Is recycling just a load of BS?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, that's open to some discussion. Technologically speaking, arguments could be made about whether it meants pre-agricultural society, pre-metalurgy, or something else. But in practical terms, what it means is living in-sync with the world around us instead of in competition against it.

The very aim of environmentalism and sustainable development is precisely to make urban societies in synch with the natural world. Making human society a part of the ecosystem, in other words.

I guess you don't believe in that idea.

I think Ludd has a different meaning "for in the synch with the natural world" than you do. Its not just a matter of a sustainable level of green house gas output, or something like that. He doesnt like the whole unnatural nature of modern living. At some level I think he has a valid point, but like a lot of folks who takes a valid concern with the alienation in modern life and creates what I think is a subconscious wish fulfillment scenario of societal collapse. The carrying capacity of the planet will be the fairy godmother that rescues us from the rat race, from class society, from states, from concrete, from noise, from whathaveyou.

[Dis]

and Ludd doesn't realize technology will solve all our problems. Unless of course, we run out of oil.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dis
and Ludd doesn't realize technology will solve all our problems. Unless of course, we run out of oil.

At what price per barrel of oil will solar, wind, etc be economical in even more places than they already are.

Maybe you should head out to Boulder City and see this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

If you can spare the gasoline, that is. Or maybe you could bike there?

[Dis]

I could bike there if I was in better shape (and was more suicidal). I think it's about 30 miles away.

I'll have to check that out. I never heard of it. I may do some hiking out there (winter is the best time to do hiking in the lower hills).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Not by magic at all.

Right now, if all tech disappeared (or all post HG tech, or all post 1750 tech) we'd face mass starvation immediately - we can support 6 billion NOW, forget about sustainability, without modern tech.

I'm completely aware of this - I've already said as such. I'm not talking about sustainability of the status quo, I'm talking about sustainability of all life - I'm talking about the rapid rates of extinction, the disapearing eco-systems, the irradiation and intoxication of the global environment.

But for the first time in eons, global population growth is SLOWING. Cause of magic? No. Cause of trends within society, including changing roles of women, urbanization, and the availability of birth control technology.

It is only slowing in the western world, and there is no reason to believe that it will remain this way because, as you said, it's largely a cultural phenoma (and is as susceptible as going away as it was to happen) The estimate seems to be that the population will level out at 9 billion (Although I do not believe the population level will ever stop climbing unless it is as a result of famine, disease, war, and pollution)

Now we can look at what technology, combined with good policy decisions, can do. Its got nothing to with listening to men in lab coats, its doing our own social and economic analysis.

If you want to look at what technology and policies can do, go to africa. It's easy to be under the illusion that everything is all fine and dandy if you live in the west and have all your material comforts and media to lose yourself in, but if you're one of the people who live in the places that face the consequences of the technology and policies of the west, things don't look so good.

It's like pointing at a medieval court and saying "look what feudalism can do! isn't it grand?"

Resource shortages are self-correcting. Price goes up, people use less.

Translation: When resources run out, they're gone and people can no longer access them. I don't know where the "correction" part comes in.

Pollution is a more difficult problem cause of the tragedy of the commons - everyone can pour filth into the air, which no one owns. So policy is needed. The question there is whether policy thats late is too late - and I think the jurys out on that one.

Policy means very little. Having someone say that such and such level of poison is deamed exceptable doesn't stop it from being poison. And it doesn't stop corporations from finding loopholes or ignoring policy altogether, either.

In any case you surely wont solve global warming by blowing up dams. And doing all the small things is likely to help.

You won't stop global warming from blowing up a dam, but you will stop the river from dying, the fish from dying, and the connected forests from turning to dessert. Assuming, of course, that you can also stop the dam from being rebuilt, the logging companies, the factories dumping pollution into the river, and the factories all around the world creating acid rain. The most effective argument for direct action that I have seen is one of sustained guerrila warfare targeting all levels of society simultaneously and consistently - not just blowing up a single dam, or seting an SUV dealership on fire.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dis
But I agree with them about the paper. Paper is biodegradable (though the ink is hazardous, but that is unavoidable). So who cares if we fill up landfills with paper.

I wish I could remember what show I saw it on but they dug into a landfill and came out with newspapers from the mid-1950's that were still readable.

[Dinner]

I've seen lots of those. The preservation which occurs in an anoxic environment is amazing.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by General Ludd


I'm completely aware of this - I've already said as such. I'm not talking about sustainability of the status quo, I'm talking about sustainability of all life - I'm talking about the rapid rates of extinction, the disapearing eco-systems, the irradiation and intoxication of the global environment.

It is only slowing in the western world,


LOTM - Nope. Its slowing across east asia, in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and more recently in China, and Thailand, and Indonesia. even in India. Also in Brazil, and Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America. The only places that have resisted the trend, till recently, were the core muslim world (by which I exclued marginal places like Indonesia and Turkey) and Subsaharan Africa. But in the last decade birth rates have declined in Tunisia, in Egypt, and IIUC in Pakistan. Basically the only part of the world thats resisted the trend is sub-saharan africa, and even there there are a few bright spots.


"and there is no reason to believe that it will remain this way because, as you said, it's largely a cultural phenoma (and is as susceptible as going away as it was to happen) "

LOTM - I doubt it.

" The estimate seems to be that the population will level out at 9 billion (Although I do not believe the population level will ever stop climbing unless it is as a result of famine, disease, war, and pollution) "

You can believe what you wish to believe.


"If you want to look at what technology and policies can do, go to africa. It's easy to be under the illusion that everything is all fine and dandy if you live in the west and have all your material comforts and media to lose yourself in, but if you're one of the people who live in the places that face the consequences of the technology and policies of the west, things don't look so good. "

Africa is in the worst shape of any region in the world - largely technology and capital have gone elsewhere, while population continues to grow.

