|
Everyone knows that the environment is in bad shape and is getting worse. Here are some of my suggestions on how we can all make it better.
I would like this thread to serve as a place to discuss ideas on how to lessen our environmental impact and help the environment out, and to discuss what you are already doing what you would like to do in the future. Critiques of my ideas or anyone elses are welcome, but keep it friendly and constructive, please.
Making a Better World
So often I think people live only to get as much out of life as they can, while giving as little back as possible. It is this approach that has left so much of the biosphere devastated (loss of rainforests equal to half of the U.K. every year, loss of some 27,000 species of life each year, etc) and so many of our resources depleted or contaminated (half the water in the U.S. is contaminated, clean water in general is running out, fertile land is being turned to desert, and oil is believed to have peaked a year or to ago.) It is this approach that has caused climate change and set us on a tragic course.
I prefer to think that we all can and should leave the world a little better than we found it. It is said that many tribal people would try to look 7 generations ahead when weighing their decisions. I think all of us should try to consider what effects our lifestyles have on the Earth, its life, and other human beings. If we see that our way of living causes great harm, we should change.
Here are some ways that I know of that we can make the world a better place.
Make No More Babies
The single best thing you can do to help the planet, and ease the burden on the environment and other people, is to not make more children. Giving up your SUV and living in a small house and consuming few resources will not compare to simply not having any children. Not making children is the single best thing you can do.
The world is severely overpopulated. In the last 150 years, the human population has grown by 5 billion. In the last 50 years it has doubled. There are now 6.6 billion humans on the planet, and the population is projected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. The Earth cannot even handle the amount of humans that are living right now. There are food shortages which will continue to worsen, resources are being depleted, and water shortages are expected to effect 50 percent of humanity in the next 20 years. In this century, billions of people will die off because the Earth cannot sustain humanity’s present numbers or the extravagant lifestyles of the richest 1.5 billion humans which are increasingly adopted by the poor.
It is worse for an American or citizen of a wealthy country to have a child than for a person of a poor country to have one. For an American to have one child is roughly equivalent to an African making 20 children. Americans and other wealthy people use far more resources and produce far more waste than other people, so even though the population growth rate in wealthy countries is close to zero or already zero, it is a poor decision for an American to make even one child.
For those that already have children, love them and teach them to live responsibly. For those that do not have children but want one (or more), consider overcoming your genoism and adopt. There are many children that need love and help.
Become Vegetarian or Vegan
A vegan (a person who eats no meat or anything that comes from an animal) requires 1/20th the land of a meat eater for all their food requirements.
It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of animal flesh. It takes 23 times more water to produce one ton of meat than it does to produce one ton of grain. Only 2.5 billion humans could be fed on the sort of diet that is common in developed countries, a diet in which 35% of calories come from animal sources.
The U.S. raises 10 billion animals for slaughter every year, and this figure does not include fish. Animals raised for food contribute to global warming and contribute greatly to water pollution. Raising animals for food destroys land and destroys eco-systems.
The less meat and animal products you consume, the less resources you require. Even if you can’t entirely give up meat, you can eat less of it. Doing so will ease your burden on the Earth.
Give Up Driving
For Americans and many wealthy people, this seems impossible, and even if possible, certainly not desirable. But we all know that the manufacture and operation of vehicles causes incredible damage to the environment and requires immense quantities of resources. Driving is simply not sustainable, and it is quite harmful to the world and its life.
One thing that is worth noting is that, for many people, driving is not nearly as efficient or fast as you may believe. Ivan Illich, a philosopher of the 20th century, notes “the model American devotes 1,600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7,500 miles, less than five miles per hour.” AAA estimates the cost of owning and using a vehicle at over $6,000 per year.
A car culture requires that much space be given over to roads and parking. Beautiful terrain is transformed into asphalt and concrete. As much as 40 percent of America’s energy is given to producing, operating, and providing infrastructure for automobiles.
46,000 Americans are killed each year by automobiles, and it is estimated that 30,000 Americans are killed every year by automobile pollution.
Bicycling is far cheaper and healthier than driving, and produces far less pollution (the pollution is only produced in the manufacture of the bicycle, and is obviously considerably less than what is produced in the manufacture of a car.)
It may not be practical to give up driving now, but it is likely that opportunities will arise in the future that enable you to live a car-free life. It is also likely you can find ways to reduce your automobile use. Walking, bicycling, or using public transportation are wonderful ways to reduce your impact on the environment.
