|
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.
|
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.
|
Flaccid, welcome to the thread! Glad to have you here.
Flaccid says, "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 ;-)."
Be careful about judging vegetarianism negatively because you knew/know unhealthy vegetarians. To be sure, there are unhealthy vegetarians and vegans - I've been one, though I am healthy now. But this is no strike against vegetarianism. Indeed, there are millions of unhealthy meat eaters. A very meat-heavy diet is linked to many problems, including various cancers.
To be totally fair, I believe the most healthy diet for most humans would naturally include some meat (much less than most people of wealthy countries eat, however) and many vegetables and fruits, some grains, and lots of nuts and seeds.
Still, the argument remains, in terms of the wellbeing of the environment, and the use of resources, meat is very expensive. The less you can eat, the better.
I assure you, with some careful thought and research, a vegetarian or vegan diet can be VERY healthy. But you don't have to be vegetarian to eat much less meat than you presently do. Every step you take helps.
Flaccid says "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?"
You make a very good point. I agree with what you are saying here; we should distinguish between more and less important jobs, more and less fulfilling work, and so on. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Still, many jobs do contribute to the degradation of the environment as well as the murder or exploitation of people and other life. And many jobs are soulless and mind-numbing. Keep in mind that many of the worst jobs are not done in wealthy countries like Canada and America, yet Americans and Canadians benefit from this labor.
Also, modern labor tends to encourage excessive consumption, in large part because there is very little flexibility in the amount of work we can do. Some of the more realistic economists (Juliet Schor comes to mind) note that many workers would likely choose to work less if they could. Often people are offered a choice between full time (40+ hours per week) work, with benefits and high pay, or part time work with few or no benefits, and low pay. Clearly, given this situation, people will choose to work more, and engage in a high consumption lifestyle to compensate for the extra work that they otherwise might not have chosen.
Blah blah blah - what I am trying to say here is that we ought to merely be conscious of our work and consumption habits. Do we really WANT to work so much? If you have a great job, by all means do so (but please be responsible in your consumption habits). If not, one way to get around working so much is to embrace frugality and simple living.
I also wish people would consider the large scale implications of their jobs. Does your job help people? Does it help the environment? Or does it hurt people and the environment? I merely encourage people to be responsible.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
(btw it's think globally – act locally).
"So, Physician, I ask again, what specifically about my post do you not agree with, except for the individualistic approach? "
I don't agree with buy less and definitively don't agree with working less or making no babies. The other points I don't completely disagree, and some I agree wholeheartedly with - but still I have found better ways to offset my own negative ecological footprint. It's not that I am against some of the specific advice so much - but more than I am against the general idea suggested - which is to put our main focus on reducing our own personal negative ecological footprints without considering or suggesting the positive things we can do too - that might be far more important and valuable to the environment.
My ecological footprint is by no means humble but by investing wisely my time and money, fruits of my labor, I have done far more for the environment than I could though 100 lifetimes of pushing less.
"So, what would you do differently?"
A few examples -
+ Show Spoiler +i) I gave a small talk in a high school to different classes where I encouraged and convinced the students that they should take it upon themselves to organize recycling for the town we live in. I told them who they had to talk to, when, how to set up the organization, and how to fund it. All I did was share information and help organize it. Today our town has a decent recycling option that it never had - all because of a little information, someone willing to organize it, and to be honest very little of my time in this particular case. Do I recycle? Sometimes, but not always. Do I think it is a good thing? You bet. You can also bet that convincing my town to recycle offset 100 lifetimes of recycling myself.
ii) I have invested some of my money in companies that are focused on efficient renewable energy. I work as much as I can, not less, to earn more revenue, to be able to invest more money wisely, which in the end gives me more clout to do the "right" things. While you suggest our focus should be on working less and buying less - I rather focus on working more and investing money in the right places - not only to selfishly increase my own revenue but also to push more from the other side of the ox, away from the cliff. Who knows how much ecological good the money invested into new solar energy technology will end up giving us collectively? I am willing to bet that what I invest today, will multiply itself many folds in the future - far more than I could ever reduce my own personal negative ecological footprint.
