With respect to intangible advantages and water efficiency.

Showers tend to be seen as a water efficient option to wash oneself. Rarely are baths usually taken, to my knowledge.

Here is why this is wrong.

An efficient shower head spends 10 litres per minute. At 10 minutes, 100 litres are consumed for a shower.

A typical bath, depending on size, can consume 100 litres flat.

Therefore, with the exception of showers strictly less than 10 minutes in duration, baths become more water efficient per minute.

Now a shift in focus.

Many people suffer from a chronic shortage of focus. This is no surprise, given the fast pace of modern life.

Get up at 7, be ready by 8, commute to work. Commute back home, optionally cook, eat dinner, sleep, and repeat.

There is no time to slow down. No time for ourselves. No time to bring back focus on what matters.

I argue that people should take more baths as a time and place to think. In quiet and peace. For 10 minutes, or 20, or as long as you need.

Are baths the answer to all our problems? Of course not. It is a way to exercise control over how we spend our time. A signal to ourselves that we are not in a race, and can take a moment for ourselves if we wish.

For any concerned about being soap-free after a bath: stand under a shower for 10 seconds.

Of course, organisations that directly act to facilitate these effects are acting against the interest of humankind. Even still, they can only do so because the public give them permission to do it.

"AI" (LLMs, CNNs, deep learning and all the hype around them) supplanting much of genuine thought, burning fuel polluting the atmosphere and heating the world, privacy being encroached upon by invasive tracking, censorship and sterilization of the internet. I argue that these things happen because individual consumers (that is, the vast majority of people) permit them to happen. Companies generally act to maximise profit, but can only ever earn revenue if people are buying. And when a person buys a product, they vote with their wallet that they are OK with that product and its making.

It is usually easiest to go with the flow. To buy cage eggs because they are $3 cheaper than free range. It just makes economic sense. I argue that we should never do this. We must only ever buy the option that fits our ethical minimum, even at a higher cost.

One might consider that many people can't afford the "ethical" product, and will need to fall back on the cheaper option. I argue that they should go without. I have, in recent history, been in a position where I couldn't afford the classical weekly shop. I could have saved good money by buying cage eggs. Still, either I buy free range, or I go without and substitute with something else.

There is always an alternative. Don't like Facebook? Start a blog website. Don't want those new AI features in your preferred app? Uninstall it and use one that fits your needs. If it comes down to it, learn how to make your own. Want to slow climate change? Be conscious of your energy use and burn less fuel - swap your car for a bike, use public transport if you can. EVs can be good, too.

Yes, it will be inconvenient. It might be painful. But isn't that worth proving that your own principles mean something? That you are more than a consumer?

For most of the people who can read this, we always have a choice. Having lived through the last decades, we have learned the effect of complacency. We now know better, and must choose better.