|
Ok, well I'm done discussing with Jibba. To be fair to him, however, I think his points are:
Drive as much as you always have, or drive more.
Live in a huge house and have as many kids as you like
Buy as much as you want from wherever you want.
Eat as much meat as you like
Recycle or not, doesn't matter
In short, everything Inky says in the original thread is wrong. Fine!
Beyond that, I think Jibba means to say that we should:
Embrace GM (genetically modified) foods as a way to feed the world's population.
Embrace nuclear power as a clean solution - perhaps get rid of coal/oil power
Embrace corporate capitalism (supply and demand will work things out)
Jibba, please don't bother posting here. Your rudeness is uncalled for and not appreciated.
|
In response to Hawk:
I appreciate that you consider what I'm saying. To you and to anyone who reads this, by all means think over what I am saying and take up what you agree with and disregard what you do not. I don't even practice everything I preach, but I am trying to move in that direction. Hawk, you are absolutely right that improvements can be made just by changing little things. We don't all have to go back to the dark ages or join a commune to make serious improvements. Driving less is great! Eating a little less meat is great!
I just bring these things up to encourage people to think about it. It is easy to get absorbed in day to day details and not think about our ecological footprint. But it is so easy to make little changes to improve how we live if we only give it a little thought and effort.
|
Oh and Hawk! I'm glad you mentioned limiting showers (even though you don't agree with it!) I totally forgot to put that in this thread! Wow, you actually have read and remembered some of my stuff. That's funny and awesome.
I haven't showered in a week.
Since it has come up again, I'll say it again: a low flow shower head uses 2.5 gallons per minute. A 20 minute shower uses 50 gallons of water! It is much better to bathe with a wash cloth and purified water.
Vapor from showers is full of chlorine. Chlorine was a chemical weapon used in WW1 - it is linked to cancer and other problems. It is bad for you!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
chlorine smells nice. ;_;
|
Belgium6771 Posts
Jibba, you're a total douche. Even if you disagree, learn how to debate in a civil way. Pretty funny how you claim inky wants to go back to the dark age while you yourself have the manners of a goddamn caveman. Grow up please.
Anyway, respect Inky.
As I previously mentioned I intend on using public transport as long as possible. Right now I'm in the process of getting a drivers license, but it is purely for if an emergency would come up. But either way I dont wanna waste money on those deathtraps. So long live bus/subway/trains!
Here in belgium pretty much everyone recycles I think. I'm not even sure if its obligatory, but we've been doing it ever since I can remember.. Our subways even have different garbage cans for different kinds of trash =)
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2007 09:11 nA.Inky wrote:
Vapor from showers is full of chlorine. Chlorine was a chemical weapon used in WW1 - it is linked to cancer and other problems. It is bad for you! If you want me to stop making rude posts in here, then stop making outrageous claims like this. You've just tried to link taking showers and increased cancer risk, when there is no long term data or study to support that. At best, US News magazine published one article 16 years ago about the possible risks in our drinking water, at worst there's a bunch of greedy individuals quoting pseudoscience to try and sell special water filters and expensive shower heads, that will "protect" you from chlorine.
But I guess the people at Aquasana.com or Healthy-water-best-filters.com know a thing or two more than the EPA, even though they've been measuring the carcinogens in our water since the 1970s. The best "evidence" you can find is:
"We recognize that there could be an association between exposure to chlorination by-products and cancer," says Fred S. Hauchman at the Environmental Protection Agency's health effects lab in Research Triangle Park, N.C.
However, he and Morris emphasize that the public health benefits of clean water far outweigh the potential health risks of chlorination.
And even with that, there's no citations to speak of. Oh, and even though the EPA maintains that its regulated levels for chlorine maintain a large buffer between danger, it recommends chloramine instead of chlorine, which 1/3rd of the country had already started using in 1998.