Live in a Smaller Home
A large home requires far more resources in its construction and far more energy to be cooled in the Summer and heated in the Winter. Large homes should house many people. Small families should inhabit small homes, and single individuals should inhabit even smaller homes. Less space is easier to manage, is cozier, and is far less demanding on the environment.
Reuse, Repair, and Recycle
If you are looking to make a purchase, if possible, buy used. Many things can be found used in fantastic condition. Buying used bypasses the need for wasteful production, with all the use of resources and creation of pollution that additional production entails. It also allows you to save money. If you have something lying around that can meet your needs, try not to purchase a new replacement. Reuse what you’ve already got. The obsession with “new and improved” is part of consumerism and is the result of corporate brainwashing. Often old and used is plenty good, and certainly less demanding on the environment.
Similarly, when you can repair something you already have instead of buying new, you can avoid the waste and pollution that go hand in hand with buying new.
When you can’t repair or reuse something, try recycle. Recycle plastic, paper, glass, and other disposable things. If you have an item you do not want but that is reusable, try to give it or sell it to someone who can use it, rather than throwing it away.
Buy Less and Work Less
The less you buy, the less you need to work. The more you buy, the more waste and pollution you create, and much work that is done contributes to the exploitation of people and animals, and contributes to the destruction of the environment.
Most of our “needs” are manufactured by psychologists and sociologists working for powerful corporations. It is entirely possible to be happy with very few possessions, and, I would argue, much easier to be happy when your life is not wasted in soulless, mind numbing corporate labor.
You can directly reduce your impact on the environment by curtailing your consumption of superfluous products.
Everyone appreciates some luxury and some fun. Try to buy things that you know you can appreciate and use for a long time, rather than disposable or gimmicky items. Pay for quality.
Think and Act Locally
The more locally based our lives are, the better for the environment and for people and animals. If we buy local food and products, we greatly reduce our use of resources. Consider that the average American meal has been transported 2,000 miles before it reaches the plate. Oil was used in pesticides, in fertilizer, in the machinery that tilled the soil and harvested the crop, in the transportation of the food, in the heating and cooling and processing of the food, and in transporting you to the food and transporting the food back to your home. Local is much better.
If you buy local goods, you help small businesses and you help your local economy.
We, as individuals, cannot affect much change in the world, but if we focus on the small scale, we can accomplish something. By working with friends and neighbors and pooling resources, it is possible to live a life of security and comfort without placing nearly as much strain on the environment.
 
|
So, about myself
- I am committed to not making any babies. I always wanted to have a baby girl, but I realize it is far better that I not have any. I was going to get a vasectomy, but decided not to for health reasons.
- I am a vegetarian, and moving towards raw-food veganism. This is very healthy for me and for the environment. I used to weigh 210 pounds as a teenager. Now, at 6'1'', I weigh 160.
- I bicycle for 80 to 90 percent of my transportation. After my insurance runs out in about 5 months, I intend to sell my car and be car-free. This is very intimidating to me (especially dealing with Winters - ugh), but I know it is doable and will save me stress and money. Bicycling is very fun and very healthy.
- I share a fairly small 2 bedroom apartment with my Mom. I intend to always live with roommates or family, but if I live alone, I would like to live in a tiny studio apartment. My friend Don lives in a 12 by 14 foot apartment.
- I buy very little for entertainment. On most days, I buy nothing. Most of my expenditures are for food. My interests include music (guitar) and writing. I rarely need to buy anything to amuse myself.
- I just started recycling. I'm not good at this. I need to improve. I also suck at repairing things, and have always been bad about buyin used. I've gotten better at buying used, however, and find buyin used musical equipment is great. I've never been burned by ebay.
- Again, I buy little, and I also work very little. I believe at my present level of living, I could live by myself for less than $9,000 a year, which puts me below the poverty line. I would like to settle in at about 6 to 7k a year.
- I am terrible at buying and acting locally. I need to work on this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, i read the bulletin points, and i'll save myself some time and skip the rest. it is a good idea, keep at it.
|
United States1654 Posts
Easier said than done, but I do agree that steps need to be taken or else we will destroy the very world we live (sooner than we expect I might add).
|
United States22883 Posts
I'm not going to spend time right now debunking your points like "Local is better" or "Buy Less and Work Less" but I just want to add that in 10 years, I would like to have a boy and a girl, a 200-250 hp car (not including an SUV for "family" purposes), eat beef at least once a week, live in a 2-3,000 ft^2 home and shop at Walmart so I can save for nice vacations for my family. Thanks for picking up the slack!
