PDA

View Full Version : for those who claim to truly care... ;-p


vitz
08/26/2013, 07:45 AM
if getting rid of your car, or stopping driving using combustion engines of any kind, was the only way to save reefs worldwide. would you be willing to do it ?

i'm presenting this more as a 'food for thought' post, as opposed to seeing what folks say to justify their lifestyle vs. their professed 'caring' about the reefs ;)

mayjong
08/26/2013, 05:05 PM
if i could get rid of MY car, and save the worlds reefs. i would absolutley get rid of my car.

atreis
08/27/2013, 05:56 PM
Yes!

Good public transit that doesn't use engines (electric trains and street cars, ala the Netherlands) would obviously need to be in place. People have to get around.

Of course, good public transit would be good for other reasons too!

DgenR8
08/27/2013, 07:17 PM
Yes!

Good public transit that doesn't use engines (electric trains and street cars, ala the Netherlands) would obviously need to be in place. People have to get around.

Of course, good public transit would be good for other reasons too!

Just to play Devil's advocate....
You do understand that the electricity to power those electric trains and street cars is still going to be produced by burning fossil fuels, right?

Twistofer
08/27/2013, 07:29 PM
Just to play Devil's advocate....
You do understand that the electricity to power those electric trains and street cars is still going to be produced by burning fossil fuels, right?

Nothing in life is free. There will always be an impact somewhere, some how...

We are all interconnected.

mikecc67548
08/27/2013, 07:30 PM
Nothing in life is free. There will always be an impact somewhere, some how...

We are all interconnected.

Stardust

Whiterabbitrage
08/27/2013, 07:36 PM
:celeb2:
Never owned a car. Never wanted to. Just live near my job and walk or bike.
Join me!

Spyderturbo007
08/27/2013, 10:11 PM
What's was that bumper sticker I saw awhile back....oh yeah, "Save the world, kill yourself".

:lmao:

Whiterabbitrage
08/27/2013, 10:17 PM
Wow, that's pretty hardcore. If I kill myself, who'll take care of my tank?!
:beer:

Whiterabbitrage
08/27/2013, 10:22 PM
Btw what do you drive Vitz? And would you give it up?

Epicreefer
08/28/2013, 12:20 AM
I would hands down but there is the issue of paying my bills. Probably 75% of my gas goes to getting me to taking care of some "artificial" reef housing mostly aqua cultured corals grown with co2 emissions power. My income is about as important to me as getting your kids to school, buying groceries and having a 70 degree house 365 days a year is to you.

I would expect consumer goods(all that glass, plastic and wiring in your aquarium, tv, computer, food packaging/transport, and furniture) and electrical usage is far higher in co2 emissions than cars, especially in years to come. Of course I'm a hypocrite just the same, for now at least...

DgenR8
08/28/2013, 08:10 AM
I'm not trying to say there's no reason to try, just that your efforts should be directed to where they can do some good.
I work 4:00AM to noon almost 40 miles east of my house. I COULDN'T count on public transportation to get me to work. I've always felt that owning a car in my part of the world to be a necessity. Go 30 miles west, and you're in NYC where public transportation runs 24/7 and can get you to within a couple blocks of anywhere. Realize though, that public transportation moves the great unwashed masses, the more people using it, the worse it stinks. Even if I could count on public transportation, I'm not so sure that I'd be willing to give up my car and put myself through that on a daily basis. BAH, who am I kidding? There's no way, with the current situation being what it is that I'd give up my car, or at least my own personal form of transportation that goes when I'm ready, and comes back when I want it to.
If you're looking for a real solution, stripping people of their cars ain't it.

power boat jim
08/28/2013, 08:29 AM
If the rest of the world would just adopt the same water and air pollution standards the U.S. has to play by it would be a good start in curbing at least a few environmental problems.

spieszak
08/28/2013, 08:35 AM
Just to play Devil's advocate....
You do understand that the electricity to power those electric trains and street cars is still going to be produced by burning fossil fuels, right?

+1 I understand that they can do more the limit the impact in a "central location", but the standards aren't good enough to ensure it. There is a bonus in the switch though, since a central supply can be changed without every car changing.
We do things with best intentions. Force everyone to CFL bulbs, its a great energy savings. Of course, don't put a recycling plan in place, nor notify people they need to recycle the bulbs (which is in most places a consumer cost) and the mercury filling the land fills dooms us all anyway.
We need to clean up our acts some, regardless of your stance on "man made" global warming. But if we aren't doing it in a responsible way there is no gain.

DgenR8
08/28/2013, 08:38 AM
If the rest of the world would just adopt the same water and air pollution standards the U.S. has to play by it would be a good start in curbing at least a few environmental problems.



There's no way you can count on that happening. People in the states think the whole world is like America. People are starving, unclothed and homeless all over the world. They are surrounded in filth and waste. Do you really think they care about what we see as beautiful and desirable? They'd eat every single one of those corals if they could.

power boat jim
08/28/2013, 08:50 AM
There's no way you can count on that happening. People in the states think the whole world is like America. People are starving, unclothed and homeless all over the world. They are surrounded in filth and waste. Do you really think they care about what we see as beautiful and desirable? They'd eat every single one of those corals if they could.

Very true, and I have no hope of what I mention happening anytime soon. Thats why I dont think any small steps we take to curb emissions any further will actually matter. We are at a point of diminishing returns on the automobile especially. There are other industrialized nations of the world that need to be at the same level (or better) of pollution control we are but thats not likely to happen.

Joe0813
08/28/2013, 10:25 AM
I wouldn't give up my car... I love building race cars and modding cars. I don't think I could give it up

Timfish
08/28/2013, 12:54 PM
We will never get rid automobiles. Advances are continually being made with biofuels. One of the more intriguing is butinol which has a much higher energy density than currently used ethanol and will work as a direct replacement for gasoline. A good website is greencarcongress.com

DragKnee
08/28/2013, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't give up my car... I love building race cars and modding cars. I don't think I could give it up

+1

American Muscle and Sport Bikes. Love them, will never give them up. Gas prices went over $5/gal, still didn't make me give up my 8MPG car.

Joe0813
08/28/2013, 08:01 PM
+1

American Muscle and Sport Bikes. Love them, will never give them up. Gas prices went over $5/gal, still didn't make me give up my 8MPG car.


Love american muscle... my next project is a 02 trans am ws6 with a 6speed. I have a 06 gsxr 600 with full exhaust , power commander and a tune.
I also have a grand Prix Gtp with xp cam, comp lifters, comp push rods, full intercooler , ported and polished supercharger.... not a v8 but it runs 12s.... really want a chevelle ss

ormet
08/29/2013, 06:58 AM
If the rest of the world would just adopt the same water and air pollution standards the U.S. has to play by it would be a good start in curbing at least a few environmental problems.

Well ... our reefs are threatened mainly by ocean acidification and rising temperatures. What drives global warming and acidification? Carbon dioxide emissions from fossile fuels.

What country is at the absolute top of emissions per capita? North america, with about 20 tons of CO2-eq each year compared to the world average of 4 tons.

So with a little bit of luck the rest of the world will not follow in your footsteps.

power boat jim
08/29/2013, 07:10 AM
Well ... our reefs are threatened mainly by ocean acidification and rising temperatures. What drives global warming and acidification? Carbon dioxide emissions from fossile fuels.

What country is at the absolute top of emissions per capita? North america, with about 20 tons of CO2-eq each year compared to the world average of 4 tons.

So with a little bit of luck the rest of the world will not follow in your footsteps.

Thats not the entire story, We have the tightest emission laws anywhere. Most cars on the road in other countries cant even be imported here in part due to the fact they wont meet the federal emissions standards. I wont start on the differences between us and the rest of the world regarding whats discharged into waterways and out of industrial smoke stacks. The rest of the world is very lax compared to the U.S when it comes to pollution standards and enforcemnt of such.They have made us out to be the bad guy in all this when tail pipe for tail pipe/smoke stack per smoke stack our emissions are cleaner then nearly anyone.

jerpa
08/29/2013, 07:34 AM
Well ... our reefs are threatened mainly by ocean acidification and rising temperatures. What drives global warming and acidification? Carbon dioxide emissions from fossile fuels.

What country is at the absolute top of emissions per capita? North america, with about 20 tons of CO2-eq each year compared to the world average of 4 tons.

So with a little bit of luck the rest of the world will not follow in your footsteps.

According to these sources, and several others, your numbers are very far off. This is a European source so I doubt there is a positive US bias. As of 2011 China produces almost double the total CO2 as the US and the US is not the highest per capita producer.

Total production (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2011&sort=des9)

Per Capita (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011&sort=des9)

ormet
08/29/2013, 07:42 AM
Yes, to be totally honest the figures i found was 10 years old. The US is still top 10 per capita tho.

As a swede it is my god given right, no my duty!, to adopt a holier then thou attitude ;)

atreis
08/29/2013, 05:34 PM
Just to play Devil's advocate....
You do understand that the electricity to power those electric trains and street cars is still going to be produced by burning fossil fuels, right?

Two things here:

1. Public transportation is a lot more efficient, in terms of energy consumption per person-mile, than people driving personal cars as individuals. (Carpools, if the car is full, can come close, but most people don't do this.) While the energy for it does have to come from somewhere, the total consumption is significantly less.

2. It's a lot easier to displace some of that electricity consumption (as capabilities for generating from renewable sources improve, and costs of fossil-fuel sources go up) to non-fossil-fuel sources, than it is to do the same for individuals owning their own cars. Electricity has the advantage that users don't need to know exactly where or how it's produced. The end product is the same.

For the person that goes to work at 4AM: You're an outlier. The vast majority of people don't work hours like that and could take advantage of good public transit systems, if such were available in their locals - e.g. most of the country's large and medium-sized cities. You would still consume fossil fuels, but if the folk that live in or in a suburb of a large or medium sized city (500K people and up in the metropolitan area), and who work normal business hours (or the standard first/second/third shifts) switched to mass transit the total consumption of fossil fuels would plummet. Personal cars are around 40% of that consumption.

BTW - I drive an '03 Honda Insight to work, a car that has averaged >50mpg for the 125,000 miles I've put on it so far, and don't have public transit as an option. I used to live in a suburb of a city with decent public transit and I used it every day even though I owned a quite nice car. (I DO know what I'm talking about in terms of the compromises one has to make, as well as the advantages, and would happily do it again. I've also visited Amsterdam a dozen or so times for work, and have never once taken a cab or rented a car while there - the public transit is REALLY good.)

albano
08/29/2013, 05:43 PM
if getting rid of your car, or stopping driving using combustion engines of any kind, was the only way to save reefs worldwide. would you be willing to do it ?


Wouldn't a better question be...would you get rid of your tank, if that was the only way to save the reefs?

spieszak
08/30/2013, 07:58 AM
Two things here:

1. Public transportation is a lot more efficient, in terms of energy consumption per person-mile, than people driving personal cars as individuals. (Carpools, if the car is full, can come close, but most people don't do this.) While the energy for it does have to come from somewhere, the total consumption is significantly less.

2. It's a lot easier to displace some of that electricity consumption (as capabilities for generating from renewable sources improve, and costs of fossil-fuel sources go up) to non-fossil-fuel sources, than it is to do the same for individuals owning their own cars. Electricity has the advantage that users don't need to know exactly where or how it's produced. The end product is the same.

For the person that goes to work at 4AM: You're an outlier. The vast majority of people don't work hours like that and could take advantage of good public transit systems, if such were available in their locals - e.g. most of the country's large and medium-sized cities. You would still consume fossil fuels, but if the folk that live in or in a suburb of a large or medium sized city (500K people and up in the metropolitan area), and who work normal business hours (or the standard first/second/third shifts) switched to mass transit the total consumption of fossil fuels would plummet. Personal cars are around 40% of that consumption.