I don't reserve civility for hyperbolic environmental lunacy. Protesting disinfected water is even worse than GE foods, in my book.
|
Jibba, you are a troll, looking for a fight just like any other troll. I'm not fighting you. I'm only interested in friendly intelligent conversation. I have nothing to say to you. Please do not post here. Thank you.
|
Xeo, I remember you talking about primarily using public transportation. I admire you for that.
My understanding is that, in general, Europeans are much more responsible than Americans. This should serve as an example to those Americans who assume that there is no other way to do things; that we are locked into this irresponsible, individualistic way of life.
To be sure, Europeans could improve very much, but compared to Americans, they are doing pretty good, I think.
Xeo, I am curious to hear what ideas you have to protect and improve the condition of the environment.
|
Actually from Penn & Teller they said that recycling actually consumes more energy than making a brand new item... the only item that cost less to recycle than to make is the aluminum can.
If you actually take a look at the process of recycling, then you'd realize that 90% of the time it doesn't work.
|
I should point out that the enviromentalist movement is largely based off high middle class white kids who know jack shit about the enviroment and just join the group to be hip and feel cool.
And some of the enviromentalist propaganda is largely taken from bad science.
|
Revolution, you may be on to something with what you say about recycling. I won't say that I think you are entirely correct, but I do think that often recycling is promoted as the way to be environmentally responsible, and, to be sure, it is only a very small part of environmental responsibility. To the extent that people think recycling compensates for a wasteful lifestyle, recycling is problematic.
Also, keep in mind that I don't use the word recycling ONLY in the context you are thinking of. I also mean it in terms of giving away useful items to people who will use them - keeping things in use instead of sending them to the landfill.
You say "I should point out that the enviromentalist movement is largely based off high middle class white kids who know jack shit about the enviroment and just join the group to be hip and feel cool."
This smells like an ad hominem argument. If the environmentalist position is valid (something that could be debated, tho I think it's clear what position I take), then it matters not that it is largely based in the culture of upper class white people (probably true). If it is a good cause, it is a good cause. If the information is correct, it is correct.
Historically, it is often the case that the people who lead others in social/political change are of the upper classes. This does not make social and political change bad, does it? Of course not.
For the record, I am half white and half hispanic, and I've always been lower class.
You say "And some of the enviromentalist propaganda is largely taken from bad science." This is very vague. My understanding is that there is great consensus on the fact that the environment is in trouble. I also am fond of the saying "You don't need to be a weatherman to tell the weather." I'm not a scientist, but my common sense - indeed everything I know - tells me that things are not going well.
Revolution, if you have recommendations for how to improve things, or perhaps a more specific critique (beyond what you offered on recycling, which seems reasonable), please talk about it.
|
On December 23 2007 14:26 Rev0lution wrote:
Actually from Penn & Teller they said that recycling actually consumes more energy than making a brand new item... the only item that cost less to recycle than to make is the aluminum can.
If you actually take a look at the process of recycling, then you'd realize that 90% of the time it doesn't work.
I think the main reason recycling is considered a help to the enviroment is because it reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills. I have no sources to quote on this, although it might be possible I could find some, but I'm to lazy to do that right now so it is only my opinion.
Inky: I applaud your efforts, sir. There are an extremely small number of people who are willing to do most of the things you are doing, and sadly I am one of them. I'd like to, but I just can't bring myself to give up a lot of the things I have. Not to say I don't do a little to help, even though it wasn't necessarily always for the reson of helping the Earth. The only places I drive to are school, work, to pick up food (due to personal circumstances within the family we have to eat out more than we get to cook), and to go to the store. It may seem like a lot with all of them listed out, but really there are many days I don't drive at all. Well, there would be if I didn't have to go to school anyways.
As for riding a bicycle instead of a driving a car, I could see myself doing this in the future possibly, but not during winter or when it is raining or when I have to go very far distances. And reduced showers? I just can't do it. I don't shower as often as some people (once every other day usually, sometimes with more than one day without but I try to keep my pattern) I am a very self conscious person, and I worry to much about what others think which makes this kind of lifestyle all but impossible for me. Well, nearly.
