Humans live short-term, that's because they are morons, but they are adaptable morons, in time they will realize plastic is more important, and they will go fish it out of the drink.

Yes, it is solved, based on oil reserves being limited, when the oil runs out the plastic will run out.

You are pretty hard on Biden, that's my only objection, yeah he is old, passed his prime, likely at real health risk for taking such a high stress job, but Trump was no spring chicken either, and looks like he is riddled with health problems. Trumps advantage was only that he thrives on high stress situations, like a true narcissist, he enjoys high anxiety, regular folk don't.

Biden is consummately professional, a legal expert, I wouldn't call him a Liberal despite being with the Democrats, he is a moderate, a Conservative, and now is a good time for America to have a conservative president, not a right-wing Libertarian like Trump, or left-wing Socialist like Sanders, those two embody the conflict, and both will rip America down the middle.

Biden knows law, he loves law, and America is Rule of Law, who better to defend the rule of law than a Man of Law?

I will support your position in a couple of ways;

First: "almost always try to manipulate their inquisitors"

Politics is adversarial, it's why democracy always decays into tyranny, Plato identified the cycle of 5 societal regimes, democracy 4th and most just, but also the most unstable, and followed by the worst societal regime, Tyranny. John Adams said "There hasn't been a democracy yet that didn't commit suicide." hence he was a Federalist, a federation of democratic states, each central to their own domain, governance to their resident populations, the Union however was an agreement to recognize red flags of tyranny in each as it may arise, and an agreement to intervene, correct, then return them to their sovereignty.

The fatal flaw in was when the federal republic was centralized, removing authority from democracy, albeit they shifted a version of democracy to the national level, but in application it is no longer a union of democratic states, it is two nationalized political unions vying for unitary control of America. America was designed to be Multistate, 13-50, by centralizing the republic it became Dual-State, Red versus Blue, eventually one will emerge victorious over the other, probably through violence, civil-war, revolution, and America will no longer be a federation at all, the Confederates will have won.

Second: Trump is a Liberal, probably better known as Libertarian, he is all about globalization, privatization, small government, no taxes, very aristocratic and anarchist, on the presumption wealth affords liberty and will protect itself from chaos with that resource. How is this Liberalism? Liberalism was founded by aristocrats during the time of imperial empires, their political philosophy was designed to serve their ruling class, not the commoners under their boot. People say Liberalism has changed to serve the regular citizen, nah, I doubt it, the most prevalent Liberals are richer than God, same in Athenian Democracy, the heroes of the people were the theatrical artists, playwrights, and actors, just like Hollywood, just like London.

President is a respected, honored position, there isn't anything particularly presidential about Trump, this bothers people, it should be obvious why, it is terrifying to see someone so removed from civility assume the mantle of highest civil office in the country, even the world. When the system cannot defend itself from that it is the bells tolling doom.

Psychology is formal in nature, like Law, science deals in substantial facts, like evidence, you can present evidence in court, but that doesn't make science the grand arbiter of guilt and innocence, the court owes its cases their rights, to defend themselves, explain themselves, to identify the actual causality of an action such evidence establishes.

Civilization is about that old, Egypt is considered the first civilization, Hammurabi in Sumer was also before Moses showed up, point is the "world" may not refer to the natural world, but the human world, the world of law and rulers.

Difficult, sure, but not impossible, what was written was written for a purpose, a reason that made sense to the writer, if you can tap into their frame of mind and follow their thread you can make sense of it.

Ultimately the Bible was never written for public consumption, it literally says "Only the Most High may approach the Tabernacle." the very vessel the law was transported in, the Ark of the Covenant. In this respect, there was a Priest class, which was more like a legal class, each town, maybe even each family, had at least one legal professional, people who studied the law, but were only allowed access to scripture directly pertaining to each case.

Only the High Priest was entitled to study the entire text without restriction, yet this is no longer true, anyone can get a Bible now, pretty much everyone can read, so if you want a basis for error consider that, the Bible itself refuses common access to it, so ignoring that instruction is the problem. People need to be prepared by years, maybe decades, of education to be able to approach it professionally.

This question reminds me of a John Adams anecdote, (Founding Father, 2nd PotUS) : He had a dog named Satan, odd name, right? And yet not without his reasoning to it, a dog is a mindless beast, it could shred your throat out with its teeth, killing you before you hit the ground, but you cannot sit down with a dog and have a deep and meaningful discussion about the moral implications of ripping someone's throat out with your teeth...

Point is, the world isn't moral, not from dog to rock to volcano, it's mindless, we are the only ones of that capacity, that divine or Godly capacity for reason. The world as science studies it is Satan, for intents and purposes, just as surely as John Adam' dog was Satan, God however is in the Higher realm, of higher reasoning, and higher emotion, not the baser, worldly, or flesh.

Science without a moral and human purpose to inform it will be monstrous, that's the whole point of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, we may end committing genocide in the pursuit of knowledge, the question is if the pursuit is worth the cost? I would hope not, not ever, we need to question if we are worthy of knowledge if we would sacrifice our soul for it? The answer is simple, no, being a monster destroys our worthiness.