BTW - I drive an '03 Honda Insight to work, a car that has averaged >50mpg for the 125,000 miles I've put on it so far, and don't have public transit as an option. I used to live in a suburb of a city with decent public transit and I used it every day even though I owned a quite nice car. (I DO know what I'm talking about in terms of the compromises one has to make, as well as the advantages, and would happily do it again. I've also visited Amsterdam a dozen or so times for work, and have never once taken a cab or rented a car while there - the public transit is REALLY good.)
For what its work, I live in Seattle(e.g. most of the country's large and medium-sized cities) a few blocks from community center (a suburb of a large or medium sized city). I work a few blocks from the airport (a suburb of a large or medium sized city). I work "normal" hours, and it is about a 5 mile trip to work for me (woohoo, lucky me :). To take public transportation to work, it would require me to make 3 transfers, making total travel time about an hour and a half, and it would get me within about a 1/4 mile of work. This is a similar scenario for many of my coworkers also. It totally negates the efficiency savings you noted. I totally agree on your second point of being able to change out an energy source at a central point.
They hype the crap out of public transportation here. This is why it can't work. The routes cannot cover well, and even when they do, its still going to be prohibitively inconvenient in some areas.
I do take the bus or use the park and ride when I go to "mass" activities, such as baseball/football games, or downtown... their are gains to be made with it... but it isn't a replacement, it can't be. Its a supplement.

vitz
08/30/2013, 02:24 PM
Btw what do you drive Vitz? And would you give it up?

i haven't owned or driven a car since around '00 :D

vitz
08/30/2013, 02:31 PM
Wouldn't a better question be...would you get rid of your tank, if that was the only way to save the reefs?


it's a different question, not necessarily a better one ;)

for reasons entirely not connected to any 'issue', i haven't had a tank since '10, heh.

but to your question

not only would i give up any or all tanks if it was 'either or', (in a heartbeat) i won't be rushing back into the hobby, if i'm when/if physically able, for the very reason of a tank's carbon footprint, and its effects on the environment. (well, mebbe a 20 nano, now that led's are about where they need to be ;) )

dc
08/31/2013, 12:07 PM
i haven't owned or driven a car since around '00 :D

You don't live in the middle of nowhere Wyoming do you? ;)


My answer is no, since I have a tank already, no to the second question too.

addo
09/06/2013, 06:08 AM
Thats not the entire story, We have the tightest emission laws anywhere. Most cars on the road in other countries cant even be imported here in part due to the fact they wont meet the federal emissions standards. I wont start on the differences between us and the rest of the world regarding whats discharged into waterways and out of industrial smoke stacks. The rest of the world is very lax compared to the U.S when it comes to pollution standards and enforcemnt of such.They have made us out to be the bad guy in all this when tail pipe for tail pipe/smoke stack per smoke stack our emissions are cleaner then nearly anyone.

You'll have to count out western Europe from the rest of the world for that to be true.

power boat jim
09/06/2013, 07:38 AM
You'll have to count out western Europe from the rest of the world for that to be true.

Ok, Aside from the country of Western Europe, The U.S. has some of the tightest emissions and enforcement policies you will find anywhere.:wavehand: I think you are missing the point. Lots of people like to make the U.S. out be the bad in the global pollution problem when in fact we have made huge strides in curbing ALL forms of pollution in the past 25 or so years.

I dont know of any country that has reclaimed more land, cleaned up more smokestacks, cut auto more emissions or cleaned up more polluted waterways then the U.S. Is it as good as it can be? No, but its still ongoing. Im sure other places have done similar work. I am also sure some countries are still turning a blind eye to environmental destruction or degradation over that of profit.

Phixer
09/24/2013, 01:06 AM
Screw that nonsense we didnt evolve 6 million years to revert back to living like rats in a cave. The problem is overpopulation.

Peter Eichler
09/24/2013, 11:40 AM
I believe a recent study showed that the world's cows create more greenhouses gases per year than all other forms of transportation combined. So, I'll give up beef before I give up my car. :)

atreis
09/25/2013, 05:57 PM
Screw that nonsense we didnt evolve 6 million years to revert back to living like rats in a cave. The problem is overpopulation.

Many people would agree with this. So, let's take it on face value: The problem, we have determined, is overpopulation.

Now what?

Kill half the population? Impose birth restrictions? Enforced sterilization? On everyone, or just a few? How is this handled Internationally? And, of course, what, exactly, is the correct population?

Mark SF
09/25/2013, 11:08 PM
I think the conversation we need to be having is what do to when we consume all the world's carbon based energy sources. How do we offset this impact?

All nations will continue to utilize the cheapest available sources of energy, despite the negative externalities. Energy is the currency for complex societies. Unless we decide to live in the stone ages and pump water from a well with a hand pump, we need to prepare for a world where every last drop of oil is consumed. Whilst this may sound pessimistic, I think it is the inevitable scenario barring some major technological advance in energy, i.e. Fusion.

-Mark

Phixer
09/26/2013, 12:54 AM
Many people would agree with this. So, let's take it on face value: The problem, we have determined, is overpopulation.

Now what?

Kill half the population? Impose birth restrictions? Enforced sterilization? On everyone, or just a few? How is this handled Internationally? And, of course, what, exactly, is the correct population?

Those things are already happening due to overpopulation? Ever heard of the ZPG concept? about 20 years ago there was a movement for this. You would see ZPG bumber stickers at the same rate we see Starbucks coffee shops today...everywhere. Zero Population Growth. So many kids already out there put up for adoption that need homes. Poverty is cureable if people would stop breeding like rabbits.

To answer your question. You balance population growth with what the resources can sustain. For example; Indias resources cannot sustain it's population and the side effect is extreme poverty and disease. Reversal, stop reproducing. If people cannot think ahead and limit themselves they deserve the suffering that comes with it. Pretty clear and somewhat humane decision not to reproduce when you already have 7 and they live in squalor and disease. Secondly... Although controversial, base population growth off of nature or emmulate nature. Much more to this theory but nature is in harmony and in balance and is not over populated. If someones quality of life is so bad due to cancer or another terminally ill disease and wants to die let em. Personally I agree with Chinas one child policy. When I lived in Japan, the govt actually paid you when your wife had a kid. They still do.

All too often the truth is what we dont want to hear because its not "the nice thing to say" or not what's politically correct. I dont worry about such things anymore. People say Chinas policy is harsh, what do you think? What would China be like without it?

Every nation that has extreme poverty and disease has one factor in common...
Overpopulation.

Mark SF
09/26/2013, 12:37 PM
Those things are already happening due to overpopulation? Ever heard of the ZPG concept? about 20 years ago there was a movement for this. You would see ZPG bumber stickers at the same rate we see Starbucks coffee shops today...everywhere. Zero Population Growth. So many kids already out there put up for adoption that need homes. Poverty is cureable if people would stop breeding like rabbits.

To answer your question. You balance population growth with what the resources can sustain. For example; Indias resources cannot sustain it's population and the side effect is extreme poverty and disease. Reversal, stop reproducing. If people cannot think ahead and limit themselves they deserve the suffering that comes with it. Pretty clear and somewhat humane decision not to reproduce when you already have 7 and they live in squalor and disease. Secondly... Although controversial, base population growth off of nature or emmulate nature. Much more to this theory but nature is in harmony and in balance and is not over populated. If someones quality of life is so bad due to cancer or another terminally ill disease and wants to die let em. Personally I agree with Chinas one child policy. When I lived in Japan, the govt actually paid you when your wife had a kid. They still do.

All too often the truth is what we dont want to hear because its not "the nice thing to say" or not what's politically correct. I dont worry about such things anymore. People say Chinas policy is harsh, what do you think? What would China be like without it?

Every nation that has extreme poverty and disease has one factor in common...
Overpopulation.

Education is key to overpopulation. More educated individuals have less children, its as simple as that. I think your non-PC comment only has truth in the fact that yes, if you sterilized a population it would solve some of our problems. Here is my non-PC comment: Why don't you nominate you and your family to go first? I don't think its fair to place a variable value on a life, but it is easy to do so when speaking generally about certain regions.

Japan needs more children. Who will be around to pay into the pyramid scheme when they have negative population growth? The vast majority of population growth is in developing nations. Aging populations in developed countries need proportional population growth. These societies will have different issues than those of their developing neighbors, but strife non the less. Almost all of the European states are considered failing societies as population growth by "natives" is considered negative.

China's one child policy has created massive social upheaval. Currently there exists 40 million more males than females in this country...if that is not a spell for disaster I do not know what is. You should check out the Vice series on HBO, these guys do some really cool journalism work.

Taken from CNN's "China's Biggest Problem"

As a result [of one child policy], young men are hair-trigger sensitive to their circumstances, and when the number of men who will never find a mate rises, so does the intensity of the striving. Young men discount their futures and take ridiculous risks in order to improve their prospects. They also become more violent, rising more readily to perceived slights and insults, and starting more fights -- often over trivial issues. These are the triggers for most man-on-man assaults and homicides.

So no, this policy has effectively backfired and it is certainly messing with "nature." Not to mention, you CAN have more than one child. You just have to pay penalties that only the very rich can afford. In my opinion, this policy has led to rampant infanticide and forced abortions simply because the unborn child was female.

-Mark

atreis
09/26/2013, 05:06 PM
Those things are already happening due to overpopulation?

I don't know if you meant to state this as a question, or if the question mark was a mistake. Anyway, last I checked, the world's population is still increasing, and is expected to increase for about another 2 billion people, if current trends hold, before leveling off. If you agree that the world's population is already too high, then obviously it'll be too high by 2 billion more people. So, whether it's a question or not the answer is: No, it's not.

Ever heard of the ZPG concept? about 20 years ago there was a movement for this. You would see ZPG bumber stickers at the same rate we see Starbucks coffee shops today...everywhere. Zero Population Growth. So many kids already out there put up for adoption that need homes. Poverty is cureable if people would stop breeding like rabbits.


No argument here. That doesn't answer the question of how you'd go about forcing people to have fewer kids. (Obviously, they're continuing to have too many.)

To answer your question. You balance population growth with what the resources can sustain. For example; Indias resources cannot sustain it's population and the side effect is extreme poverty and disease. Reversal, stop reproducing.


No argument here. See above comment though.

If people cannot think ahead and limit themselves they deserve the suffering that comes with it.


That seems to be the current approach, and it's not keeping them from continuing to have too many kids. So obviously, this isn't an approach that works.

Pretty clear and somewhat humane decision not to reproduce when you already have 7 and they live in squalor and disease.


No argument here. And yet, they do.

Secondly... Although controversial, base population growth off of nature or emmulate nature.


Which portion of nature would this be? Many studies have shown that Nature doesn't really have an approach for this that works without a predator/prey relationship. e.g. Rabbits breed like... rabbits. And without a predator keep doing so until they exhaust resources (suffer from the rabbit equivalent of extreme poverty and environmental degradation). Fortunately, foxes eat rabbits. Their population grows until the rabbit population drops, then foxes die off, then the rabbit population booms again, followed by the foxes, etc. It's a continuous cycle (shown several times, also with wolves/moose, and other predator/prey combinations). In the absence of a predator (Deer in most of the eastern US, for example) nature over-populates until resources are exhausted.

I suppose that what you're suggesting here is that we either over-populate until resources are exhausted (e.g. what we're doing now) or create a predator that will be able to effectively prey on us. The latter doesn't seem very likely.

Much more to this theory but nature is in harmony and in balance and is not over populated.

See above. Not true.

If someones quality of life is so bad due to cancer or another terminally ill disease and wants to die let em.


Sure. That happens after they've bred though, and doesn't solve anything.

Personally I agree with Chinas one child policy.

Which was enforced using a variety of techniques including (non-harmful) patriotism, as well as involuntary sterilization (often done to women who were in the hospital for other treatments). Do you also support that approach?

I'd also like to point out that it didn't actually work. China's rate of population increase declined, but the population continue to increase.

When I lived in Japan, the govt actually paid you when your wife had a kid. They still do.


See the previous poster's comments about education. I'd add that, in particular, it's education of women that's important. (Most Western well-educated, well-off countries have declining populations. The US is an exception here.)

How much of your pay are you willing to give up in order to educate the world's billions of uneducated people to the point that they too can become educated and well-off and stop breeding like rabbits? (I'd give some portion of mine, but it'd not be enough. Also, if you follow the news, it should be obvious that there are lots of people in the US that don't support educating our own poor, let alone those of other countries.)

