Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Most so called humans require regular supervision

Sensible behaviour producing multiple benefits is too challenging for the modern individual humanzee.

Quote
The textile recycling industry is one of the first recycling industries to be formed. Given the maturity of this industry it is very, very efficient. In fact, approximately 93% of all textile waste diverted to recycling is successfully reclaimed with about 35% going out as used clothing, 33% as reprocessed fibers (filler in vehicle seats and, upholstery, insulation, etc), 25% is converted to cloth wipes and 7% to landfill.

The interesting thing is that there is massive demand for used clothing, reprocessed fibers and cloth wipes. The recycling industry cannot get its hands on enough material to keep up with this demand. However, the recycling industry reclaims only 15% of the total textile waste that is produced. So what about that additional 85% that goes straight to landfill? Well the tragedy is that over 90% of that textile waste is perfectly recyclable. It just never gets to the recycling companies.

http://www.eartheasy.com/blog/2010/05/lets-keep-clothing-out-of-our-landfills/

What's so sensible about mandatory recycling? It's a false solution. Recycled materials need to be picked up in trucks, then moved to depot, then to factory. Paper and textile need to be bleached, there's still a lot of pollution going on. And besides the recycling industry always complains about lack of donations, that's because their companies thrive on donations. More people who donate used crap = prices go down for them to get ground material and their profits go up. You were dead on about cannibalizing people, now you talk about recycling as if it's not only a solution but the people who can't see that are part of the problem. Have a donut dude, I just had one.

What's so sensible about mandatory recycling? It's a false solution. Recycled materials need to be picked up in trucks, then moved to depot, then to factory. Paper and textile need to be bleached, there's still a lot of pollution going on. And besides the recycling industry always complains about lack of donations, that's because their companies thrive on donations. More people who donate used crap = prices go down for them to get ground material and their profits go up. You were dead on about cannibalizing people, now you talk about recycling as if it's not only a solution but the people who can't see that are part of the problem. Have a donut dude, I just had one.


Do you think that in a reduced population scenario, recycling should continue to be a process (if not on a large scale, on a small scale)? I'm of the belief that if you're going to use something, use it to the furthest extent that is possible before throwing it away, if you even need to throw it away.

Do you think that in a reduced population scenario, recycling should continue to be a process (if not on a large scale, on a small scale)? I'm of the belief that if you're going to use something, use it to the furthest extent that is possible before throwing it away, if you even need to throw it away.

Hypothetically yes. But recycling is not a magic solution. For the most part it's simply practical to make as much use of a material as possible. But recycling as a byproduct of mass production is just as much a solution as everybody taking public transport instead of driving cars is. It decreases the quality of life and brings everybody down to the same level. I'm definitely against mandatory recycling in this day and age even though I'm not against the concept of reusing materials in a sensible way. The concept of recycling is something that liberals from the seventies have brainwashed the next generation with into thinking that somehow it will stop pollution, I'd dare say it's become overrated by now. "What shall we do with all this waste? Hey let's recycle it and just live in each others garbage. We can now buy more plastic products because we can simply recycle them! Hurray! Problem solved!"

And what do recycling companies do with the stuff they collect? They might just send it to China where it's left to rot. So please excuse my skepticism, recycling may look very good on paper but in reality it often turns out to be a nightmare as do most supposed environmental solutions. Companies recycling their own waste and having to pay less taxes because they reduced their waste? Fine with me. Heavily subsidized organizations that promise miracles if you'll just send them your old used products? They're charlatans living off other people's fears.

Materials like aluminium should obviously be recycled. But the benefits of recycling paper, coal ash or certain cheap sources of rubber are highly debatable. The whole "recycling craze" is controversial.

If you can find a way to reuse materials in your own house (for instance wood or old computer parts) then by all means do so. But don't hand your garbage over to some company thinking you're making a big difference. There's a good chance you're only making things worse.

Even if recycling does sux, I'm sure we can agree that:
- sensible behaviour producing multiple benefits is too challenging for the modern individual humanzee, and
- most so called humans require regular supervision.

Even if recycling does sux, I'm sure we can agree that:
- sensible behaviour producing multiple benefits is too challenging for the modern individual humanzee, and
- most so called humans require regular supervision.

Absolutely not. Either you're not being serious or you didn't think it through very much. Why on earth would you want to supervise every individual in society? Do you realize the costs and what kind of society you're actually arguing for that way?

Most so called humans require a bullet in the back of the head. It's simple: humans produce waste, there's too many humans and so there's too much human waste. No scientific solution is going to change that, at most we might find a new planet to colonize and rape.

Recycling doesn't suck, it's just not a real solution against pollution caused by overpopulation. The only real solution is less people.

I don't think he meant that every human SHOULD HAVE supervision, I think he meant that they NEED it. They don't deserve it.

Also, I agree with your views on recycling. The amount of fossil fuels used to recycle stuff is really unnecessary. Small scale recycling (by individuals) should be practiced. Just look at what people did with those worthless AOL trial CDs back in the late 1990s. Finer drink coasters were hard to come by.