As for the no children viewpoint, I agree that the world is vastly overpopulated, and as of now I am uncertain if I would ever want a child. I could see myself never having one, and I could aslo see myself raising a son or daughter. I really don't know right now.
Living in a smaller home: Done that most of my life haha. Now, maybe not as small as you are thinking (they have all been 2 bedroom, 1 bath, kitchen, and 1 or 2 other rooms) But all of the rooms are relatively small, especially in the house I am in now. My room feels quite cramped to me, but I still love it.
"Buy less work less": I don't buy much at all anymore. Food, gas, the occasional luxury such as a game (haven't bought a new one in several months though  ), and tomorrow I'm going to go shopping for a new guitar (new as in new for me. Probably going to buy a used one) I also don't work a whole lot, but then again one wouldn't expect me to since I only have a part-time job.
"Think and act locally": Sadly there is no way for me to do this, or I would. I really don't like Wal-Mart. It has completely killed off all local 'mom&pop" (to use your term) shops in my town and in neighboring towns. Kind of makes me sad. 
To summarize all of what I said: I admire your effort, and I wish I could do more for the enviroment but I just don't know if I can. =\
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
2 NonY:
You sound like 20'th century didn't happen. Yes, in the early 1900's rationalistic concepts were very popular and people generally accepted rationalism as a virtue. But take marxism-leninism and study it - it's perfectly rational. Take theoretical nazism - it's perfectly rational. Rationality fails when it comes to society because the building brick of the society - a human being IS not rational on itself. We don't want to live "more rational lives". Most humans don't even know what they want. But even now it's somehow common to believe the irrationalism is sort of a "useless feature" that needs to be exterminated from human character. That belief only comes out of ignorance, there are a lot of works on irrational philosophy made in the 20'th century. Humans are irrational by nature and rational behavior is a rare occurence. That's what really happens.
2 Inky
I want to live a good life. I don't want to live a "useful" life because that kills the point of living for me. And I won't, neither will many other people who know shit. I mean, if you don't have your own goals and don't pursue them, instead following the rationale (even not yours, but the "common rationale"), how can you even call yourself a human being? I can put a rock in place of you and it will do all the same thing - consume less power, take less space and consume less food. Well, it will be a little different, but then take a machine that does the same thing and here you are. Rationality is a tool. When someone makes a mistake and swaps the places of a tool and a cause, treating rationality as a virtue, absurd is being created. You strive to lose your sentience, well, good luck, but I won't be among the ones who sympathize for you.
And a small point about science - the fastest-developing areas of it are machinery and electronics. Not because they are the most important, but because people buy cars and computers. The funny thing is that those engineering researches spawn fundamental problems that, in their turn, lead to overall development of science. The same tech that was developed for high-end cars will be used to develop space ships and many other things (because high-end means high precision and high quality, technology-wise, it often means a qualitatively different approach instead of a quantitatively better one). But if people won't buy cars, this tech won't even be developed. You want to conserve. Cool, and I want to see the stars. You don't want cars, I want them because it makes my goals closer. It would be a "everyone has his opinion" situation if not for one thing - your position is passive and mine is active. Your ultimate solution is mass suicide (and, well, not making kids is somewhat disgusting, are you a man or what?), that is not a constructive position. You speak about pollution, about drought, starvation and "bad" things happening. But face it a different way - the world you know is going to change and you don't know what it changes to. Consequently, you fear this change. From this point of view, your position is not even a rational one (or, depending on how you look at it, the only perfectly rational) - it's fear in it's essence. Mixed with a small percentage of arrogance about how you really "understand" what will happen if you do certain things on a global level when in fact the world is developing so fast lately that noone really has a good understanding of what's ahead.