All too often the truth is what we dont want to hear because its not "the nice thing to say" or not what's politically correct. I dont worry about such things anymore. People say Chinas policy is harsh, what do you think? What would China be like without it?


More populous than now. What price are you willing to pay? What price are you willing for your son or daughter to pay?

More to the point: How likely, in a democracy, do you think it is that the people in office would remain there for long if they implemented this approach? (My Answer: One election cycle, at most. Not necessarily because of me - just being pragmatic.) How well has it worked in China? (My Answer: China's population is still growing - something that obviously isn't possible if every woman has just one child. Therefore, it's not.)

Every nation that has extreme poverty and disease has one factor in common...
Overpopulation.

This is tautological. People don't think of a country as "over-populated" unless it is unable to properly food, clothe, and provide jobs for it's population - which means that, by definition, a country is "over-populated" if it has extreme poverty.

One could argue that there are countries that do not have extreme poverty and disease that could also be considered over-populated: some countries in Europe for instance. These don't come to mind because these countries are wealthy enough to handle it (i.e. import resources, such as food, needed to sustain their populations). It doesn't mean there aren't too many people in those countries too.

Phixer
09/26/2013, 11:49 PM
I don't know if you meant to state this as a question, or if the question mark was a mistake. Anyway, last I checked, the world's population is still increasing, and is expected to increase for about another 2 billion people, if current trends hold, before leveling off. If you agree that the world's population is already too high, then obviously it'll be too high by 2 billion more people. So, whether it's a question or not the answer is: No, it's not.



No argument here. That doesn't answer the question of how you'd go about forcing people to have fewer kids. (Obviously, they're continuing to have too many.)



No argument here. See above comment though.



That seems to be the current approach, and it's not keeping them from continuing to have too many kids. So obviously, this isn't an approach that works.



No argument here. And yet, they do.



Which portion of nature would this be? Many studies have shown that Nature doesn't really have an approach for this that works without a predator/prey relationship. e.g. Rabbits breed like... rabbits. And without a predator keep doing so until they exhaust resources (suffer from the rabbit equivalent of extreme poverty and environmental degradation). Fortunately, foxes eat rabbits. Their population grows until the rabbit population drops, then foxes die off, then the rabbit population booms again, followed by the foxes, etc. It's a continuous cycle (shown several times, also with wolves/moose, and other predator/prey combinations). In the absence of a predator (Deer in most of the eastern US, for example) nature over-populates until resources are exhausted.

I suppose that what you're suggesting here is that we either over-populate until resources are exhausted (e.g. what we're doing now) or create a predator that will be able to effectively prey on us. The latter doesn't seem very likely.



See above. Not true.



Sure. That happens after they've bred though, and doesn't solve anything.



Which was enforced using a variety of techniques including (non-harmful) patriotism, as well as involuntary sterilization (often done to women who were in the hospital for other treatments). Do you also support that approach?

I'd also like to point out that it didn't actually work. China's rate of population increase declined, but the population continue to increase.



See the previous poster's comments about education. I'd add that, in particular, it's education of women that's important. (Most Western well-educated, well-off countries have declining populations. The US is an exception here.)

How much of your pay are you willing to give up in order to educate the world's billions of uneducated people to the point that they too can become educated and well-off and stop breeding like rabbits? (I'd give some portion of mine, but it'd not be enough. Also, if you follow the news, it should be obvious that there are lots of people in the US that don't support educating our own poor, let alone those of other countries.)



More populous than now. What price are you willing to pay? What price are you willing for your son or daughter to pay?

More to the point: How likely, in a democracy, do you think it is that the people in office would remain there for long if they implemented this approach? (My Answer: One election cycle, at most. Not necessarily because of me - just being pragmatic.) How well has it worked in China? (My Answer: China's population is still growing - something that obviously isn't possible if every woman has just one child. Therefore, it's not.)



This is tautological. People don't think of a country as "over-populated" unless it is unable to properly food, clothe, and provide jobs for it's population - which means that, by definition, a country is "over-populated" if it has extreme poverty.

One could argue that there are countries that do not have extreme poverty and disease that could also be considered over-populated: some countries in Europe for instance. These don't come to mind because these countries are wealthy enough to handle it (i.e. import resources, such as food, needed to sustain their populations). It doesn't mean there aren't too many people in those countries too.

Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation and filling an entire page with opinions wont change that... sorry.

jdhuyvetter
09/27/2013, 08:15 AM
Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation .......

Isn't this an opinion?

atreis
09/27/2013, 04:36 PM
Thats nice atreis but the problem is still overpopulation and filling an entire page with opinions wont change that... sorry.

My point is: stating "the problem is over-population" is easy. Very easy. So ridiculously easy that it serves no useful purpose.

The hard part is coming up with a solution that works to solve the problem. Some problems (and I think this is one) are intractable. There is no solution that solves the problem, so identifying the problem accomplishes nothing.

Therefore, move on. Come up with a problem that CAN be solved - possibly a piece of the larger problem.

Examples:

How do we reduce the growth in population? China has one solution, but hopefully it's obvious that the people of other countries wouldn't put up with it. Are there other solutions that can be implemented, even incrementally, in other countries? (Possible example: Improved educational opportunities, especially for women.)

How do we reduce the per-capita consumption of resources by the over-large population we are stuck with? (This is where the environmental movement comes from, and whence this thread sprang.)

Phixer
09/27/2013, 05:22 PM
My point is: stating "the problem is over-population" is easy. Very easy. So ridiculously easy that it serves no useful purpose.

The hard part is coming up with a solution that works to solve the problem. Some problems (and I think this is one) are intractable. There is no solution that solves the problem, so identifying the problem accomplishes nothing.

Therefore, move on. Come up with a problem that CAN be solved - possibly a piece of the larger problem.

Examples:

How do we reduce the growth in population? China has one solution, but hopefully it's obvious that the people of other countries wouldn't put up with it. Are there other solutions that can be implemented, even incrementally, in other countries? (Possible example: Improved educational opportunities, especially for women.)

How do we reduce the per-capita consumption of resources by the over-large population we are stuck with? (This is where the environmental movement comes from, and whence this thread sprang.)

Emulate China, personally could care less about providing opportunities for the weak. If folks focused more on themselves they would be less of a burden on society. Life is survival and no matter how it gets churched up with PC there are predators and prey no matter how noble it may seem to help the weak. Trying to change this with more laws only distances mankind from nature.

Sound cruel and heartless? Sub-human perhaps, cold and mean... or may a dose of reality in alignment with nature? How does nature address the problems of opportunities for the weak? Or are we as humans above all of this with our superior intellect and knowledge of the universe. Lets create a few more laws to fix the weather too.

It comes down to efficiency and effectiveness my friend. I know your looking for an argument but I dont work that way, it's just that I really dont care what others think and respect their right to disagree. To argue about something I've lived would be like arguing with the same weather. It's true for me and thats all that matters.
If the response to this were the length of the Gettysburg address filled with substance, I doubt if it would change your mind. Most peoples opinions do not change even when the truth is stares them in the face. Trying to do so is simply a waste of energy and bandwidth...LOL.
Fact is...
There is tons of factual data...LOL and personal experience to counter and dissolve each of your points in detail as I have personally lived in many of these countries for years at a time as required of my profession. Some things are futile. My experience based on living in these countries is overpopulation. You would have more luck convincing someone who hasn't lived it. I would invite you to do as I have and spend a few years living in India or PI or Africa or Pakistan ....or pick one and I'll describe it for you based on living there.

MidwesternTexan
09/27/2013, 05:45 PM
+1 I understand that they can do more the limit the impact in a "central location", but the standards aren't good enough to ensure it. There is a bonus in the switch though, since a central supply can be changed without every car changing.
We do things with best intentions. Force everyone to CFL bulbs, its a great energy savings. Of course, don't put a recycling plan in place, nor notify people they need to recycle the bulbs (which is in most places a consumer cost) and the mercury filling the land fills dooms us all anyway.
We need to clean up our acts some, regardless of your stance on "man made" global warming. But if we aren't doing it in a responsible way there is no gain.

According to these sources, and several others, your numbers are very far off. This is a European source so I doubt there is a positive US bias. As of 2011 China produces almost double the total CO2 as the US and the US is not the highest per capita producer.

Total production (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2011&sort=des9)

Per Capita (http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2011&sort=des9)

Hello? Did someone mention Global Warming?

What a SCAM!

The climate has changed on Earth before the Steam, of internal combustion engine was ever invented.

Are you aware that the REAL evidence, not the left winger kind, shows no warming for 15 years?

Are you aware that the poles on this planet have seasons too?

Catch in the warm season- oh yea, the ice is melting.

When has this planet been entirely without change and stable?

I'll bet my 21 mpg v-8 truck, will haul more stuff/gallon, than your Honda Insight, Prius, or whatever. Not that there's anything wrong with those cars.

To each his own, oh wait a minute, the Fed. with all their micro-management
is basically dictating everything.

People, vote responsibly- and more important- don't be a low information voter.
I'll stop my rant here, thank you

r-balljunkie
09/28/2013, 02:05 AM
interesting article..


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/climate-change-has-reached-our-shores.html?_r=0.

atreis
09/28/2013, 10:56 AM
Emulate China, personally could care less about providing opportunities for the weak. If folks focused more on themselves they would be less of a burden on society. Life is survival and no matter how it gets churched up with PC there are predators and prey no matter how noble it may seem to help the weak. Trying to change this with more laws only distances mankind from nature.

Sound cruel and heartless? Sub-human perhaps, cold and mean... or may a dose of reality in alignment with nature? How does nature address the problems of opportunities for the weak? Or are we as humans above all of this with our superior intellect and knowledge of the universe. Lets create a few more laws to fix the weather too.

It comes down to efficiency and effectiveness my friend. I know your looking for an argument but I dont work that way, it's just that I really dont care what others think and respect their right to disagree. To argue about something I've lived would be like arguing with the same weather. It's true for me and thats all that matters.
If the response to this were the length of the Gettysburg address filled with substance, I doubt if it would change your mind. Most peoples opinions do not change even when the truth is stares them in the face. Trying to do so is simply a waste of energy and bandwidth...LOL.
Fact is...
There is tons of factual data...LOL and personal experience to counter and dissolve each of your points in detail as I have personally lived in many of these countries for years at a time as required of my profession. Some things are futile. My experience based on living in these countries is overpopulation. You would have more luck convincing someone who hasn't lived it. I would invite you to do as I have and spend a few years living in India or PI or Africa or Pakistan ....or pick one and I'll describe it for you based on living there.

You have no idea who I am, in what countries I have lived (or traveled to for work or family), or what life experiences I have had - yet you resort to personal attacks, apparently assuming that I am a particular type of person with no evidence of that. As such, I can only conclude that you're a troll and not interested in anything even close to useful or responsible discussion.

Phixer
09/28/2013, 04:00 PM
You have no idea who I am, in what countries I have lived (or traveled to for work or family), or what life experiences I have had - yet you resort to personal attacks, apparently assuming that I am a particular type of person with no evidence of that. As such, I can only conclude that you're a troll and not interested in anything even close to useful or responsible discussion.

Yup, and respectfully I, dont care either :sad1:....noticed the old condescension trick though LOL.... conclude all day. The problem is still overpopulation. It affects trolls too.

power boat jim
09/28/2013, 04:33 PM
Yup, and respectfully I, dont care either :sad1:....noticed the old condescension trick though LOL.... conclude all day. The problem is still overpopulation. It affects trolls too.

Who has said that overpopulation is not a problem in this thread? You are arguing that the problem is the cure. How you go about attaining zero growth is really the issue. Given the wide variety of education, culture and religious beliefs it is not one that will likely be solved any time soon.

The only significant dips in the planets population have been through war , famine or disease. Whether we like it or not, one or more of these will probably be the only way some regions numbers problems will be reduced. Of course this is only one guys opinion.

Phixer
09/28/2013, 06:51 PM
Who has said that overpopulation is not a problem in this thread? You are arguing that the problem is the cure. How you go about attaining zero growth is really the issue. Given the wide variety of education, culture and religious beliefs it is not one that will likely be solved any time soon.