Even if recycling does sux, I'm sure we can agree that:
- sensible behaviour producing multiple benefits is too challenging for the modern individual humanzee, and
- most so called humans require regular supervision.

Absolutely not. Either you're not being serious or you didn't think it through very much. Why on earth would you want to supervise every individual in society? Do you realize the costs and what kind of society you're actually arguing for that way?

Most so called humans require a bullet in the back of the head. It's simple: humans produce waste, there's too many humans and so there's too much human waste. No scientific solution is going to change that, at most we might find a new planet to colonize and rape.

Recycling doesn't suck, it's just not a real solution against pollution caused by overpopulation. The only real solution is less people.

You're perhaps taking things too literally...
However what I think we do need is a more efficient society, which probably means that the smarter people have to 'supervise' the activities of the rest of society (on a broader level, not every single person... maybe with enough bullets we could do this too?). Overpopulation amplifies problems, but shouldn't be treated as the only cause of fail. e.g. An inefficient society may be sustainable with a population of X,  but if we have better organisation and utilisation of resources, we could up this sustainable level to 2X.


Supervision could mean better design quality. Cities that take better advantage of vertical space rather than sprawling all over the countryside is but one example.

The modern idea:

We're all equal, which requires us to do away with culture and hierarchy, and replace it with Nanny-cum-totalitarian cops.

Like cattle, ample grazing space is designed in, but there's a fence all around. The cattle on the ranch remain oblivious to the barrier's purpose like a pinball in a game machine is unaware of yet affected by a pneumatic bumper. The livestock then never wander off. The pinball keeps rolling and racking up points. Purpose is then maintained with room for wandering without decaying into a consistetly pointless state.

So what about that additional 85% that goes straight to landfill? Well the tragedy is that over 90% of that textile waste is perfectly recyclable. It just never gets to the recycling companies.

http://www.eartheasy.com/blog/2010/05/lets-keep-clothing-out-of-our-landfills/

Partial truth alert: there's probably something else afoot here.

Possible cases:

1. That additional material is far from the recycling plants, and therefore too expensive to ship.
2. Producing textiles is so cheap that adding that recycling could lower profits.
3. It may not be as easily recycled as they'd like to think.
4. Recycling may be more cost or energy intensive than portrayed.

Articles like this used to make my blood boil, until I realized that's what they are -- the liberal version of the Two Minutes' Hate.

Kind of like what's going on with BP now. Oil spills happen. Yes, they suck; almost certainly, incompetence was involved. But that incompetence was there before the accident and it didn't bother us then. What does that tell us about our attitude toward oil spills?

Answer: the symbol is more important than the reality (if you don't fix incompetence, there will always be accidents).

At a guess, recycled clothes would probably get packed into shipping containers bound for sweatshops in Guatemala or Pakistan. The shipping container system itself is proven as global trade goes, if you're into that sort of thing. The alternative is to keep expanding our anthrogenic biomes into what was formerly wilderness so that we could meet the constant demand for new clothing.


Recycling doesn't suck, it's just not a real solution against pollution caused by overpopulation. The only real solution is less people.


I don't think anyone's arguing that recycling in of itself is a solution. It's simply a method of lessening the impact of environmental degridation. Whether in the end it only buys us a coulple more months, or a couple more decades, before eventual population collapse, it's still worthwhile in my book. I'd rather die in ten years time than tommorrow.

Moreover, you're confusing the implementation of recycling with the concept of recycling. Yeah, powerful organisations, governments, and people in general are going about recycling the wrong way. Admitting to that, however, is very different to condemning recycling as a viable practice. You conceeded that recycling can be effective within the home - and therefore, that individual human beings are quite capable of implementing recycling themselves. Thus problems comes into effect when recycling is carried out past the point where everyone involved in the process knows what's going on. The solution, therefore, would be to simplify the procedure - for instance, centralise the control of recycling in individual countries, or locales - and to create more transparency with regards to the manner in which the procedure is carried out.

Let's stop getting bottlenecked into select particulars du jour and address the problem generally.

The popular modern democratic assumption is liberty by default without any obligation. This smacks of anarchy and failure. The results?

Quote
we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free- enterprises

An alternative is liberty granted on the condition that duty, which is functionally system maintenance, is honored. If duty is betrayed, liberty is then denied. Other things in life work this way because reality works this way.

Take automobile liberties for example. They're a method for getting us around quickly. But there are many duties attached to this liberty, yet it's only some adolescent males with dad's car keys handy who revolt against the obligation side. What duties are built in to driving liberties that must be met that if neglected we are soon stuck walking again? Demonstrated skill with licensing. Road usage taxes. Car maintenance. Abiding by traffic customs and public courtesies. Refueling.

Here's an environmentalist statement synthesizing liberty (property control) with duty (conservation), an equation pointing us away from unchecked growth and failure alike.

Quote
In Islam, man has been granted stewardship, but nature belongs to God.

Quote
Because of misinterpretation of Bible texts and the creation story of Genesis, many Christians have presumed that man is superior to animals and nature, and altogether separate. However, in the Christian tradition, as in Islam, men are stewards of nature. Therefore, Christians are charged with protecting nature as trustees of the Creator.

http://blog.enn.com/?p=288