something more profitable one could have done with time/money.

Water for people isn't the problem. It's water to grow food for cows that's the problem.

I believe the royal society for the protection of birds studied whether cats are a threat to bird populations and concluded that they really aren't. Obviously cats do kill birds, but overwhelmingly the major threat to birds is habitat loss caused by humans. Also, cats kill rodents, which indirectly helps birds because rodents are a big threat to bird populations, because rats take eggs from their nests. In fact, cats preferentially kill rodents. Something like 90% of their diet will typically be rodents. Birds, for them, are only opportunity kills. In other words, cats are an easy scapegoat because they quite visibly do kill birds, but humans (as is usually the case) are the true underlying problem.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman argues that there are many versions of Christianity, and there always have been since its inception. What you are representing as the "core teaching of Christianity" is the version that was primarily articulated by Paul, and that became the orthodox version due to its eventual adoption as the religion of the Roman Empire. But even at the time of Paul there were rival interpretations. There were the Gnostics, the group led by James in Jerusalem, and even those who insisted one had to adopt Judaism to follow Jesus. And significantly, Jesus himself probably wouldn't have recognized the interpretation of Paul.

And looking beyond early Christianity, one can pick any period of Christianity's history and find numerous rival doctrines.

We also know there's rampant fraud in the business world: Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, Lehman Brothers, S&L scandal, etc. etc.

Now the billionaires are gutting the government's oversight ability. Business fraud will go through the roof. But I guess that's the plan.

I think he is wrong that predictions 100 years out are almost always going to be wrong, because city and government planners routinely do this kind of stuff. They predict future growth rates and plan accordingly. They invest in reservoirs, wider roads, bigger power plants and transmission lines, etc. Sometimes those predictions are wrong and they build for growth that never happens, or vice versa. But much of the time they get it right and that contributes hugely to our present-day quality of life.

Their government pay is meaningless to them. They can legally trade on insider information. That's their real paycheck.

In his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" Thomas Gold argued that life probably originated deep underground. Gold is a pretty controversial figure, but this hypothesis makes sense for a number of reasons: the underground environment is a lot more stable than the surface, and the chemistry to extract energy from the chemicals in that environment is a lot simpler than the chemistry to extract energy from sunlight. So it makes sense that underground chemosynthesis would emerge before photosynthesis.

I was agreeing with you up until trash pick-up, which I think is a bad example, because there are obvious reasons why it makes sense to have the city contract with one company for that service, rather than having multiple companies with multiple dump sites and different fleets of trucks roaming the city. And if you give people the option to not pay for trash pick-up, that's just opening the door to having people pile up trash around their houses and yards. You know it would happen. So yeah, I don't think trash pick-up is an example of regulatory capture like your other examples.