Oh, and don't you dare turn to eBay to support your argument, when you're shunning the very things that make it economically, socially and technologically possible.
|
In this era, the better world makes up.
Question : You do not believe in sex for pleasure? if so, a child as an accidental byproduct is enough to stem that primitive need?
Reproduction allows genetic diversity. It is benificial.
Age?
Your mindset is very puzzling to me. You are not self-less. You are human. It is impossible. Despite anything you might say in defense, I am tied to this belief.
Given human imperfection, if our world cannot sustain our actions, we can blame it on our imperfection and the imperfection of the world for not being created with more durability.
I will eat 3 cows for every cow you don't eat or somthing to those lines. Your actions and those who believe like you are in the extreme minority. What you do will do nothing except to appease your conscience.
Thus, let go and eat those cows. Be wasteful, life is too short to use a half- dry marker.
|
On December 21 2007 12:36 nA.Inky wrote:
- I just started recycling. I'm not good at this. I need to improve. I also suck at repairing things, and have always been bad about buyin used. I've gotten better at buying used, however, and find buyin used musical equipment is great. I've never been burned by ebay.
It amazes me that recycling is not standard throughout the US. I'm not exactly an environmentalist or anything, but I find it bizarre that most of the country doesn't recycle. As long as I can remember it's always been done by everyone here in Oregon.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 21 2007 20:28 gLyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2007 12:36 nA.Inky wrote:
- I just started recycling. I'm not good at this. I need to improve. I also suck at repairing things, and have always been bad about buyin used. I've gotten better at buying used, however, and find buyin used musical equipment is great. I've never been burned by ebay.
It amazes me that recycling is not standard throughout the US. I'm not exactly an environmentalist or anything, but I find it bizarre that most of the country doesn't recycle. As long as I can remember it's always been done by everyone here in Oregon. It costs a lot of money to implement a service, especially in urban areas where there is no possibility for recycling trucks, and instead people must take their things to a recycling center. I'm sure tons of New Yorkers want to take the subway to Union station carrying all their recycled paper and plastic items once a week...
It's also worth noting that most of the time it ends up the same place whether you recycle or throw it away. Soda cans and plastics are really the only things that need special attention.
|
Jibba, you say you won't take the time to address the points I make in my post, but you seem to be willing to take the time to strongly imply that I am wrong, and that even if I were right, you simply do not care to change yourself. Ultimately, I must respect your choices, but I am puzzled at this attitude you display here. If you have so little time, why not be respectful and say nothing? If you have time to say something, why not give a more constructive or thoughtful critique? I welcome criticism, but I say plainly in the OP that it ought to be both friendly and constructive. Thank you.
The closest thing you offer to a reasonable critique, that I can see, is your comment about Ebay. True, embracing ebay does tend to go against being local, and entails transportation costs and so on. Still, given a choice between new and Ebay used, Ebay used is very likely to be the better choice, ecologically speaking.
As for your attitude of purposely embracing environmentally destructive habits, that is your choice. I do what I do because I believe firmly that it is right, and that has nothing to do with what you or anyone else does. I am aware of Maddox and his idea of "spiting" vegetarians and so on. It is humorous. Nevertheless, the strategy is the same - do what is right because it is the right thing to do. Look forward to a friendlier and more substantive post, Mr. Jibba.
|
Dude I'm not gonna lie, you are hardcore. If you can pull off everything you listed for the rest of your life in spite of all the luxury around you, then I tip my hat to you. If you're willing to sacrifice not having kids, not eating meat (I could never do this), and not driving just for the sake of the environment, then you're one great guy.
|
On December 21 2007 18:39 kdog3683 wrote:
In this era, the better world makes up.
Question : You do not believe in sex for pleasure? if so, a child as an accidental byproduct is enough to stem that primitive need?
Reproduction allows genetic diversity. It is benificial.
Age?
Your mindset is very puzzling to me. You are not self-less. You are human. It is impossible. Despite anything you might say in defense, I am tied to this belief.
Given human imperfection, if our world cannot sustain our actions, we can blame it on our imperfection and the imperfection of the world for not being created with more durability.
I will eat 3 cows for every cow you don't eat or somthing to those lines. Your actions and those who believe like you are in the extreme minority. What you do will do nothing except to appease your conscience.
