Newspapers, online news is an echo chamber of personalized content

I live in Bengaluru, so the scene is that here the big lakes are actually all man made “bunds”. Essentially, they are rain water harvesting structures that follow the natural creeks along their drainage basins. Along intervals there are these “check dams” that stop the flow of water and create artificial lakes along the path of the creek. When monsoon comes, the rainwater falls atop the highest point (which is the center of the city by design), and drains into these lakes, one lake overflows into another and this process goes on. Andrew Millison himself has made quite a few videos on this subject, he explains this better than I could.

Now the situation in Bengaluru is that we receive plenty of rainfall in the monsoon, as does most of the subcontinent, but the traditional rainwater harvesting lakes have been filled over with concrete to build apartments. Fewer lakes overall mean more pressure on the existing lakes, when the large ones overflow uncontrollably we get floods like in 2022. So to answer your question, water itself is plenty, but most of it comes in the monsoon months as rain so we need to store it somewhere, be it in lakes or in wells. Not to mention “open” wells are a two-way exchange, during monsoons of heavy rainfall the wells recharge and store water in the shallow water table.

At the end of the day mankind always ends up using resources, no? It just depends on whether it is sustainable or not.

Exactly, satisfying the highest standard is not a criteria for categorisation. It’s the same as saying USA isn’t capitalistic because governament regulations are still a thing

I don’t like DeSantis either but if you read the article, the question itself was loaded. I mean the headlines are a slippery slope argument

Calm down, I’m a random no one on the internet. It’s nessasary to play the devil’s advocate in order to spark conversation

Ok, then let me ask you a bit more philosophical question. Is it okay to execute a murderer? Do you truly belive in the concept of " an eye for an eye"? Similarly do you think being wronged justifies you abandoning your morality?

I belive it’s more akin to offering pig meat by accident, the Muslim can always politely refuse. It’s nothing like forcing since it’s easier to not pay attention to an abusive person.

That’s a very childish stance, it’s the same logic as “but he hit me first”. Because by that logic undivided Jammu and Kashmir is wholly Indian as it was invaded twice(several times but mostly ended in stalemates) and land was seized through military conquest. Theoretically it would justify Indian attrocities on civilians but the western community never sees it that way ( nor should it)

Yes I too feel it’s a childish stance. You will find a lot of people arguing “but they hit first”. Even from a pragmatic point of view, this serves no tactical purpose and will only lead to more passionate support for the war efforts( among the Russian people)

The world is much larger than just the wealthy nations. Where I’m from, the internet is synonymous with Google, emails with gmail and online video sharing with YouTube.

Digital literacy is hard to worry about when you are struggling to improve your life. Even outside of harsh situations it’s not okay to expect everyone to literate themselves.

Yes so I brought up the idea of rules to be followed because in my opinion pragmatism is the only enforcer of said rules. When we talk about using the dollor as the world’s reserve currency pretty much everyone knew USA could freeze assets unilaterally but trusted them not to. Similarly I feel that there are certain untold rules built on trust that simply should not be broken.

As for idea that military conquest itself is a crime and must lead to Putin’s prosecution. I do not agree with this arbitrary enforcement of this law only because this time around there is a lot of internet awareness over the war. There have been several instances in modern history where a large, supposedly imperial power has invaded a smaller country without the permission of the UN over self interest. I’ll try not to call whataboutism but justice half served is no justice at all.

Now I agree that there must be some method of repercussions for weaponizing food, however this is an unideal world. Holding assets’ hostage will only lead to a migration from western assets to maybe Chinese ones, and as a south-east Asian, I can guarantee you that’s the last thing the world needs tight now. Similarly, brash actions using the hegemony of the dollar will only lead to increased scepticism over it and the rise of yuan.

I do believe that this was a terrible move by the kremlin, but there are some rules that must be followed even between enemies. If we all do petty thing, whats the difference between us and them.