The only significant dips in the planets population have been through war , famine or disease. Whether we like it or not, one or more of these will probably be the only way some regions numbers problems will be reduced. Of course this is only one guys opinion.


How does nature balance itself? Yes, IMO the problem is the cure if left alone with no human intervention, the thing is most people will not or cannot leave things alone and allow nature to work unattended. They must intervene and start saving things, maybe it makes them feel good to change things I suppose. People always ask, what if it were you or your kid... and thats a hard position to be in. I would default to how things work in nature, as humans we seem to think we know better? Maybe we should take the safety labels off and let the problem solve itself. Cold, inhumane, barbaric, insensitive or would doing so strengthen the species as it does in nature?

power boat jim
09/28/2013, 08:18 PM
How does nature balance itself? Yes, IMO the problem is the cure if left alone with no human intervention, the thing is most people will not or cannot leave things alone and allow nature to work unattended. They must intervene and start saving things, maybe it makes them feel good to change things I suppose. People always ask, what if it were you or your kid... and thats a hard position to be in. I would default to how things work in nature, as humans we seem to think we know better? Maybe we should take the safety labels off and let the problem solve itself. Cold, inhumane, barbaric, insensitive or would doing so strengthen the species as it does in nature?

So it sounds like the answer you are proposing is to let human kind and society run itself back into the stone age using survival of the fittest. Thats not really a solution to population control its a road to the end of civilization. We cant be like every other animal on the planet, we have no natural defense like claws,teeth, poison bites or overpowering strength to keep us alive. We have zero natural survival tools. Our key to survival is our "superior " intelligence.

We no longer play by the same rules that apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore the whole let natural selection take its course with human kind wont work, that ship sailed along time ago when we first discovered penicillin.:beer:

Phixer
09/28/2013, 11:44 PM
So it sounds like the answer you are proposing is to let human kind and society run itself back into the stone age using survival of the fittest. Thats not really a solution to population control its a road to the end of civilization. We cant be like every other animal on the planet, we have no natural defense like claws,teeth, poison bites or overpowering strength to keep us alive. We have zero natural survival tools. Our key to survival is our "superior " intelligence.

We no longer play by the same rules that apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. Therefore the whole let natural selection take its course with human kind wont work, that ship sailed along time ago when we first discovered penicillin.:beer:

Yes, why not? a natural re-alignment. It woulnt go back to the stone age either, mankind as a species would become stronger by evolving. Nature works that way now (the herd concept) and thats exactly the solution. The herd dosent revert back it becomes stronger. Niave and arrogant to think we are above what was here 6 million years before us...perhaps we are too afraid to even consider it so we remain dependent upon a system that is designed to consume itself. We are conditioned to think this way. There is a lot of fear when it comes to the survival of the fittest concept because of the dependency created by this system, it's like dialysis. LOL, sounds like the Matrix.

Also considering nothing else has made a dent, more rules, more laws and more overpopulation with less natural resources. Jim, we have developed each one of those exact survival tools. What would you call, steel, machinery, electricity or weapons. A lot of people would be able to survive on their own, I know I would. Perhaps chaos for awhile and then survival of the fittest.

We no longer play by the rules of the animal kingdom or nature because for some reason we think we know better. Are we better? How... we have chaos, nature has harmony?

Consider just the physical element. How does one become stronger physically? by taking penicillin? no by building an immunity to not require penicillin.

Of course it would work, we have chaos, nature has harmony? and nature doesn't require penicillin.

billsreef
09/29/2013, 03:19 PM
Are you aware that the REAL evidence, not the left winger kind, shows no warming for 15 years?


The real data shows a rather obvious warming trend. This is from NOAA.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Phixer
09/29/2013, 07:05 PM
Interesting. Are there any islands that are now underwater since 1910 because of this? We had a lot of snow last year, winter seems longer and summer seems shorter, it snowed yesterday in the foothills. How far back does NOAA report?

billsreef
09/29/2013, 07:53 PM
Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of approximately 1.7 mm/year over the past 100 years (measured from tide gauge observations), which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. Since 1993, global sea level has risen at an accelerating rate of around 3.5 mm/year. Much of the sea level rise to date is a result of increasing heat of the ocean causing it to expand. It is expected that melting land ice (e.g. from Greenland and mountain glaciers) will play a more significant role in contributing to future sea level rise.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

Taking from this (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/) NOAA site.

While the current measured sea level rise hasn't been enough to make any islands up and disappear, it has been enough to have some ecological impacts on coastal salt marshes. There are species expanding their ranges poleward due to increasing ocean temperatures, and conversely cold water species shrinking their ranges and/or exhibiting health issues in the warm extremes of their range.

Aqii
09/29/2013, 09:25 PM
if getting rid of your car, or stopping driving using combustion engines of any kind, was the only way to save reefs worldwide. would you be willing to do it ?

i'm presenting this more as a 'food for thought' post, as opposed to seeing what folks say to justify their lifestyle vs. their professed 'caring' about the reefs ;)

I thought private transport has a relatively minor contribution to CO2 emissions. From the EPA/IPCC..

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/GlobalGHGEmissionsByGas.png

vitz
09/30/2013, 06:15 AM
interesting how most of you never even addressed the original question, or avoided the simple yes/no answer required to address it. so again:

if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).

i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.

in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted ;)

IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:

instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.

you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p ;)

DgenR8
09/30/2013, 06:26 AM
If getting to work were not an issue, I'd absolutely go from a two car family to one, but I don't think I'd give up the freedom of having my own transportation.
This, of course, is thinking from a standpoint that very, very few people would give up their car, and that by doing so, I'm suffering pretty much alone and solving nothing.
If we're truly all in it together, and everyone is giving up their car for the common goal of saving the world's reefs, I'm in.

power boat jim
09/30/2013, 07:34 AM
interesting how most of you never even addressed the original question, or avoided the simple yes/no answer required to address it. so again:

if owning a car, and having reefs were mutually exclusive (regardless of ANYTHING else, including whether or not you think climate change is bs ), would you give up your car? it's a simple yes or no. (you may assume that for the purposes of the question,having a car isn't required for you to get to work, or you live close enough for it to not be an issue).

i'm not trying to make any assertions regarding whether climate change is real, or whether cars are a contributor, etc etc.

in other words-car or wild reefs. which would you choose IF THAT WAS THE CHOICE. no rationalization/justification necessary, or needed, or even wanted ;)

IT'S A (mebbe not ;-p) HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!!!! WITH A ONE WORD ANSWER! :lol:

instead, i'm seeing most posts here not having anything to do w/ the original question/post that's quickly degrading into what will be a locked/closed thread.

you people are funny, and your reading comprehension is a tad dissapointing ;-p ;)

If you wanted one word answers with no justification, reasons or discussion, you should have just taken a poll. My one word answer is no.

jdhuyvetter
09/30/2013, 08:11 AM
Ditto to what ^^^^ he said

vitz
09/30/2013, 08:24 AM
agreed, in retrospect a poll would have been better :)

KafudaFish
09/30/2013, 09:53 AM
How does nature balance itself? Yes, IMO the problem is the cure if left alone with no human intervention, the thing is most people will not or cannot leave things alone and allow nature to work unattended. They must intervene and start saving things, maybe it makes them feel good to change things I suppose. People always ask, what if it were you or your kid... and thats a hard position to be in. I would default to how things work in nature, as humans we seem to think we know better? Maybe we should take the safety labels off and let the problem solve itself. Cold, inhumane, barbaric, insensitive or would doing so strengthen the species as it does in nature?

Yes, why not? a natural re-alignment. It woulnt go back to the stone age either, mankind as a species would become stronger by evolving. Nature works that way now (the herd concept) and thats exactly the solution. The herd dosent revert back it becomes stronger. Niave and arrogant to think we are above what was here 6 million years before us...perhaps we are too afraid to even consider it so we remain dependent upon a system that is designed to consume itself. We are conditioned to think this way. There is a lot of fear when it comes to the survival of the fittest concept because of the dependency created by this system, it's like dialysis. LOL, sounds like the Matrix.

Also considering nothing else has made a dent, more rules, more laws and more overpopulation with less natural resources. Jim, we have developed each one of those exact survival tools. What would you call, steel, machinery, electricity or weapons. A lot of people would be able to survive on their own, I know I would. Perhaps chaos for awhile and then survival of the fittest.

We no longer play by the rules of the animal kingdom or nature because for some reason we think we know better. Are we better? How... we have chaos, nature has harmony?

Consider just the physical element. How does one become stronger physically? by taking penicillin? no by building an immunity to not require penicillin.

Of course it would work, we have chaos, nature has harmony? and nature doesn't require penicillin.

So I suppose if your kid ran out in the street and got hit by a car you would just stand there and think "Oh well, I guess my genes just weren't up to the challenge and my slow kid paid the price. He/she had a pretty good run up till this point but I have to support the herd. Now I will be off to sterilize myself in order to strengthen the herd by not reproducing anymore and passing on inferior genes to the rest of society."?

At this point, your fitness level is zero and you would be the weakest link (remember that show?) compared to someone on here who has 20 grandchildren.

FYI I hope that would never happen to your child but some of your points are meh at best.






And to answer the original question yes I would give up my cars IF I had the ability to travel around and it not take 3 to 4 hours everyday for me to get to work by the only other alternative mode of transportation in my area (bus) but until then no.

The only way society ever changes is either by kicking and screaming all the way or when it is easy.

Phixer
09/30/2013, 03:52 PM
:crazy1:So I suppose if your kid ran out in the street and got hit by a car you would just stand there and think "Oh well, I guess my genes just weren't up to the challenge and my slow kid paid the price. He/she had a pretty good run up till this point but I have to support the herd. Now I will be off to sterilize myself in order to strengthen the herd by not reproducing anymore and passing on inferior genes to the rest of society."?

At this point, your fitness level is zero and you would be the weakest link (remember that show?) compared to someone on here who has 20 grandchildren.

FYI I hope that would never happen to your child but some of your points are meh at best.






And to answer the original question yes I would give up my cars IF I had the ability to travel around and it not take 3 to 4 hours everyday for me to get to work by the only other alternative mode of transportation in my area (bus) but until then no.

The only way society ever changes is either by kicking and screaming all the way or when it is easy.

20 grandchildren? Thats a lot of overhead for current times. To be dependant on so many for survival means your pretty weak. Altruism? Which animial out there supports 20 offspring for there entire life? Even penguins and lovebirds draw the line after a year. Definitely not the king of the jungle? The most adept and efficient animals are solo, even the herd species factor out the weak.

To answer your question, one must first ask; How does this scenairo work in nature and why should it be any different than a squirrel crossing the road? Because we're human and above all? Think about this logically not emotionally, it's the same scenario and dosent matter how we feel at this point, our feelings would not have changed what just occured or the natural order of things. Nature dosent feel sorry for itself, it evolves. Would being faster have changed this? Perhaps, how does one become faster? Fight nature or live within it.

It's all related to the original topic when you think about it.

alton
09/30/2013, 04:38 PM
interesting article..


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/climate-change-has-reached-our-shores.html?_r=0.

So how did Big John get there? Sail Boat or 747? Do as I say not as I do

KafudaFish
09/30/2013, 11:25 PM
:crazy1:

20 grandchildren? Thats a lot of overhead for current times. To be dependant on so many for survival means your pretty weak. Altruism? Which animial out there supports 20 offspring for there entire life? Even penguins and lovebirds draw the line after a year. Definitely not the king of the jungle? The most adept and efficient animals are solo, even the herd species factor out the weak.

To answer your question, one must first ask; How does this scenairo work in nature and why should it be any different than a squirrel crossing the road? Because we're human and above all? Think about this logically not emotionally, it's the same scenario and dosent matter how we feel at this point, our feelings would not have changed what just occured or the natural order of things. Nature dosent feel sorry for itself, it evolves. Would being faster have changed this? Perhaps, how does one become faster? Fight nature or live within it.

It's all related to the original topic when you think about it.

I am not looking at any of this emotionally and you never answered your feelings about your dead child.

