I could have put this in a few forums but I chose Environmental Issues. Rob Greenfield's YouTube (see below) points out a bunch of different simple living truths, and I really enjoyed this video. Anyone into frugality, the environment, minimalism, will probably find some value in this TEDtalk.

"As I made these changes, I thought I was making environmentally-friendly changes, which I was. But what I found was, every time I did something good for the environment, I was doing something good for me--so with making these changes I was becoming happier and healthier."

Just recently I read about Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk and their desire to set the foundation for being able to actually live in space. Why? Because it will provide an escape from a polluted planet.

"Our ultimate vision is millions of people living and working in space," Bezos said during a rare, 30-minute conversation with reporters after the announcement in Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Musk, the Los Angeles entrepreneur who founded SpaceX, envisions a "multi-planet species" that will escape Earth's suffocating pollution to live, for starters, on Mars — after nuking the red planet to warm it up, as he recently told "Late Show" host Stephen Colbert. (To delay the pending environmental collapse, Musk prescribes electric cars and solar panels — from his other two companies.)"

????

So, trash the home you have, and then try to adapt to homes that are not friendly to your biological needs without the support of a LOT of technology.

Which scenario is more likely: that people will rethink their actions, a la Greenfield, or look for an escape in space, a la Bezos. I know that there are a bunch of people here who don't think either will be necessary--and hopefully there is a middle way. At this point in time, both seem to be extreme solutions, but if you accept that we are in the process of killing the planet, then it may become an either/or situation--and will it be Greenfield's solutions, or Bezos'?