Thus, let go and eat those cows. Be wasteful, life is too short to use a half- dry marker.
Kdog, I do believe strongly in sex for pleasure. It is something I practice myself. But I also believe in contraception. There are many methods to use to avoid pregnancy, and I am in favor of embracing several of them. True, the risk of pregnancy will ALWAYS be there if you choose to engage in sex, but it is quite low if you practice effective methods correctly. If you do wind up accidentally getting someone pregnant, well, how you handle that is up to you. Abortion is a good option, but also responsibly raising your child is good as well. In life, we have to make the most of our options and choices.
It's not that having children is evil - historically it has probably been one of the best possible things. We just find the world overpopulated now. Some people are going to have children, on purpose and by accident, and that makes it all the more important for those of us who are aware and have choice to not have children. Jibba thanked me for "taking up the slack." Of course, I think he intended to be offensive with that remark, yet he is quite right - that is exactly what we must do. We must pick up the slack for those who have children. So, in short, I urge you to try not to make babies, but if you do, do the best you can. And certainly embrace the other methods available to you to live responsibly and sustainably!
My age? I am 24. I never said I was selfless, but I am socially and ecologically minded. I care about more than JUST myself. I certainly care about myself, and I have a lot of pleasure and joy in my life (and misfortune and sadness too, as anyone else does.) You don't need to eat meat to be happy. You don't need a car to be happy. You don't need children to be happy. You don't need a ton of money and a ton of toys to be happy. Countless spiritual and philosophical leaders have spoken of the power and goodness of a simple life. I believe they are right.
You are right that humans are imperfect, Kdog. However, you seem to imply that because we are imperfect, we ought to just let go and do whatever we want! I disagree with you there. WE are imperfect and will make mistakes, but we are also capable of learning and we are capable of choice. We ought to learn from the mistakes of others and we ought to choose what is good for humanity and good for the Earth which has nurtured us so well. I believe people are capable of this.
|
8748 Posts
On December 21 2007 18:39 kdog3683 wrote:
Your mindset is very puzzling to me. You are not self-less. You are human. It is impossible. Despite anything you might say in defense, I am tied to this belief.
Given human imperfection, if our world cannot sustain our actions, we can blame it on our imperfection and the imperfection of the world for not being created with more durability.
Humans have traditionally used their rationality to guide their societies. Rationality has always had to struggle against things like irrational beliefs and basic impulses and it is the same way now. It is entirely human to try to fix our problems using our brain power and it is historically true that we humans would rather lower our standards of living than die out. Your suggestion that it'd be unhuman for us to fix the problem of world sustainability is preposterous. I'll agree that it is a difficult problem to solve because of certain parts of human nature but I'm completely unwilling to accept a defeatist point of view generated by an unwillingness to problem-solve.
|
Excellent post, Nony, and very concise in a way that my posts never are.
Do you have any ideas for how to improve the environmental situation? Do you practice any particular approach yourself? Any thoughts in general?
|
On December 21 2007 23:27 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Dude I'm not gonna lie, you are hardcore. If you can pull off everything you listed for the rest of your life in spite of all the luxury around you, then I tip my hat to you. If you're willing to sacrifice not having kids, not eating meat (I could never do this), and not driving just for the sake of the environment, then you're one great guy.
Well, I'm taking this as a compliment. Thank you.
But I really do not think what I am saying is all that hardcore or difficult. I think it can come off that way, however, if you are living a typical American lifestyle and are faced with the prospect of changing yourself all at once.
There is no need to change all at once. I haven't changed all at once, and I also haven't reached all my goals. Getting to where I am now has taken years. If it takes you years too, that is fine.
Keep in mind also that even embracing a few of the things I mentioned will make you a more responsible world citizen. It will make a difference. There is no need for an all or nothing approach.
Consider eating meat a little less often (not necessarily giving it up.) Consider bicycling to your close destinations instead of driving, but keep your car for longer trips, or for bad weather. See? Start small! You'll see that it's not so hard at all if you just take baby steps towards sustainable and responsible living. I also wager that you will become happier as you make changes. I really believe this. It has certainly been true for me. So often, Americans and others mistake pleasure for happiness. But so many miserable people live lives full of pleasure.
At any rate, the point of this thread is to get you thinking about these things. Not to impress anyone or to piss anyone off. It's just about giving thought to these issues. It's entirely possible that the ideas you come up with and the strategies you employ will be different than mine. Fine! As long as we are actively dealing with the problems in the world, rather than pretending they don't exist.