You seemed confused about the whole fitness issue by stating that having 20 grandchildren would be an issue. You have it backwards and you are applying anthropogenic factors to nature such as financial obligations to raising a child. If I make enough to support my children and theirs why wouldn’t I have that many? If your family and mine were two active breeding populations you would lose out when my children reproduced and your child was dead on the road. Because you believe that you should stop at one kid your game is over. Your genes are no longer influencing the breeding population. Doesn’t make much sense to put your entire future on one kid does it? On the flip side you could get killed by the bus and as long as your kid reproduced you are fine. There will always be more individuals produced than can breed. Think about the percentage of fish that reproduce compared to the whole population.

As far as other another animal that is closer to us as that could have 20 grandchildren in nature the elephant would be a good example. Cows start breeding around 14 years old and can continue into their 50s. If you take the 22 month pregnancy and two years of care, a cow could produce 10 calves in her life time or one calf every four years. Of those 10 you could remove one during a pregnancy, usually the first, and maybe two more before they mature leaving seven. If this cow delivered at 18 then by the time she is 36 she could be a grandmother. Bulls start breeding in their early 30s and can go 15 – 25 years. That bull would produce a majority of the offspring within the herd except when a younger satellite male waited for the breeding bull and a challenger to fight and he would sneak off to find the cow in heat. In 20 years the number of his offspring could be huge and the original cow’s fitness would be high.

As far as altruism and your thoughts concerning individuals vs. group dynamics, it could be argued that the social animals are more successful than the individuals. Think about the most intelligent animals including humans, chimps and the great apes, whales and dolphins, and elephants, and what common characteristic do we all share? We are all social animals and we are all successful. Safety in numbers and greater ability to hunt are two reasons.

Back to the two of us and the getting hit situation, I would relate that to kinship. I would save my child either by pulling him or her out of the way or taking the hit. I may die but if they lived and had children of their own and your one was hit and killed I would win.
As far as your squirrel, the ones that have the advantageous genotype during the specific time would be the ones breeding. If you had a forest and one group of better climbers than another they would continue to breed but if we put in a road and the climbers were slow runners and both groups had to cross the road for food which one would win then? How would the population composition look after 50 generations?

Finally this whole human chaos vs. natural harmony ideas of yours is off too. Animals don’t keep score and stop when their quotes have been met. Nature is about chaos and balance, and episodic and periodic disturbances. Fire ecology?


Sorry Vitz for going around the world on this simple discussion but it is more interesting than a yes and no poll.

COReefermadness
10/01/2013, 12:38 AM
What happens when pest invade your tank or minerals/ph get out of balance, ect? We all know there is a delicate balance in our tanks which should reflect the natural eco system, right?

Would we put a CO2 reactor in our reef tank if it harmed it, or dedicate 4/5ths of our tank to animals that put out toxins and high unwanted gases? I suppose all I want to put in perspective is our balance on this planet is way off compared to the natural world and we have a much greater impact then any of us would like to admit, especially if it threatens the way we live.

We are all driven to live the life we do by what humans of the past (our fathers fathers and so on) thought was necessary. Look at what you think is important, what you do for a living and the things you do to achieve that. Is it fully balanced? Maybe its time we are driven by forward thinking, driven by what would help your grandchild's grandchild to thrive. We have much to change, and it will take the forward thinkers, the true scientist to help achieve that balance.

ska d
10/01/2013, 01:16 AM
:celeb2:
Never owned a car. Never wanted to. Just live near my job and walk or bike.
Join me!

gave up my car 5 years ago, walk to work or transit when its to cold. havent regretted it one bit. probably never own another car again. no more insurance hassles, no mechanics, no gas stations, no parking. lol.

Phixer
10/01/2013, 02:45 PM
I am not looking at any of this emotionally and you never answered your feelings about your dead child.

You seemed confused about the whole fitness issue by stating that having 20 grandchildren would be an issue. You have it backwards and you are applying anthropogenic factors to nature such as financial obligations to raising a child. If I make enough to support my children and theirs why wouldn’t I have that many? If your family and mine were two active breeding populations you would lose out when my children reproduced and your child was dead on the road. Because you believe that you should stop at one kid your game is over. Your genes are no longer influencing the breeding population. Doesn’t make much sense to put your entire future on one kid does it? On the flip side you could get killed by the bus and as long as your kid reproduced you are fine. There will always be more individuals produced than can breed. Think about the percentage of fish that reproduce compared to the whole population.

As far as other another animal that is closer to us as that could have 20 grandchildren in nature the elephant would be a good example. Cows start breeding around 14 years old and can continue into their 50s. If you take the 22 month pregnancy and two years of care, a cow could produce 10 calves in her life time or one calf every four years. Of those 10 you could remove one during a pregnancy, usually the first, and maybe two more before they mature leaving seven. If this cow delivered at 18 then by the time she is 36 she could be a grandmother. Bulls start breeding in their early 30s and can go 15 – 25 years. That bull would produce a majority of the offspring within the herd except when a younger satellite male waited for the breeding bull and a challenger to fight and he would sneak off to find the cow in heat. In 20 years the number of his offspring could be huge and the original cow’s fitness would be high.

As far as altruism and your thoughts concerning individuals vs. group dynamics, it could be argued that the social animals are more successful than the individuals. Think about the most intelligent animals including humans, chimps and the great apes, whales and dolphins, and elephants, and what common characteristic do we all share? We are all social animals and we are all successful. Safety in numbers and greater ability to hunt are two reasons.

Back to the two of us and the getting hit situation, I would relate that to kinship. I would save my child either by pulling him or her out of the way or taking the hit. I may die but if they lived and had children of their own and your one was hit and killed I would win.
As far as your squirrel, the ones that have the advantageous genotype during the specific time would be the ones breeding. If you had a forest and one group of better climbers than another they would continue to breed but if we put in a road and the climbers were slow runners and both groups had to cross the road for food which one would win then? How would the population composition look after 50 generations?

Finally this whole human chaos vs. natural harmony ideas of yours is off too. Animals don’t keep score and stop when their quotes have been met. Nature is about chaos and balance, and episodic and periodic disturbances. Fire ecology?


Sorry Vitz for going around the world on this simple discussion but it is more interesting than a yes and no poll.

Your confusion seems to stem from from denial. Denial is often used to justify things we can not change so we base our arguements on emotion to substantiate our actions and current condition. Emotion interferes with logic and rational thought.
I have never observed any of what you mentioned in my travels. Running short on time right now so will give quick answers...sorry. Can re-address when I get more time. And by no means is this meant to offend. I respect your opinion.

If you can support 20 offspring without depending on others then obviosly that is not weakening society or the herd?

It absoloutely makes sense when the world is already overpopulated.

The analogy of chimps, elephants etc... As mentioned, the top predators are solo, lions, tigers, bears, eagles, sharks. The group you mentioned still follows the laws of nature and uses the herd mentality of survival of the fittest. What happens when an animal can no longer care for itself?

The child scenario, your way off on this one. How would passing along weakness strengthen the species? By creating more weak? It dosent work that way in nature. Only with humans which is exactly why we have overpopulation and poverty. Remove emotion and your answer will be different, although this is impossible for many.

Animals dont keep score? some species such as rabbits and rodents will breed themselves into dire straights (kind of like people in some countries) but nature corrects this by producing disease, poverty and a predatory response. However....why does the herd shun the weak?

KafudaFish
10/01/2013, 05:03 PM
As far as you thinking that I am in denial and that I am trying to justify my statements using emotion to slip by logic and rational thought you are confusing my facts with beliefs. Not once have I used emotion during this discussion. You have focused on the ethics of human overpopulation and while it is a major cause of many issues throughout the world, it is simply a part of the current issues.
Even here in the United States, one of the top most populated countries and with a high fertility rate in the world, has had a negative birth rate since the 1950s due to factors including birth control, fewer children being born and people starting families later on in life. Much of our increase is related to immigration. So how is the US part of the problem? As you mentioned it comes full circle and goes back to the original question of resource use. Much of the US is still uninhabited and ¾ of the population lives on less than 5% of the land mass.

Did you watch the Beijing Olympics? Many stories were devoted to daily life in China and how a middle class is slowly forming. Now that some people have disposal income their quality of life has improved i.e. cars. With the current population levels, the increase of resource use, and little to no regulation how much of an impact will this have on the world? Hello 1950s – 1970s in the US. Now move onto India and………

Once again you are putting the human population on a moral level and there are many people that will not change how they have families whether it is due to religious reasons or for more hands to work the land and to hunt for food.
As far as top predators yes many species are solo hunters but even within your list of apex predators your list is wrong. Lions? Females hunt in a pride due to poor success rates. What happens when a lioness gets her jaw broken from a zebra kick? If she was alone she her cubs would perish. By being in a pride, the aunts could care for her offspring thus allowing her genes to be passed on and the fitness level to remain above zero. Bears? They will join together at pinch points along the rivers during salmon runs. Eagles? Parental care. Sharks? Many species hunt in packs including hammerheads, black tip reef sharks, blues, and even great whites hunt in packs of two or three which was unknown until a few years ago. Orcas? Pods and offspring spend their entire life with their matriarch. Even apex fish predators are social and work together including bill fish, tuna, and mackerel in the marine environment. Wolves? Hyenas?
As far as having a herd there are many advantages including defense, a decrease in predator-prey pressures (remember everything is something else’s food), increased predation success, increased fertility rates and successes and even care during disease and injury. Yes at some point the herd will drop an individual that cannot keep up but it will be given a chance.

We keep hitting on top predators but what about superorganisms? They are extremely successful too.

Phixer
10/02/2013, 12:15 AM
As far as you thinking that I am in denial and that I am trying to justify my statements using emotion to slip by logic and rational thought you are confusing my facts with beliefs. Not once have I used emotion during this discussion. You have focused on the ethics of human overpopulation and while it is a major cause of many issues throughout the world, it is simply a part of the current issues.
Even here in the United States, one of the top most populated countries and with a high fertility rate in the world, has had a negative birth rate since the 1950s due to factors including birth control, fewer children being born and people starting families later on in life. Much of our increase is related to immigration. So how is the US part of the problem? As you mentioned it comes full circle and goes back to the original question of resource use. Much of the US is still uninhabited and ¾ of the population lives on less than 5% of the land mass.

Did you watch the Beijing Olympics? Many stories were devoted to daily life in China and how a middle class is slowly forming. Now that some people have disposal income their quality of life has improved i.e. cars. With the current population levels, the increase of resource use, and little to no regulation how much of an impact will this have on the world? Hello 1950s – 1970s in the US. Now move onto India and………

Once again you are putting the human population on a moral level and there are many people that will not change how they have families whether it is due to religious reasons or for more hands to work the land and to hunt for food.
As far as top predators yes many species are solo hunters but even within your list of apex predators your list is wrong. Lions? Females hunt in a pride due to poor success rates. What happens when a lioness gets her jaw broken from a zebra kick? If she was alone she her cubs would perish. By being in a pride, the aunts could care for her offspring thus allowing her genes to be passed on and the fitness level to remain above zero. Bears? They will join together at pinch points along the rivers during salmon runs. Eagles? Parental care. Sharks? Many species hunt in packs including hammerheads, black tip reef sharks, blues, and even great whites hunt in packs of two or three which was unknown until a few years ago. Orcas? Pods and offspring spend their entire life with their matriarch. Even apex fish predators are social and work together including bill fish, tuna, and mackerel in the marine environment. Wolves? Hyenas?
As far as having a herd there are many advantages including defense, a decrease in predator-prey pressures (remember everything is something else’s food), increased predation success, increased fertility rates and successes and even care during disease and injury. Yes at some point the herd will drop an individual that cannot keep up but it will be given a chance.

We keep hitting on top predators but what about superorganisms? They are extremely successful too.

Hi Kuda, didnt watch the Beijing olympics, I used to live on the mainland and HK for 7 years. I left in 1997 after HK went back to China then to Djibouti for 2 years and then Karachi Pakistan for a year. After that back to the states then I lived in Quezon City in the Phillipines for about 3 years. What we saw on TV in China was what the govt wanted us to see.

Thats right at some point the herd will drop an individual that cannot keep up. Why is it seen as natural when nature does this but taboo for humans?