iii) I bought myself some land in Southern Argentina and planted a shit load of trees, I don't want to say how many acres lest I be accused of bragging but suffice to say that the benefit those trees will do in my life time, will in comparison at least, make my own personal negative ecological footprint rather insignificant. Buying more ain't always bad. I don't plan on ever cutting any down any until I retire, and when I do - I will be cutting and replanting. I am also 100% sure wood will have a great price when I am ready to hang the gloves. I see it as part of my retirement fund if I am lucky enough to live long.
iv) Identifying waste cycles that can save organizations resources, time and money is a great way to multiplying your own worth on the positive ecological footprint scale. For example, in my own trade, I noticed once that a large government agency was sending patients 3 month supply of medication on their new prescriptions. Since there is a law against reusing medications once dispensed and there will always be at least a 5% rate of adverse effects or allergies, 3 months supply on a first time medication a patient was trying was crazy since that meant that many of those bottles of medications went to waste. If the government agency is doing this on say a million users, 50,000 of 3 month supply bottles of medications goes straight to the garbage, and every time they are prescribed a new medication, over and over again. All it took was one letter to the right people pointing out the problem, the potential money and resource saving and suggesting a solution - a first time 10 day supply of medications before sending the three month supply on any new medication prescribed to a patient. Who knows how many lifetimes I made up in negative ecological footprints with this example alone.
v) A final example - you made mention of buying local foods which I agree with in a lot of cases to be a good idea - but no matter how much local food you buy it won't make much of dent even in your own ecological footprint. I rather spend my time eating sushi brought from far away while at the same time convincing several schools to buying all their vegetables from local Mennonite farmers and all their milk from a local dairy. In fact, I did - I threw the idea out there with a few phone calls - people's self interest did the rest. What do you think is more important: 8 schools consuming local vegetables (and milk), or one person consuming local vegetables?
There is a million little things one can do to push that ox away from the cliff, instead of pushing less with the rest towards the cliff - and yes, even if you are pushing the ox towards the cliff too in other ways. Point is if you do things that push the ox away from the cliff, and they are more significant than your negative ecological footprint - your actively doing the "right thing". I really could go on and on with my own personal experiences but I am sure you get the idea.
My whole point is that pushing less, consuming less, doing less is just not enough man - thus my comment of are you a mouse or man? You have to go beyond that to make a difference - and of note, all my examples are things an individual did and none involved were large scale political action or activism.
"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."
Well, one can work on making the resources we have do more. One can make many soda cans today with the aluminum content of just one can made in the seventies - same goes for cars, weight for weight, a modern car uses much less resources than a car say from the fifties. You could also even add our use of land resources - we are able to produce today more crops than ever - on less land that before etc... You can also recycle more and more efficiently. The efficiency of resource use and its recycling will by no means halt, but continue evolving. And finally why settle for finite resources? Why not find new ones? Bacteria weren't considered much of a raw material resource one hundred years ago, today they are. And why settle for finite resources within our current grasp?
You forget the stars and our dreams.
The word "finite" with time, as our technology advances, may be pushed more to the "infinite". Who knows if we end up mastering fusion and energy becomes near free and ecologically friendly? With unlimited energy all is feasible. Who knows if we don't end up mining the moon, nearby asteroids and terraforming mars?
There is a part of me that really doesn't care a hoots ass how much we eat up our current resources, how much we pollute and how much we ruin our planet - because in the end, knowing human nature, the only way we will be motivated to leave our heavenly bubble prison, planet earth, is when it becomes unconformable enough to want to leave it, i.e. it becomes a bubble hell, and the "out there" starts becoming ever more attractive. We have all our eggs in one basket and that is a certain path toward our own extinction, albeit not as fast as not making more babies - so we really should be thinking about spreading our vile seed out there, i.e. making more babies and propagating beyond.