Funnily enough, I will actually benefit from your actions. I will have more stuff to eat, more gas to fill my tank with, a better apartment to occupy. So, all this text hardly comes from a desire to harm you in any way.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
imagine the planet and its resources as a giant ox
imagine each and everyone of us is pushing this ox off a cliff
imagine that when the ox is gone, most of us we will perish soon thereafter
you are suggesting, that your solution to this problem is to push less, in particular, that you personally will be pushing less - because it is the right thing to do
but is it effective? does it solve the problem? are there not other right things your could do? how many do you think will follow those suggestions you posted?
without children our species dies, who then is to have them? and how you chose who? and when?
surely there is better ways to reduce our ecological footprint, surely there are better ways to exert influence over the problem, surely there are more effective ways to be involved in finding solutions.
the ox is still being pushed, the cliff is still there.
surely there is a better way than resigning yourself to push less.
be a man not a mouse.
|
You kinda lost me when you said not to have babies, but you totally lost me when you told me to be a vegetarian. As physician put it so well above me, "pushing less" doesn't solve a problem.
|
I think this topis is very cool and you seem like a interesting individual imo, but I'm not sure I could commit like that.
Maybe I'm being totally selfish but we won't live that long really and well, unless something drastic (something really drastic which affects me personally) happens in my lifetime I won't probably change my ways and neither will most of the people on this earth.
I'd rather just enjoy myself as much as possible while I breath
I would get so fucking restless without stuff to do or no nifty gadgets
|
I saw the name of this blog and thought of the movie Serenity. Then I realized my inner geek is taking over my normal thoughts and got kind of despressed. Then I read the conversations in this blog and got even more depressed =[.
Some of the things you mention aren't really anything we can address on a person-by-person basis, though it's still beneficial to be aware of what's going on. Like the subject of overpopulation - I was under the impression that we're actually making less babies in the Western world right now than we have historically. Hence why we have all these stories of a 'labor crisis', etc., namely a lull in population numbers where we can't maintain our current economical pace due to limited manpower. Of course I'm not arguing in favor of wreckless economical development, but rather pointing out that many of us will not have babies whereas such a thing was a lot more rare in our parents'/grandparents' generations.
And I can't comment on the vegan/vegetarian thing. I live in Alberta, where we have the best beef in the world. Giving up meat in this region would be like a German giving up Beer. So obviously I haven't really done much research into the subject besides noting the poor health of the vegetarians I've dated over the years ;-). All I know is that maintaining good health on a meat-less diet takes more work, and I guess that's the underlining problem with all things you've proposed. We're human and we're lazy.
Now, on the subject of driving, this is definately something I can get behind and feel strongly about. But living in a place like Canada, let me say that getting around on one's bicycle isn't easy. I own two vehicles, but I still choose to ride my mountain bike to work each day and to most places I go. This in spite of the fact it's Canada, and it gets really cold here for most of the year. I've written a blog on TL in the past about the main reason it's tough to get by on a bike in most North American cities, and that's because our cities and towns are designed around the automobile and the idea that everyone will own their own car. So you get these spread-out urban areas, poor and underused public transport, and it all just perpetuates itself. I guess my point is that if I, a guy living in the frozen north in a city designed around cars, can ride his mountain bike, then no one else has an excuse =P.
Recycling... It blows my mind to go to major cities in the US and see absolutely no recycling program in place. Not only does recycling reduce the burden on landfills, but a system of bottle deposits also eliminates (for the most part) the eyesore and environmental burden posed by a littering culture. It blows my mind because you can go to any dick-water hick town in Canada and find a recycle bin next to the garbage can at the out-of-date, manual-pump, cash-only gas station. And while driving along the highway to get there, you won't see ditches filled with bottles and cans - hell, that's 5 cents you're throwing out the window! ;-). I don't know. I guess I've never understood why people don't get behind programs like this in so many 'enlightened' locales.