Ok the list:
Lions= the males are at the top, not the females and they are solo and independent. Females lions as with many other species kill the runts. And what happens when a male get his SS kicked... Sorry no obamacare for you lion. Gene line discontinued and species strengthened.

Bears are amongst the most territorial. Male Kodiak/Grizzly bears are at the top and they also live solo and remain independent. If a bear gets caught in a trap... sucks to be him.

Great whites are also solo and independent for survival, they travel and hunt alone. When they are seen together as you mentioned it is because they are mutually attracted to food as in a feeding frenzy. Do they rely on each other for life? most of the time they kill by themselves. Not dependent on each other as adults otherwise they would travel in schools like sardines do.

The lone wolf? K9s are definitely pack animals but they wont hesitate to kick one to the curb that dosent strengthen the pack some how. K9s are not at the top of the predatory list though. When one breaks a leg it gets fired from the pack! Hyenas=scavengers ...same story.

Eagles... here in CO we have a lot of them. Ive never seen them living together as adults. They will kill each other for survival if necessary, reduce the food and they will fight like hell for the remaining resources. The males also live solo once mama kicks them out of the nest.

Cant comment on Orcas as I have no personal experience or knowledge about them other than the one at Sea World that killed it's human trainer seveal years ago. Cant blame the whale though, the trainer paid for his weakness and now the other trainers are stronger because of it.

Superorganisms?

mussel and hate
10/02/2013, 12:25 AM
If the rest of the world would just adopt the same water and air pollution standards the U.S. has to play by it would be a good start in curbing at least a few environmental problems.

How about Americans give up their wars of hegemony and I keep my second hand suzuki that I might drive 5K per year...

I bet the "official statistics" don't account for CO2 emissions from say... jet fighters, Hummvees(on foreign soil), tanks, non nuke ships etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Florida's reefs are being annihilated by the poop of ~20 million Americans, to say nothing of the garbage America dumps on the rest of the world.

This thread is full of fail from the start.

power boat jim
10/02/2013, 07:18 AM
How about Americans give up their wars of hegemony and I keep my second hand suzuki that I might drive 5K per year...

I bet the "official statistics" don't account for CO2 emissions from say... jet fighters, Hummvees(on foreign soil), tanks, non nuke ships etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Florida's reefs are being annihilated by the poop of ~20 million Americans, to say nothing of the garbage America dumps on the rest of the world.

This thread is full of fail from the start.

No I bet they dont, but the fact you have the freedom to type this is probably reason enough to not worry about things that are not relevant.
As far as Florida goes, they have been working on nutreint removal from POTWs for some time now. :rolleyes:

billsreef
10/02/2013, 07:03 PM
As far as Florida goes, they have been working on nutreint removal from POTWs for some time now. :rolleyes:

Speaking of which, one just blew a main Sunday and dumped 250,000 gallons of sewage into the ICW about a mile upcurrent from me :( They declared a "swim advisory" (i.e. stay out of the water) on Monday, but didn't publicize it until Tuesday :rolleyes:

vitz
10/03/2013, 12:26 AM
'potw'=?

billsreef
10/03/2013, 06:08 AM
Publicly Owned Treatment Works...aka local gov't owned sewage plant.

Phixer
10/03/2013, 02:47 PM
:jester: Would be a good idea considering everything else the govt manages turns to sewage anyhow.:lolspin:

Clam guy
10/03/2013, 02:55 PM
Yes I would get rid of my car, move close to the beach, and ride a dolphin to work. No I wouldn't get rid of my cars don't be silly.

DgenR8
10/03/2013, 03:45 PM
We've gone this far without me having to bring up closing this thread for political posts, let's not ruin that now.

atreis
10/03/2013, 05:28 PM
:jester: Would be a good idea considering everything else the govt manages turns to sewage anyhow.:lolspin:

Knew this guy was a right-winger. Whee.

billsreef
10/03/2013, 06:56 PM
Knew this guy was a right-winger. Whee.

Read Larry's post right above yours. I don't want to close the thread either...

Phixer
10/04/2013, 12:03 AM
Knew this guy was right! Whee.

Thanks

Ckyuv
10/04/2013, 03:15 PM
If I had a car I would get rid of it to get a truck. Anyone who knows anything knows nothing beats an American made truck ;)

atreis
10/04/2013, 04:47 PM
Read Larry's post right above yours. I don't want to close the thread either...

Noted. Sorry.

alton
10/08/2013, 07:13 AM
If I had a car I would get rid of it to get a truck. Anyone who knows anything knows nothing beats an American made truck ;)

Would that be Toyota? Made in SA

atreis
10/08/2013, 04:38 PM
Would that be Toyota? Made in SA

Yep, and if it's a Dodge, it's made in Mexico.

340six
10/08/2013, 05:44 PM
Something tells me not to post here that I may come across wrong. I have one car thats gets 38 miles a gallon and is very clean.
And one that burns 110 with lead and has 3 Carbs
Keep in mind that it is just for fun, as I am into the car hobby.
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg (http://s234.photobucket.com/user/fast340six/media/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg.html)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/340six%20Motor/rockers1.jpg

Phixer
10/09/2013, 01:38 AM
Something tells me not to post here that I may come across wrong. I have one car thats gets 38 miles a gallon and is very clean.
And one that burns 110 with lead and has 3 Carbs
Keep in mind that it is just for fun, as I am into the car hobby.
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg (http://s234.photobucket.com/user/fast340six/media/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg.html)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/340six%20Motor/rockers1.jpg

Man that's a sweet motor! takes some skill to put something like that together and keep it tuned. How do you keep those Holleys in synch? Is that a 389 tripower? Either way it probably gets better mileage than Al Gores private jet.

albano
10/09/2013, 07:29 AM
Is that a 389 tripower?.

Highly unlikely ... His SN is 340six, as in 340 six pack... Chrysler

Lincutis
10/09/2013, 07:44 AM
If the rest of the world would just adopt the same water and air pollution standards the U.S. has to play by it would be a good start in curbing at least a few environmental problems.

Do you seriously think that our standards are that high. We are the major air polluters as well as ground water pollution from chemical runoff. Our landfills are out of control and the waste fron all of our use of plastics and other materials that will not degrade for hundreds of years. I'm laughing.
BTW, not a conservationist at all. A responsible hobbyist, and I do care about our environment, but like most people I enjoy the creature comforts that we have, and hope that we adapt to a better, cleaner, economically balanced way to get better. Having to pay twice the price for a clean car vs. buying a standard auto at a descent price. Buying the standard.

miniwhinny
10/09/2013, 08:12 AM
This is a joke right? lol

Not in a heartbeat! Bought myself a brand new Jeep Wrangler two weeks ago...take about bad mileage...sure can climb mountains well though :)

My answer...no way would I give up my car. In fact I'd give up my tank first lol. Having a tank causes more reef destruction than owning a car. Next time your LFS gets it's shipment of live fish/corals in go see just how many arrive dead. Or get held up at airports and the entire batch dies.

:)

power boat jim
10/09/2013, 08:22 AM
Do you seriously think that our standards are that high. We are the major air polluters as well as ground water pollution from chemical runoff. Our landfills are out of control and the waste fron all of our use of plastics and other materials that will not degrade for hundreds of years. I'm laughing.
BTW, not a conservationist at all. A responsible hobbyist, and I do care about our environment, but like most people I enjoy the creature comforts that we have, and hope that we adapt to a better, cleaner, economically balanced way to get better. Having to pay twice the price for a clean car vs. buying a standard auto at a descent price. Buying the standard.

1) Define major polluter. What criteria did you use to define "major".
2) Where is there a current major source of unchecked chemical run off that is contaminating ground water?
3) What exactly is the definition of a runaway land fill?
4)The recycling program in the U.S. is reusing a larger volume of plastic, paper and even now construction debris each year.

Is the job finished? No, but to laugh at the progress that has been made here and in Europe for that matter in the past 30 years or so is somewhat Naive.

You seem to getting your environmental information from the 1970s.

Reeferz412
10/09/2013, 09:38 AM
I'll just leave this here.

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

There are more plastic polymers in our ocean than phytoplankton. One of the gyres is twice the size of Texas.

Feel free to youtube this, it will make you think twice when you drink from a plastic bottle.

Clamagore
10/09/2013, 10:11 AM
1) Is the job finished? No, but to laugh at the progress that has been made here and in Europe for that matter in the past 30 years or so is somewhat Naive.

You seem to getting your environmental information from the 1970s.

I agree that a lot of excellent progress has been made in the past few decades, but there’s still a major problem when we look at the big picture because servicing the United States remains a dirty job. We may have exported many of our nastiest manufacturing processes to the other side of the planet where low wages and low environmental standards make it all possible, but our insatiable demand for those products still has a major impact on the salty ball of dirt that we all share.

power boat jim
10/09/2013, 11:26 AM
I agree that a lot of excellent progress has been made in the past few decades, but there’s still a major problem when we look at the big picture because servicing the United States remains a dirty job. We may have exported many of our nastiest manufacturing processes to the other side of the planet where low wages and low environmental standards make it all possible, but our insatiable demand for those products still has a major impact on the salty ball of dirt that we all share.

No doubt what you say is correct, but it leads back to what I said. We have adopted some tough standards here that cleaned up alot of problems. Those rules may have played a factor in who stayed and who left. I feel its time the rest of the world plays by the same rules we do. I do realize it may come at a price, however it may level the playing field a bit more for the U.S. I need to stop there since the rest of the problem is more of a political one then an environmental one.

power boat jim
10/09/2013, 11:33 AM
I'll just leave this here.

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

There are more plastic polymers in our ocean than phytoplankton. One of the gyres is twice the size of Texas.

Feel free to youtube this, it will make you think twice when you drink from a plastic bottle.

Sad as it is,please note who the biggest contributers to this mess are.

Phixer
10/09/2013, 03:53 PM
Highly unlikely ... His SN is 340six, as in 340 six pack... Chrysler

Yeah I should have known. :uhoh3: Mopar 6 pac...

Phixer
10/09/2013, 03:53 PM
Attended a seminar yesterday on sustainable energy. Learned that
a plastic bag is more sustainable than paper as it can be recycled indefinitely. Paper only twice. It just depends where the plastic ends up.

So paper or plastic? I'll take plastic.

DgenR8
10/09/2013, 05:41 PM
I think we're all missing the big picture. The earth will be just fine, once we're gone. It may take a few thousand years, maybe a few hundred thousand, but all traces of human life, including all the damage we're doing, will be erased. Mother nature will take over again, and maybe, just maybe a new race will evolve to damage the planet and burn itself out, and so on and so on....

atreis
10/09/2013, 05:55 PM
Something tells me not to post here that I may come across wrong. I have one car thats gets 38 miles a gallon and is very clean.
And one that burns 110 with lead and has 3 Carbs
Keep in mind that it is just for fun, as I am into the car hobby.
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg (http://s234.photobucket.com/user/fast340six/media/sig%20pics/2840886-340SIX-1.jpg.html)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee87/fast340six/340six%20Motor/rockers1.jpg

Naa. Fun cars are FUN cars! It's the cars that are driven every day, mile after mile, that add up to large enough numbers to be a problem.

(Says me, a former owner of a '56 TBird. Woot! Rumble rumble rumble rumble... I miss that car.)

jdhuyvetter
10/09/2013, 06:37 PM
Attended a seminar yesterday on sustainable energy. Learned that
a plastic bag is more sustainable than paper as it can be recycled indefinitely. Paper only twice. It just depends where the plastic ends up.

So paper or plastic? I'll take plastic.

This made me think of this (a little comic relief):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rld0KDcan_w?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Phixer
10/09/2013, 06:48 PM
This made me think of this (a little comic relief):

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rld0KDcan_w?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL... Totally awesome, around .30 into it he hits it on the head! George Carlin is my favorite. Thanks!

power boat jim
10/09/2013, 07:23 PM
I think we're all missing the big picture. The earth will be just fine, once we're gone. It may take a few thousand years, maybe a few hundred thousand, but all traces of human life, including all the damage we're doing, will be erased. Mother nature will take over again, and maybe, just maybe a new race will evolve to damage the planet and burn itself out, and so on and so on....