Thanks for your post, buddy.
|
United States22883 Posts
Nony is talking about not giving up, you're implying the solution is to step back into the dark ages.
You're a healthy 24 year old male who lives in a 2 bedroom apartment with his mother and plays guitar to pass time. I'm sorry to be speaking so pejoratively, but that makes you happy, not me and I doubt anyone else on this board. I find fulfillment in advancement and progress, which you'd like to eliminate to preserve a humble, but meaningless life a few extra centuries.
The simple fact of the matter is that it won't work. These advancements - cars, chemical engineering, medical improvements - are for the purpose of making our lives more efficient, so we can be more productive at our primary jobs, which for many is to help other people. You preach non-action, but unless you think everyone will embrace it, then your tree is essentially fruitless. I spent 6 hours at the Salvation Army yesterday helping people get clothes, food and presents for winter and I'll be going back today, and I realize that we must learn to fix what we have, not search for something else.
So YOU don't like big brands and big industries and genetically modified food? Fine, live your life that way, but you have no place to denounce them when you've got the option of buying food from local farmers or a place to stay or no serious illness to speak of. For the billions of people who are starving, millions who are homeless and those families affected by disease and illness, I'm quite sure they appreciate the work people do to find a solution.
You wish to live a simple life? Then please explain where your power and water supply comes from, how your farmers grow your food and whether or not you forged the steel to make your bike. These are staples of modern technology, driven by the will to advance, and they make our lives better than they would be without them. In fact, by embracing things like Nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel cells, we would do a great deal to help the environment, but I assure you the answer is not inaction. If you want to improve our environment, become a scientist, researcher or engineer and live in the 21st century. Don't sit around in a dimly lit apartment playing guitar. You're essentially taking advantage of other people's hard work, to justify giving nothing back. Someone has to spur on the world, so that you may have the pleasure of telling us on the internet that our lifestyles should go backwards.
Oh, and big business (ie. WALMART) is beneficial for the communities it serves. It's the product of competition, which makes things cheaper and better for the customer, and they provide an enormous amount of jobs while increasing access to cheaper clothes/food/medicine for everyone.
|
Jibba says: "Nony is talking about not giving up, you're implying the solution is to step back into the dark ages."
Where? When? I never said that. What I advocate is making intelligent choices to protect the Earth and its life. In some cases - perhaps many - that will mean stepping back from certain technologies and lifestyles. To call this "returning to the dark ages" is a huge value judgement. It is implying the choice is somehow immoral (because it is anti "progress.")
Jibba says: "I find fulfillment in advancement and progress, which you'd like to eliminate to preserve a humble, but meaningless life a few extra centuries."
Progress (synonymous with advancement, in your sentence) is a loaded word. What is progress? I wish people would think about what this word means. Progress is merely motion towards a goal. What people so rarely think about is what the goal is. What is the goal, Jibba? If the goal is destruction of the biosphere, then humanity has made great progress, and yes, I am against progress. I will not bow before the God of Progress just because it sounds cool. To me, any kind of worthy progress must increase the variety, abundance, and well-being of life. Modern progress has done precisely the opposite. I pointed out one example with regard to the automobile - hardly a model of efficiency, yet surely a bringer of much environmental degradation and misery.
Jibba says: "You wish to live a simple life? Then please explain where your power and water supply comes from, how your farmers grow your food and whether or not you forged the steel to make your bike"
You imply that I am a hypocrite, or that I undermine my own argument by embracing some technology while criticizing other technology. A common argument, and worth looking at. The fact is, I have never made a black and white argument here. You are the one who apparently sees black and white. I am merely arguing for choices that I think will improve the situation here on Earth. Is the bike as clean and sustainable as walking? No. Is it surely an improvement over driving? Yes! Likewise, I have said in this thread that there is no need to give up meat, but if you eat less meat than you do at present, you will be helping out. See, it's not an all or nothing issue. There are degrees of responsibility or irresponsibility. I merely argue for moving towards responsibility. We don't have to be angels.
Jibba says: "In fact, by embracing things like Nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel cells, we would do a great deal to help the environment."
The byproducts of nuclear power are extremely toxic and deadly, and persist for many thousands of years, if not more. To date, humanity has still not figured out a safe and reliable way to dispose of this material. Also, nuclear plants malfunction with deadly consequences. In the short term, the chance of failure may be small, but in the long term (decades or centuries), it is guaranteed. It is extremely foolish to advocate this kind of solution.