It does sadden me that it will at the cost of much of our genosphere. I fear we will not be wise enough, fast enough, to prevent that - and that will be our greatest loss, the loss of most of our own genosphere, assuming too that the loss will mean something to us because we were fortunate enough to survive ourselves. Still, odds are against us, even without our wrong doings if we resign ourselves to stay in one place. Anyway I am drifting off. Though my feet are both in the ground, my eyes are always wandering..
|
Physician, I truly do applaud you on your efforts and accomplishments.
I do not see anything in your post that shows where anything I have advocated here is incorrect - you point out things you do not like, but that does not make them wrong (you make some good points on work, but it must be acknowledged that much work does great harm globally, and so to blindly embrace a high-work lifestyle can be problematic, while some work can be very useful). Indeed, I think that the sort of approach you have taken perfectly compliments the things I advocate, and vice versa. This kind of dichotomy you seem to be pointing out is completley artificial. There is no conflict between our approaches. For the purposes of this thread, I have focused on individual action, for reasons already mentioned, but that does not mean large scale change shouldn't be an area of focus, and I'm glad you have brought up specific actions to take.
As I've said, I am 100% for systemic, large scale change, which is what you seem to focus on.
Anyway, to anyone reading this thread, I encourage you to read Physician's last post for specific ideas on how to help your community. I also encourage you to not be so quick to disregard the importance of individual responsibility. Both compliment each other and both are necessary.
I think the difference between Physician and I (potentially) is that I don't see any reason to stop at systemic change. I believe in responsibility on a global level, a societal level, and an individual level. To neglect any of these is very problematic.
|
Physician says: "Well, one can work on making the resources we have do more. One can make many soda cans today with the aluminum content of just one can made in the seventies - same goes for cars, weight for weight, a modern car uses much less resources than a car say from the fifties. You could also even add our use of land resources - we are able to produce today more crops than ever - on less land that before etc... You can also recycle more and more efficiently. The efficiency of resource use and its recycling will by no means halt, but continue evolving. And finally why settle for finite resources? Why not find new ones? Bacteria weren't considered much of a raw material resource one hundred years ago, today they are. And why settle for finite resources within our current grasp?
You forget the stars and our dreams."
--------------------------------------------
It is true that as technology develops, gains in efficiency are often realized. However, the gains in efficiency are usually nullified by the expansion of consumption and waste that result from the gain in efficiency. As an example, it is true that cars pollute less today and use less resources in their manufacture, but simultaneously, far more people drive today than in 1970, and even more people very much would like to drive (the Chinese are beginning to drive in greater and greater numbers). More often than not, more efficient use of resources leads to an even greater amount of consumption and waste. In the same way, adding lanes to existing streets will, in short time, make traffic even worse than it already was. This is a paradoxical effect, but it must be noted and understood if we are to address environmental problems.
What I said remains: There is no way the Earth can sustain growth in consumption, population, and resource use. It matters not how slow the growth is, a system of limited resources cannot sustain infinite growth. This is true whether we are considering Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the known universe.
You say I forget the stars and our dreams... What does this even mean? First of all, you say "our dreams." Who's dreams? Don't speak for me. If your dream is infinite expansion, growth, and consumption, then I don't share your dream. As to forgetting the stars.... I hardly have forgotten the stars, I just do not expect that colonization of space is a realistic solution to Earth's problems. The problems here on Earth are very large scale, they are going to get worse much faster than we can feasibly set up a colony anywhere. And last of all, if we can't take care of one tiny planet, how are we going to take care of a solar system or a galaxy?
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
argg ur way too reasonable and polite for these forums! I wish there were more like you.
There is nothing wrong with most of the suggestions you posted, except for the phrasing of working less and having no babies, there definitively can be more work without increasing one's ecological negative footprint, and our species can not survive without reproduction. I honestly believe and assume what you really meant - have less babies in general i.e. no more than 2 children per couple and doing less of the work that has negative ecological impact.
I sneakily understood (and agreed with) your points even though I argued them anyway - because I wanted to make the point that even more important than doing less of the negative, is doing more of the positive, thus my silly ox and cliff, mouse and man, metaphors.
Doing less ultimately will not increase our survival chances as a species - because of i) whether some like it or not we have to put our eggs on more than one basket - we are vulnerable as a species staying put in one place (planet) and ii) our very nature - we will reproduce, we will consume and we will grow, that is what life does, even intelligent life.