I don't buy the 'work-less' mentality. Not all work is 'soulless, mind numbing corporate labor', as you put it. Should doctors work less? Do you want to go to a hospital to mind one doctor on shift in the ER? Should the entrepreneur working to gain himself freedom from the 'mind numbing corporate labor' ignore his drive and the absolute requirement for dedication and time-commitment in order to spend more time in his drum-circle eating tofu? One great thing about our society is our ability to choose our own lives and work at them in the way we see fit - giving that up would be ridiculous. You seem to imply that everyone who wants to work for a living is doing so only because he wants to destroy the world. "Pay for quality" is a contradictory statement because quality costs more - and paying for quality requires more money and more work.
Anyways, my whole point is that it's ok to be an idealist but not at the expense of any and all reason. You can't just adopt a set package of beliefs simply because it all exists on the same side of the spectrum, as it appears you have. Some ideas you brought up are no-brainers. Should people not consume more than they need? Sure. Should people recycle more and drive less? That'd be fantastic. But people aren't going to burn down their houses, let their livestock go free, get stoned and throw on a poncho all in the same day. Hell, if someone wants to work hard in order to put his kids through university and give them a good life, why should he be looked down upon? For working too much? For giving his family a nice life? That's ridiculous.
It's so easy for us to sit in a position of comfort and point fingers at everybody else telling them 'they're doing it wrong' when some of us aren't even doing it at all. I dunno. I guess what I'm saying is that you bring up some stuff that is certainly important, but it loses its significance when you mix it in with so much overblown, farfetched, rhetorical kool-aid. If you want to change people's minds, the very worst thing you can do is become an extremist. No one will listen to you if they can't give you any credibility.
|
8748 Posts
On December 27 2007 23:29 BluzMan wrote:
2 NonY:
You sound like 20'th century didn't happen. Yes, in the early 1900's rationalistic concepts were very popular and people generally accepted rationalism as a virtue. But take marxism-leninism and study it - it's perfectly rational. Take theoretical nazism - it's perfectly rational. Rationality fails when it comes to society because the building brick of the society - a human being IS not rational on itself. We don't want to live "more rational lives". Most humans don't even know what they want. But even now it's somehow common to believe the irrationalism is sort of a "useless feature" that needs to be exterminated from human character. That belief only comes out of ignorance, there are a lot of works on irrational philosophy made in the 20'th century. Humans are irrational by nature and rational behavior is a rare occurence. That's what really happens.
I think I failed at fully specifying what I meant in my post since I agree with most of the things you just wrote. I was responding to the sentiment that if we follow our natural impulses and that leads us to the destruction of our species and/or our habitat, then we have nothing to be ashamed of because we were only acting in the way that nature made us. I simply disagree with that sentiment. The point I was trying to make is that if one guy acts 100% on impulse and another guy uses logic/rationality/consciousness etc before acting, then both of them are still acting completely human and natural. There is no escaping acting human and natural (natural meaning 'in the way nature made us'). So to me, it is meaningless to say that we shouldn't change the way we live just because the alternative doesn't seem natural. It is equally natural for us to change our behavior for rational reasons as it is to for us to keep doing our impulsive behavior.
Anyway, I don't believe in a formula for society that relies on every person acting 100% rationally. But I still believe that society has constantly improved itself through rational means. Many years ago, people realized that they can prosper better if they domesticate plants and animals and make settlements instead of being hunter-gatherers, but I doubt it felt "natural" to them to do so. They probably felt odd at first with such a change in lifestyle but it was a rational decision that was better for the long run. Society has constantly had such developments from then until now and I don't see the current environmental issue as fundamentally different.