Jibba says: "but I assure you the answer is not inaction."
What inaction? What I am talking about is personal action. I am plenty in favor of large scale political action on these issues. What I think is so aggravating, however, is that large scale action is slow to come. There are all kinds of entrenched interests at this point that resist changes that would help the environment. So I focus on personal action. Through personal action, we can make a difference, and we can empower ourselves. Is personal action the only way? No, but it is what I am talking about here. By reducing your resource use and demands on the environment, you aren't being inactive - you are actively taking steps to make the world better. Maybe the difference is very small, but we are individual people - anything we do is going to be small scale. I'm ok with that. It is more democratic and free that way.
Jibba says: "Oh, and big business (ie. WALMART) is beneficial for the communities it serves. It's the product of competition, which makes things cheaper and better for the customer, and they provide an enormous amount of jobs while increasing access to cheaper clothes/food/medicine for everyone."
Congratulations, you have read an economics 101 textbook. This could be a whole debate in and of itself, but the fact is, this is a very pro-corporate perspective. Corporations have very defined interests - namely profit. That the profit motive often runs against all conventional morality, and environmental, social and political responsibility is irrelevent. Profit is what matters.
The fact is, businesses don't care about creating jobs. They care only about profit. If anything, they want to get rid of jobs. Part of "economies of scale" (maybe a term you learned from your 101 book) is getting rid of jobs.
Along with the profit motive you also tend to get poor quality goods. You know that it is possible to make an incandescent lightbulb that can last 100 years? Why does this not happen?
Large scale businesses like Wal-Mart use their vast power to pull down wages, and homogenize our culture. Because people are earning less money today than they did 30 years ago, it becomes increasingly necessary to buy crap goods from places like WalMart (don't believe me about wages declining? Read something other than your Econ 101 book and you will see that this is the case.) What we have now is planned obsolescence - mass produced shit that is built to fall apart so you'll replace it with the new wave of mass produced shit. Never mind the environmental cost.
Yes, I am absolutely against the Wal Mart phenomenon.
To bring this back around a bit, I do not argue for the elimination of technology. But I also do not subscribe to this technological fundamentalism that you seem to subscribe to - the idea that all technology is inherently good. Some technologies are good and beneficial, and others are not. We must take a reasoned approach to technology, adopting those which are sustainable (much modern technology is not, no matter how you slice it), democratically controllable, and otherwise efficient and humane.
To date, the story of technology has been one of increasing human alienation and loss of control, and increasing environmental degradation. Merely look at the world around us to see that this is true. If this has been the history of technology, why should I blindly expect that the next wave of technology will somehow be different?
In modern societies, we are brainwashed to think cars are an improvement. We are brainwashed to think new technology is automatically good. We are brainwashed to think that anyone who resists technology is backwards and unenlightened. Recognize this ideology for what it is, and recognize who this ideology serves.
|
United States22883 Posts
In modern societies, we are brainwashed to think cars are an improvement. We are brainwashed to think new technology is automatically good. We are brainwashed to think that anyone who resists technology is backwards and unenlightened. It's not brain washing. A car makes my life easier. Science and medicine makes my life easier. All of these things also make my life more enjoyable.
You can't simply pick and choose which parts of technology and advancement to keep and which to abandon, they all support each other. You believe that by minimizing costs, things will improve and that's simply not how it works. Essentially, you have the ability to make a difference, but instead of active improvement, you to choose to make little impact at all. If that's your contribution to the world, then why not simply cease to exist? You would eliminate your waste even further.
Walmart pays above the minimum wage, and do you really think big businesses are to blame for lowered wages? Even when people enjoy a higher quality of life BECAUSE of those businesses? The coffee tastes better, the food lasts longer, every product is safer and the ones who will suffer long term because of it are the ones who can't adapt. Your yeoman fantasy is unattainable and probably not even beneficial. If you're not going to work to make other people's lives better, then you're just taking up a slot.
Oh, and Nuclear power is far, far safer and more efficient than coal/oil/gas power and there are long term temporary solutions to the waste, and it's certainly better for the environment and our air.
This is the kind of bullshit that occurs when you take an ultra hippie approach to Western advancement.Friends of Earth can go fuck themselves.
|
Jibba says: "It's not brain washing. A car makes my life easier. Science and medicine makes my life easier. All of these things also make my life more enjoyable."