Thank you.100% correct , the planet doesnt need saving, its been through way worse then us. Its us that need to be saved from ourselves.

Misled
10/09/2013, 08:46 PM
Anyone think Nina will still be at MA????

atreis
10/10/2013, 05:01 PM
Attended a seminar yesterday on sustainable energy. Learned that
a plastic bag is more sustainable than paper as it can be recycled indefinitely. Paper only twice. It just depends where the plastic ends up.

So paper or plastic? I'll take plastic.

Neither, here. I've been using reusable bags for 6 years now. I have 10 bags. At an average of 8 bags per week used I've saved 2,486 (2,496-10) bags (of whatever sort) from being manufactured, used, and from needing recycling.

In addition, I get a 5c discount per bag for using my own bags, saving me $125 over that same time period. A trivial amount, but then the bags only cost me $25. (In other words, the cost for using my own bags: Nothing but net.)

vitz
10/10/2013, 08:51 PM
Attended a seminar yesterday on sustainable energy. Learned that
a plastic bag is more sustainable than paper as it can be recycled indefinitely. Paper only twice. It just depends where the plastic ends up.

So paper or plastic? I'll take plastic.

paper doesn't accumulate forever in the environment.

it's also not just about how many times it's recyclable. the manufacturing processes and the recycling processes themselves also need to be taken into account.

which requires more energy, over the long haul, to manufacture and recycle ?

which pollutes more, over the long haul w/each item and its processes of manufacture ?

etc... ;)

(i don't know the answers to these q's-just pointing out that using just the criterion of how many times something can be recycled, one can't really say which is more environmentally benign)

Phixer
10/10/2013, 11:15 PM
paper doesn't accumulate forever in the environment.

it's also not just about how many times it's recyclable. the manufacturing processes and the recycling processes themselves also need to be taken into account.

which requires more energy, over the long haul, to manufacture and recycle ?

which pollutes more, over the long haul w/each item and its processes of manufacture ?

etc... ;)

(i don't know the answers to these q's-just pointing out that using just the criterion of how many times something can be recycled, one can't really say which is more environmentally benign)

The video in post 99 answers this question pretty well.

Really depends on the service life of the end product I suppose.

vitz
10/11/2013, 12:24 AM
The video in post 99 answers this question pretty well.

Really depends on the service life of the end product I suppose.

i've watched that carlin show many times (huge fan for decades, too, heh)

i don't recall seeing then or now, carlin going into the details/comparisons of the 2 different industries and there respective true environmental impacts. it's way beyond the scope of his act, heh.

such as: how much net petroleum goes into the respective products, from creation to manufacture to consumption (use). what chemicals are used. etc etc

but i'll take wood over petroleum as a source for any product (if those are the 2 source materials 'competing' w/each other).

npj333
10/11/2013, 06:04 AM
Wow, I'm 43, don't want to have children, and don't have any already. I want to have a marine aquarium that calms me down enough to continue doing my volunteer work with my therapy dog, who is the host of the special needs program of "Read to the Dog" in our school district, we also do it at the local library once a week. I have some thoughts on stuff everyone has said, but I decided not to breed, and decided to help some of those that have kids that need help. Yikeys =) Some of us are working to help here at home and decided intelligently not to continue to breed. (Although we were probably the ones that should have, natural selection and all). Not bashing, just a strange distraction from an aquarium standpoint.

Phixer
10/11/2013, 05:55 PM
Wow, I'm 43, don't want to have children, and don't have any already. I want to have a marine aquarium that calms me down enough to continue doing my volunteer work with my therapy dog, who is the host of the special needs program of "Read to the Dog" in our school district, we also do it at the local library once a week. I have some thoughts on stuff everyone has said, but I decided not to breed, and decided to help some of those that have kids that need help. Yikeys =) Some of us are working to help here at home and decided intelligently not to continue to breed. (Although we were probably the ones that should have, natural selection and all). Not bashing, just a strange distraction from an aquarium standpoint.

Your a wise person, more people are waking up and thinking the same way. There is a correlation to education and breeding. Higher life forms tend have fewer children where as the others breed like rodents and burden society. Not always the case but more so today.

i've watched that carlin show many times (huge fan for decades, too, heh)

i don't recall seeing then or now, carlin going into the details/comparisons of the 2 different industries and there respective true environmental impacts. it's way beyond the scope of his act, heh.

such as: how much net petroleum goes into the respective products, from creation to manufacture to consumption (use). what chemicals are used. etc etc

but i'll take wood over petroleum as a source for any product (if those are the 2 source materials 'competing' w/each other).

I wonder how much plastic this hobby uses?

One has to look at it on a linear scale. Initial cost vs sustainability. It costs less in terms of resources to produce a plastic bag when you consider that the bag is indefinitely re-useable.

Like George Carlin said, the products to produce the plastic come from the ground. Eventually the earth will assimilate these things after we are gone.

If gas were to rise to $8.00 a gallon, we would find alternate sources to petroleum. I like wood also but think the answer still lies in population growth. If humans were to pursue alternate sources of fuel and breed less things would improve.

audigex
10/11/2013, 08:04 PM
My work is 30 miles away, or 3 buses and 4 hours. It's beyond impractical.

I could move closer to work - in about 25 pay rises time.

vitz
10/11/2013, 10:21 PM
Your a wise person, more people are waking up and thinking the same way. There is a correlation to education and breeding. Higher life forms tend have fewer children where as the others breed like rodents and burden society. Not always the case but more so today.



I wonder how much plastic this hobby uses?

One has to look at it on a linear scale. Initial cost vs sustainability. It costs less in terms of resources to produce a plastic bag when you consider that the bag is indefinitely re-useable.

Like George Carlin said, the products to produce the plastic come from the ground. Eventually the earth will assimilate these things after we are gone.

If gas were to rise to $8.00 a gallon, we would find alternate sources to petroleum. I like wood also but think the answer still lies in population growth. If humans were to pursue alternate sources of fuel and breed less things would improve.

link?

do you know how much energy is needed and how much pollution is involved in the very act and process of recycling said plastic?

is most plastic (bags or whatever) produced actually ever recycled ?

plastic is far from the benign thing it seems you're trying to make it out to be.

i would like to see you back up your statements w/actual facts/data-for now, it's just your unsubstantiated opinion ;)

Phixer
10/12/2013, 03:20 AM
...

Phixer
10/12/2013, 03:52 AM
:lmao::lol:link?

do you know how much energy is needed and how much pollution is involved in the very act and process of recycling said plastic?

is most plastic (bags or whatever) produced actually ever recycled ?

plastic is far from the benign thing it seems you're trying to make it out to be.

i would like to see you back up your statements w/actual facts/data-for now, it's just your unsubstantiated opinion ;)

[profanity]

Yes, about 100 calories depending on your metobolic rate. I pick the bag up and then re-use it = 100 calories. When I can no longer re-use I make them into statues of Chuck Norris and worship them.

Yes, according to the plastic sack recyclers commission headed by Al Gore all plastic sacks are re-used, after inventing the internet he devised software that tracks them all individually. Eventually they end up as garden gnomes.

Benign...yes, your probably right. I once was attacked by a gang of Ninjas and had to fight them off with plastic sacks. Paper would have torn. My fish prefer plastic bags also as they kept falling thru the paper sacks before I was able to get them home.



Why? Seriously...We both know that wouldn't matter any more than the plastic keyboard your using to type your "unsubstantiated" opinions on and how do you cite real world experience? You wouldnt accept it because it would dissolve your argument and then where would the anger go? It's about efficiency, why would one expend the energy on such a futile effort. My job is not to convince you, eventually you'll convince yourself when you run out of options. If you "truly claim to care" look it up yourself or visit the rest of the world... although I do respect your opinion and I like pulis.

It puts the lotion in the basket.

billsreef
10/12/2013, 06:16 AM
Many plastic bags end up in the sea. Where they look very much like a jellyfish and often get consumed by sea turtles that like to eat jellyfish. This causes gut impaction, as the plastic bag is not digestible.

vitz
10/12/2013, 09:47 PM
:lmao::lol:

[profanity]

Yes, about 100 calories depending on your metobolic rate. I pick the bag up and then re-use it = 100 calories. When I can no longer re-use I make them into statues of Chuck Norris and worship them.

Yes, according to the plastic sack recyclers commission headed by Al Gore all plastic sacks are re-used, after inventing the internet he devised software that tracks them all individually. Eventually they end up as garden gnomes.

Benign...yes, your probably right. I once was attacked by a gang of Ninjas and had to fight them off with plastic sacks. Paper would have torn. My fish prefer plastic bags also as they kept falling thru the paper sacks before I was able to get them home.



Why? Seriously...We both know that wouldn't matter any more than the plastic keyboard your using to type your "unsubstantiated" opinions on and how do you cite real world experience? You wouldnt accept it because it would dissolve your argument and then where would the anger go? It's about efficiency, why would one expend the energy on such a futile effort. My job is not to convince you, eventually you'll convince yourself when you run out of options. If you "truly claim to care" look it up yourself or visit the rest of the world... although I do respect your opinion and I like pulis.

It puts the lotion in the basket.


wut?

Phixer
10/13/2013, 12:33 AM
Many plastic bags end up in the sea. Where they look very much like a jellyfish and often get consumed by sea turtles that like to eat jellyfish. This causes gut impaction, as the plastic bag is not digestible.

Bill, does this effect the sharks that like to eat those sea turtles in the same way? A sharks digestive system is not as susceptible to these things due to adaptation, although this takes a long, long time. I may be wrong but eventually the bag would return to the sea after the shark passes it. A milliion years later were left with a sea full plastic bags and animals smart enough not to eat them.

Or we make them biodegradable.

vitz
10/13/2013, 07:40 AM
some people seem to not understand the (sometimes subtle ) difference between 're-use' and 're-cycle'.

billsreef
10/13/2013, 08:38 AM
Bill, does this effect the sharks that like to eat those sea turtles in the same way? A sharks digestive system is not as susceptible to these things due to adaptation, although this takes a long, long time. I may be wrong but eventually the bag would return to the sea after the shark passes it. A milliion years later were left with a sea full plastic bags and animals smart enough not to eat them.

Or we make them biodegradable.

Well, sharks are a much older species than sea turtles, so I doubt they have adapted to plastic bags in their diet (via gut contents of their prey or other means) any more than sea turtles have. As for the effect on sharks of such a diet, I'll have to run that past some shark researchers I know. If anything, I expect the sharks ability to eat non digestible turtle shell might aid them in passing that plastic bag.

Phixer
10/13/2013, 05:23 PM
Some people seem to not understand how to use a dictionary:

re·cy·cle
[ree-sahy-kuhl] Show IPA verb, re·cy·cled, re·cy·cling, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to treat or process (used or waste materials) so as to make suitable for reuse: recycling paper to save trees.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recycle
"It does what it's told."

Phixer
10/13/2013, 05:26 PM
Well, sharks are a much older species than sea turtles, so I doubt they have adapted to plastic bags in their diet (via gut contents of their prey or other means) any more than sea turtles have. As for the effect on sharks of such a diet, I'll have to run that past some shark researchers I know. If anything, I expect the sharks ability to eat non digestible turtle shell might aid them in passing that plastic bag.

Makes sense.

vitz
10/13/2013, 06:13 PM
Some people seem to not understand how to use a dictionary:

re·cy·cle
[ree-sahy-kuhl] Show IPA verb, re·cy·cled, re·cy·cling, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to treat or process (used or waste materials) so as to make suitable for reuse: recycling paper to save trees.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/recycle
"It does what it's told."


so all of your posts refer to re-using, NOT recycling :)

i'm still waiting for you to back up your implication that the production and recycling of plastic is more environmentally friendly than that of paper.

are you capable of engaging in a proper discussion, or are you merely interested in trolling, as evidenced by your posts ?

vitz
10/13/2013, 06:18 PM
Your a wise person, more people are waking up and thinking the same way. There is a correlation to education and breeding. Higher life forms tend have fewer children where as the others breed like rodents and burden society. Not always the case but more so today.



I wonder how much plastic this hobby uses?

One has to look at it on a linear scale. Initial cost vs sustainability. It costs less in terms of resources to produce a plastic bag when you consider that the bag is indefinitely re-useable.