So ultimately while doing less might give buy us time while we subsist - only doing more of the positive on the other hand might will be our saving grace. It's merely an attitude issue I wanted to point out - yes of course "there is no conflict between our approaches", or at least very little, they both work on keeping that ox away from the cliff.
We can't also ignore that fact that likelihood that your suggestions will be adopted by others any time soon on a scale that makes any difference is zero - pretty much the same likelihood we will be terraforming Mars or colonizing space any time soon. But both, when the pressure of lack of resources increases, will happen to certain degrees.
As it is to day 1/7th of all our collective work ends up in military expenditure and who know how much more of our work is outright waste from any perspective. It is unfortunate that we humans will only get our priorities right only when forced too. I am pretty sure that when the equator temperatures start reaching 140 F in mid day and we end up freezing our planet trying to correct it, we will be more willing to accept changes our attitude and priorities.
In the meanwhile I will do my little part and enjoy good life while it lasts. Anyway your main point is advocating that we must take responsibility of our negative ecological footprint. I could not agree with you more on this core issue.
|
Thanks Physician, one can't be accused of being too reasonable and polite often enough. All of your posts here are appreciated, especially your second one, in which you outline several methods you have used to help the environment.
I understand your primary critique and appreciate it - it is valid. You are pointing out the difference between positive and negative thinking. Rather than thinking about what we don't want, you are saying we should think about what we do want. There is that famous problem in which you are instructed to NOT think of the blue elephant. What do you think of? The blue elephant, of course. The way to not think about the blue elephant is to actively think about something else - a red fairy, or something. This is positive thinking.
Still, we need to know what we are doing wrong so that we can correct it, so this thread can serve that purpose to an extent.
I do intend to write more about the "positive" approaches to environmental and social problems. Flaccid wrote a very nice PM to me in which he spoke of emphasizing DOING things over OWNING things. This is a positive change that needs to happen in society. Rather than placing so much emphasis on possessions, people should place more emphasis on things like community, relationships, and meaningful work (work can indeed be very important! I admit it!), which are arguably far more fulfilling than consumerism anyway.
At any rate, you are right Physician, however we approach this issue, there are great difficulties. Still, change is not impossible, and the sooner we realize that (I think you and I do realize it), the sooner positive change can begin. One reason I advocate personal change is that it is relatively easy to make changes to yourself. IT is easy to eat less meat this week than last. It is easy to bicycle a little more often. When you begin making changes such as this, it can lead to a positive attitude; a realization that change is in fact possible. If I can do it, anyone can.
Thanks again.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
|
I am interested in peak oil, Physician. However, I am also on dialup, which makes movies very problematic for the Inklar~
Peak oil means some serious problems for modern societies, and some researchers believe that world wide oil production peaked a year ago (maybe a little irresponsible to make that claim so soon, but...)
Whatever the case, peak oil is sure to have happened anywhere from, say, 2005 to 2015.
All the more reason to get used to riding a bicycle.
As to bicycles and their "impracticality," let me say this: I know a 59 year old man who relies purely on the bicycle for transportation. Every weekend, for fun and exercise, he rides from his home all the way to the Sandia Mountains (here in New Mexico), climbs the entire mountain to the peak (on foot), then climbs back down, then rides back home. Round trip: 50 miles! (takes about 7 hours, I think) He does this even in the winter. Oh, and his bicycle is a *single speed* beach cruiser!
Personally, I bicycle for most of my transportation, and routinely ride 10 or 15 miles, even in below freezing weather (I went for a nice long ride up to the mountains on Christmas, in fact.) You have to work up to greater distances, but it becomes easy, and very gratifying. I feel better than ever, now that I am in shape and used to regular riding.
Most people who are afraid to bicycle simply do not know their own strength. Humans are tough animals.
50 percent of all car trips are under 5 miles, and cars pollute the most in the first few miles they are driven. *5 miles* This is a seriously easy and fun distance for a bicycle trip.
Might as well get used to biking. Peak oil is upon us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