I am against cars, and there are many intelligent folks with intelligent arguments for why cars are a problem. I outlined some of these in my thread, and you have not addressed any of it except to talk about how cars make you feel better about your life. Somehow from talking about this you decide I am against science and medicine in addition to being against cars. This is a stretch to say the least... You keep putting words into my mouth....
Jibba says: "You can't simply pick and choose which parts of technology and advancement to keep and which to abandon, they all support each other."
This is the sort of "all or nothingism" which you keep accusing me of (embrace all technology or live in the dark ages!) You are the one in a black and white world, not I. We can indeed pick and choose what technologies we use. We can use cars or we can use bikes. We can use coal power, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, animal power, and much more. We also can choose the degree to which we use any technology. We can use more power or less power, drive more or less, eat more or less meat, buy more or less products, and so on. Enough of this black and white thinking, Jibba.
Jibba says: "If you're not going to work to make other people's lives better, then you're just taking up a slot."
Who says I'm not working to make people's lives better? Why do you judge me this way?
And besides, there is helping others, and there is reducing the ways in which you hurt others. Much of this thread is about ways to reduce how we hurt others (other life, the environment, other people...) This is a good thing to pursue.
Offer up more ideas for how to make the world better, if you like - I invited everyone to do just that. So far, you have not convinced me that anything I've said here is flawed.
Jibba, your posts in this thread are hostile and you come off as hysterical (look at that last sentence you wrote... jeez). You are all over the place. I am not interested in "debating" you this way. Please do not post here unless you can meet the criteria I clearly set forth in the OP: "Critiques of my ideas or anyone elses are welcome, but keep it friendly and constructive, please." Ok? If you can't keep it friendly and constructive, please don't bother.
|
Dude, I definitely do not see eye to eye with inky on a lot of things (but he does bring up several points) but notice, he's not hostile at all? Try not being a prick when replying.
For instance, I would argue that cars ARE a necessity, but for something as simple as going two blocks for coffe, you can bike, skate, walk etc, weather permitting. Car pool when you can, buy a car with lower gas milage.... even little things like this help. These are simple things you can do without going to extremes like inky.
Shit like recycling should pretty standard all over by now. And Jabba, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about if you think that Walmart and big corporate places like that are good for the economy. Have you any idea how many small mom & pop stores go out of business when one of these big corporatiosn come into town? Supporting your local economy is a definite plus.
I've gotta get back to work, but my point is, don't be a fucking douche. While I don't agree with limiting showers, living in a smaller house and what not, there are some very spot on things in here. Debate like a civil person, not like a fucking jackass.
|
United States22883 Posts
The Walmart provides far more jobs and services than the mom and pop stores. Big business isn't all good, but it isn't all evil and they wouldn't be successful unless people didn't want them. When there's a monopoly, then the federal government can blow it up, but until then bring on the chain stores.
Inky, no you absolutely cannot cherry pick because all of those things are dependent upon one another. Do you really think the medical, nuclear or any other industry would be able to continue or even begin in the first place without the automobile industry?
This is like a playground where kids come to enjoy themselves, but in the process they break bones, get scrapes, cuts and bruises. Instead of improving the playground to make it safer, you're proposing closing it down so no one can get hurt. And you want the swings to still be open because you like those, but the slide is definitely off limits.
I've heard this all before. People make outrageous claims about things that are wrong with modern society, but they do so within the luxuries that it provides without having lived in desperation, extreme illness or at any other serious disadvantage. That Zambia article is absolutely relevant and Friends of Earth can still go fuck themselves. Millions of people starved and thousands died because of those decisions, because genetic modification, just like nuclear power and big business and automobile pollution is seen as one of the many "evils" of the Western world, when they're designed to improve the lives of everyone.
As for who I am, I'm a poli sci college student studying how the IMF and World Bank fuck over third world countries, and I spend my free time volunteering with SA, helping 6-18 yo kids write and mentoring a 2 homeless kids from DA/DV backgrounds. So I walk the walk when it comes to trying to help the community and I believe in advancing technology to improve our lives, not abandoning it.
EDIT: And I really don't mind being rude in a situation like this. It's 29 degrees and windy outside so without cars and power plants, people aren't alive. Some people are going to die and I guarantee you it's not because they're poor and can't pay power bills because a Walmart ran them out of business. Having a store would actually drastically improve their lives right now, as would a big 'ol nuclear plant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