"It's like pointing at a medieval court and saying "look what feudalism can do! isn't it grand?""

No, its more like looking at europe in 1200, looking at the growing trade of the medieval cities, and saying "look at what feudalism has given birth to, aint it grand" The institutions of those pioneering cities are whats driven the improvement of human life for the last 800 years. Youre the one who wants to toss those institutions and attitudes, and RETURN to those of the middle ages.


"Translation: When resources run out, they're gone and people can no longer access them. I don't know where the "correction" part comes in."

A. Subsitution of alternatives B. Technologies that economize on use C. Rationing by price of whats left, to minimize impact.

"Policy means very little. Having someone say that such and such level of poison is deamed exceptable doesn't stop it from being poison."

It might limit it to sustainable levels. If your objection to poison is moral, that its poison and therefore wrong, I see your point. Partly. But if your real concern is sustainability, then there may be acceptable levels. And since when is CO2, per se, a poison? Its a danger ONLY in unacceptable levels. Thats the policy that is most urgent.


" And it doesn't stop corporations from finding loopholes or ignoring policy altogether, either."


Yeah, and you give explosives to a pal to blow up a dam, and he might sell them and buy a playstation. Humans are fallible and corrupt. You pass policies to improve things. And you address loopholss and compliance problems as they come up.


"You won't stop global warming from blowing up a dam, but you will stop the river from dying, the fish from dying, and the connected forests from turning to dessert. "

you can manage dams to avoid that.

By the way, do you know that the forest cover in North America is greater than it was a century ago?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
By the way, do you know that the forest cover in North America is greater than it was a century ago?

Penn said this, and now you've said it too, and I'd really like a source for this interesting tidbit.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Penn said this, and now you've said it too, and I'd really like a source for this interesting tidbit.

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/spring95/Land.html

Forests
At the time of European settlement, forest covered about half of the present 48 states. The greater part lay in the eastern part of the country, and most of it had already been significantly altered by Native American land-use practices that left a mosaic of different covers, including substantial areas of open land.

Forest area began a continuous decline with the onset of European settlement that would not be halted until the early twentieth century. Clearance for farmland and harvesting for fuel, timber, and other wood products represented the principal sources of pressure. From an estimated 900 million acres in 1850, the wooded area of the entire U.S. reached a low point of 600 million acres around 1920 (Fig. 1). It then rose slowly through the postwar decades, largely through abandonment of cropland and regrowth on cutover areas, but around 1960 began again a modest decline, the result of settlement expansion and of higher rates of timber extraction through mechanization. The agricultural censuses recorded a drop of 17 million acres in U.S. forest cover between 1970 and 1987 (though data uncertainties and the small size of the changes relative to the total forest area make a precise dating of the reversals difficult). At the same time, if the U.S. forests have been shrinking in area they have been growing in density and volume. The trend in forest biomass has been consistently upward; timber stock measured in the agricultural censuses from 1952 to 1987 grew by about 30%.

National totals of forested area again represent the aggregation of varied regional experiences. Farm abandonment in much of the East has translated directly into forest recovery, beginning in the mid- to late nineteenth century (Fig. 2). Historically, lumbering followed a regular pattern of harvesting one region's resources and moving on to the next; the once extensive old-growth forest of the Great Lakes, the South, and the Pacific Northwest represented successive and overlapping frontiers. After about 1930, frontier-type exploitation gave way to a greater emphasis on permanence and management of stands by timber companies. Wood itself has declined in importance as a natural resource, but forests have been increasingly valued and protected for a range of other services, including wildlife habitat, recreation, and streamflow regulation

[CrONoS]

@Lorizael

It was also reported in a scientific journal : Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.

All the rich country have seen their surface occupied by forest, growing between 1990 and 2005. Except Canada, where it remain the same.

The situation of the forest are more critical in Brezil and Indonesia.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It is only slowing in the western world, and there is no reason to believe that it will remain this way because, as you said, it's largely a cultural phenoma (and is as susceptible as going away as it was to happen) The estimate seems to be that the population will level out at 9 billion (Although I do not believe the population level will ever stop climbing unless it is as a result of famine, disease, war, and pollution)

Since any reduction in consumption would likewise be a cultural phenoma why do you place so much faith in it as the answer to all of our environmental woes?

[SlowwHand]

I see recycled bull**** all the time in the lawn and garden department.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I do.

The vast majority of the world currently lives in the poverty and squalor of the present. I'm all for shutting down civilization and living in sync with the world around us - as we have for practically all of human history (except these last 8000 years or so, which is nothing). But it doesn't really matter if we want this or not. Civilization simply is not sustainable, and it never will be. It's not a question of if it will collapse, but when. And the longer it is prolonged the more catastrophic the collapse will be, and less vitality there will be left in the environment to sustain post-civilization life.

But there are various ways how to live in synch with our environment. Obviously your ecological footprint will be extremely low if you decide to live on your own in a hut somewhere in the Rocky Mountains hunting dear with a crossbow or something. However, the environment can cope with a little bit more than that, and the point is to find that exact level in which we as humans have a decent amount of comfort, whilst remaining in balance with our environment.

Of course, this is impossible with the current world population and more importantly human attitude. You're also right that we need to change our lifestyles of shipping everything all over the world simply because it's cheaper. Alas that's not going to change as long as our economy stays the way it is so yes recycling is not enough, but it's better than nothing at all.

[Dis]

and why shouldn't humans make a footprint? The damn mountain goats make trails up in the mountains in my area all the time. Don't they think about the poor plants they are killing by eating and trampling everything?