>>717575156idk anon. i'm just a simple luddite and i personally have no interest in or desire to live in a civilization that has to go through all of that to meet its needs. in my opinion, if you need more resources that badly, you have too many people. forever chemicals are just another side effect of having too many people and advancing farther than we ever should have in the first place. we evolved to live in small groups of ~80 people, and anything other than that is, to me, like taking a penguin or polar bear out of the arctic and plopping them in a landlocked desert. negative side effects are not just probable with that approach - they're inherent. in my perfect world, we'd be moving the opposite direction and figuring out how to thrive in as close to the natural state as possible, rather than propping up an artificial house of cards with so many people that you can't stop the machine without literal billions dying.