I don't know what you mean exactly by "rational behavior is a rare occurence." Perhaps you're talking in some philosophical sense that I'm not familiar with. When I'm hungry and I have food and I decide to eat, that's rational. Not eating would be irrational. If I have mustard and I don't like mustard and so I decide to not put mustard on my food, that's rational. Using mustard would be irrational. When I'm tired and I want to go to sleep and I use my own bed, that's rational. Using a stranger's bed would be irrational. I think if you look at every action you make in a day and analyze whether you're making the rational choice or the irrational choice, you'll find that you act rationally most of the time. Most people do.
On December 28 2007 03:19 Physician wrote:
imagine the planet and its resources as a giant ox
imagine each and everyone of us is pushing this ox off a cliff
imagine that when the ox is gone, most of us we will perish soon thereafter
you are suggesting, that your solution to this problem is to push less, in particular, that you personally will be pushing less - because it is the right thing to do
but is it effective? does it solve the problem? are there not other right things your could do? how many do you think will follow those suggestions you posted?
without children our species dies, who then is to have them? and how you chose who? and when?
surely there is better ways to reduce our ecological footprint, surely there are better ways to exert influence over the problem, surely there are more effective ways to be involved in finding solutions.
the ox is still being pushed, the cliff is still there.
surely there is a better way than resigning yourself to push less.
be a man not a mouse.
To fix your analogy, the ox is pushing back and there is a point of equilibrium. Earth has a great capacity of sustainability but unfortunately we are pushing way past it. We can either get less people pushing the ox or we can get the current people to push with less force. It's just plain stupid to push the ox over the cliff in this situation but people are either greedy ("It won't happen in my lifetime!") or they're just ignorant of the situation. And due to the former, even if we got everyone to act rationally, we still might not save ourselves. And due to laziness, some people who know the situation and want to do their part still do not.
Here is the first link from googling earth's sustainability: Population, Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Capacity: A framework for estimating population sizes and lifestyles that could be sustained without undermining future generations. A scientific article from 1992!
|
Physician, welcome to my blog. It is the first time I have seen you here.
You criticize my methods, apparently for being too small scale and too individualistic.
The fact is, I cannot see any way of dealing with the modern environmental crisis that does not take into account the very things I have advocated in this thread. People must consume less resources, waste less and pollute less, and reproduce less. Everything I listed in this thread is a means to this general end.
So, what would you do differently? The only thing I can figure, is that you would go about accomplishing the things I recommended in a different way. You might recommend large scale political action - making systemic changes and so on. Fine, I agree with you on that, if that is what you believe. We should have large scale change. But that large scale change is going to result in the very same things I mentioned anyway.
To be clear, we should pursue systemic, large scale change. However, changing policy, institutions, organizations, etc, is a lot harder than changing oneself. It's not an either/or situation, but I am merely saying that we ought to not wait to change ourselves - let's do it now, while we work for larger change.
I think many people take my stance the wrong way, when I speak on this issue. They assume I am only about individual change. That is not correct. But I focus on individual change because this is something we can directly control. We could vote and lobby and so on (and we should), but doing those things is no guarantee of any change at all. If you change yourself, the change is guaranteed. And you can change yourself WHILE you vote, lobby, etc.
So, Physician, I ask again, what specifically about my post do you not agree with, except for the individualistic approach?
I know of NO way that increased consumption, population growth, and economic growth can continue in a world of FINITE RESOURCES. Any solution to the environmental crisis must address population growth, consumption, and economic growth. There is no other way.
|
Flaccid: I want to address your comment on population growth. I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the fact is, you are right, in developing nations, population growth is very small, with perhaps 2.5 or less children per woman (2.1 children per woman will hold the population steady.) Some nations (Japan, for example) are experiencing negative population growth.
People take this as a sign that the response to overpopulation should be economic development (rich countries have lower population growth.) This is EXTREMELY foolish. It is the developed nations which contribute so much to environmental degradation (far more than undeveloped nations.)
So, the point I want to bring to your attention is this: for an American to have even one child is the equivalent of an African having 20 children. So while population growth is low in developed nations, it is still a very significant problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