Like George Carlin said, the products to produce the plastic come from the ground. Eventually the earth will assimilate these things after we are gone.

If gas were to rise to $8.00 a gallon, we would find alternate sources to petroleum. I like wood also but think the answer still lies in population growth. If humans were to pursue alternate sources of fuel and breed less things would improve.

uranium, plutonium, arsenic, cyanide, strychnine (SP), lead, and organic poisons also come from the ground.

what's your point ? :-/

Phixer
10/13/2013, 11:19 PM
:lmao: :lmao:

No those come from the salad bar at Roys Rib Crib. And dont forget unobtainioum :lmao: as this what what is used to power the flux capacitors that allow the jump to light speed.

Vitz, why not just switch to decaf and accept the fact that you cant win, each one of your arguments has been beaten like a rented mule.

Yes, those elements come from the ground. :lmao: Do you intentionally consume them? Why not?

And on a scale of billions of years they have done no harm to the earth, the earth adapts and incorporates. Asteroids, comets, meteor showers, Tsunamis, ice ages, volcano's, tornado's, earthquakes...and...yes even plastic sacks. :lmao: So if the plastic makes it back to nature, nature will adapt to it and continue on. Asbestos for insulation, lead plumbing, arsenic to pressure treat wood, strychnine as rat poison and dioxin as herbicide... and then we evolved and learned they were bad for us so we stopped using them as much. Those elements still exist in nature and let alone cause no harm. Everything causes harm to something.

It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.

vitz
10/14/2013, 07:08 AM
:lmao: :lmao:

No those come from the salad bar at Roys Rib Crib. And dont forget unobtainioum :lmao: as this what what is used to power the flux capacitors that allow the jump to light speed.

Vitz, why not just switch to decaf and accept the fact that you cant win, each one of your arguments has been beaten like a rented mule.

Yes, those elements come from the ground. :lmao: Do you intentionally consume them? Why not?

And on a scale of billions of years they have done no harm to the earth, the earth adapts and incorporates. Asteroids, comets, meteor showers, Tsunamis, ice ages, volcano's, tornado's, earthquakes...and...yes even plastic sacks. :lmao: So if the plastic makes it back to nature, nature will adapt to it and continue on. Asbestos for insulation, lead plumbing, arsenic to pressure treat wood, strychnine as rat poison and dioxin as herbicide... and then we evolved and learned they were bad for us so we stopped using them as much. Those elements still exist in nature and let alone cause no harm. Everything causes harm to something.

It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again.,

if the best you can do is childish insults and ad hominem attacks, it's clear you have neither the desire or ability to have a discussion on the subject you're participating in.

ever hear the phrase 'violence is the refuge of the incompetent?

so is trolling ;)

please back up your contention that production and recycling of plastic is more environmentally friendly than that of paper.

npj333
10/14/2013, 07:31 AM
All of those plastic bags? I save them, and the original huge bag gets gigantic. Then I bring it to the food bank. They use them to distribute food. The recipients bring them back week after week, then the food bank brings them to Basha's, when they're worn out, and they have the best recycling program for used grocery bags. Even Waste Management won't take them, they don't have the equipment to recycle them. (Please don't throw those or water bottle caps in your bin). But if you have a Basha's or AJ's nearby, they have a center that will turn those old bags into sanitized new ones for you. Sometimes I do use them to pick up dog poop though, and I feel bad about putting more plastic in the landfill. But damn, they're the best poopie bags for free ever! As long as the landfill churns the waste, it's going to create compost, even with bits of plastic in it. This is the most fertile soil Arizona is EVER going to get. They make kitchen counter bio-degradable plastics for countertop composting, they should make all garbage bags that way. But I stand by the fact that this thread got crazy :spin3:

jdhuyvetter
10/14/2013, 08:41 AM
are you capable of engaging in a proper discussion, or are you merely interested in trolling, as evidenced by your posts ?

This is a very interesting comment considering your posts.

Reeferz412
10/14/2013, 08:43 AM
Sort of off topic but a question: Do garbage companies sort through trash (not the recycling bin or can but the regular trash) to sort what is recyclable? I remember a thread going around and someone said regardless if you throw it in the recycling bin or your regular garbage, the garbage is sorted for recyclable items. Anyone have some info on this? I won't start throwing everything in the trash all together, but I know a lot of small plastics get thrown in the regular trash (i.e. bottle caps, small cups, plastic wrappers)

Also, whats the deal with styrofoam and the containers? I would say half of the time I tell someone to recycle it, they tell me it isn't recyclable because styrofoam is not considered recycle. Is it or is it not?

vitz
10/14/2013, 08:58 AM
This is a very interesting comment considering your posts.

how so?

i'm not saying that one is better than the other, environmentally speaking.

i'm trying to point out that the issue of being able to REUSE one more than the other is hardly a criterion establishing overall environmental impact of one over the other.

the extraction/harvest of raw materials, and those methods' pollutants, the chemical processing of the raw materials to get the end product, how much of either remains and the remains' effects, the recycling process/industry and all of its pollutants also need to be taken into consideration.

any statement that claims one is more or less environmentally damaging w/out taking all of these factors into consideration is nothing more than completely specious argument, and BOTH materials have very complex 'chains' re: going from raw materiele to end product.

so how is that trolling?

vitz
10/14/2013, 09:02 AM
This is a very interesting comment considering your posts.


hrmmm, really ?

have you seen me use profanity or insult anyone here, or use sarcastic derision towards anyone in this thread, in lieu of an actual answer ?

how is it interesting, pray tell ?

vitz
10/14/2013, 09:04 AM
Sort of off topic but a question: Do garbage companies sort through trash (not the recycling bin or can but the regular trash) to sort what is recyclable? I remember a thread going around and someone said regardless if you throw it in the recycling bin or your regular garbage, the garbage is sorted for recyclable items. Anyone have some info on this? I won't start throwing everything in the trash all together, but I know a lot of small plastics get thrown in the regular trash (i.e. bottle caps, small cups, plastic wrappers)

Also, whats the deal with styrofoam and the containers? I would say half of the time I tell someone to recycle it, they tell me it isn't recyclable because styrofoam is not considered recycle. Is it or is it not?


styrofoam stays in the environment forever. afaik, it's not considered to be recyclable, as a material.

jdhuyvetter
10/14/2013, 09:57 AM
hrmmm, really ?

have you seen me use profanity or insult anyone here, or use sarcastic derision towards anyone in this thread, in lieu of an actual answer ?

how is it interesting, pray tell ?

When you start a response with...."Are you capable of....."

To me, that would fall under "Sarcastic derision". I would see this as baiting someone.

To be fair, Phixer has thrown out his share of sarcasm as well.

ReachTheSky
10/14/2013, 10:56 AM
Are you basing the survival of worldwide reefs specifically and ONLY on me driving my car? Then of course the answer is yes, I would stop driving. I'd walk, ride a bike, take the bus/train or carpool.

But that's not a realistic question at all. If I, alone, were to stop driving, the impact would be practically zero and it'd greatly inconvenience me and people who depend on me. In that case, I wouldn't. If a group of millions of people were to stop driving to conserve reefs, then you'd bet I'd join them.

vitz
10/14/2013, 11:05 AM
i didn't pose it as a necessarily realistic question. it was presented as a hypothetical. and yes, it was dealing w/ the scenario of giving up one's car being the only thing necessary to occur to stop reef degradation. simply a thought exercise. :)

ReachTheSky
10/14/2013, 11:19 AM
Oh, I see the point but I think you'd have to search far and wide to find an individual THAT selfish and disconnected from reality. :)

Phixer
10/14/2013, 01:53 PM
All of those plastic bags? I save them, and the original huge bag gets gigantic. Then I bring it to the food bank. They use them to distribute food. The recipients bring them back week after week, then the food bank brings them to Basha's, when they're worn out, and they have the best recycling program for used grocery bags. Even Waste Management won't take them, they don't have the equipment to recycle them. (Please don't throw those or water bottle caps in your bin). But if you have a Basha's or AJ's nearby, they have a center that will turn those old bags into sanitized new ones for you. Sometimes I do use them to pick up dog poop though, and I feel bad about putting more plastic in the landfill. But damn, they're the best poopie bags for free ever! As long as the landfill churns the waste, it's going to create compost, even with bits of plastic in it. This is the most fertile soil Arizona is EVER going to get. They make kitchen counter bio-degradable plastics for countertop composting, they should make all garbage bags that way. But I stand by the fact that this thread got crazy :spin3:

Exactly! your an innovative person. They can be recycled/re-used (same thing) much longer than paper and dont require trees.

Phixer
10/14/2013, 02:01 PM
Sort of off topic but a question: Do garbage companies sort through trash (not the recycling bin or can but the regular trash) to sort what is recyclable? I remember a thread going around and someone said regardless if you throw it in the recycling bin or your regular garbage, the garbage is sorted for recyclable items. Anyone have some info on this? I won't start throwing everything in the trash all together, but I know a lot of small plastics get thrown in the regular trash (i.e. bottle caps, small cups, plastic wrappers)

Also, whats the deal with styrofoam and the containers? I would say half of the time I tell someone to recycle it, they tell me it isn't recyclable because styrofoam is not considered recycle. Is it or is it not?

Everything returns to it's original state given enough time. Many people say that styrofoam lasts forever but no one actually knows this, it's always just speculation based on ignorance and fear as styrofoam has not been around for more than a million years to prove this. The answer is to stop making more of it and reuse/recycle what currently exists.

Styrofoam is definately recyclable / re-useable. Ive re-used it many times as insulation and packing material and it's become very popular as concrete building molds. The fear is how long it takes to return it to it's original base. For that reason it's prudent to recycle/reuse it.

Even rocks dont last forever and styrofoam will simply be changed in form and return to it's original components as does everything. Nature always wins. It may take a million years inside of a volcano though. IMHO

Phixer
10/14/2013, 02:24 PM
,

if the best you can do is childish insults and ad hominem attacks, it's clear you have neither the desire or ability to have a discussion on the subject you're participating in.

ever hear the phrase 'violence is the refuge of the incompetent?

so is trolling ;)

please back up your contention that production and recycling of plastic is more environmentally friendly than that of paper.

So lets get back on track, what do you think about the acrylic plastic used to manufacture aquariums for our hobby? Good or bad idea?

vitz
10/14/2013, 02:48 PM
Exactly! your an innovative person. They can be recycled/re-used (same thing) much longer than paper and dont require trees.


er-no, they aren't, and you need to understand the difference:

"The concept of reuse is when a product that is newly purchased is put to another use after the first use is completed. Recycling is processing of used materials (waste) into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials."

when factoring in the TOTAL environmental impact of a material's use, the latter is equally, if not more, important, as/than the latter.

pretty straightforward concepts, and very different ;)

vitz
10/14/2013, 02:52 PM
Everything returns to it's original state given enough time. Many people say that styrofoam lasts forever but no one actually knows this, it's always just speculation based on ignorance and fear as styrofoam has not been around for more than a million years to prove this. The answer is to stop making more of it and reuse/recycle what currently exists.

Styrofoam is definately recyclable / re-useable. Ive re-used it many times as insulation and packing material and it's become very popular as concrete building molds. The fear is how long it takes to return it to it's original base. For that reason it's prudent to recycle/reuse it.

Even rocks dont last forever and styrofoam will simply be changed in form and return to it's original components as does everything. Nature always wins. It may take a million years inside of a volcano though. IMHO

there's that pesky definition thing again.

i think it's fairly obvious that terms like 'forever' in the context of this conversation (and most that use the term forever) are meant in the context of 'our' subjective timeline of existence.

a million years is forever, to a being who on avg doesn't make it to 100. i don't think anyone who uses the term 'forever' when speaking about plastic's 'lifespan' in the environment means 'until the end of the universe' ;)

vitz
10/14/2013, 02:54 PM
So lets get back on track, what do you think about the acrylic plastic used to manufacture aquariums for our hobby? Good or bad idea?


i'll answer your question if and when you answer mine ;)

Phixer
10/14/2013, 03:08 PM
er-no, they aren't, and you need to understand the difference:

"The concept of reuse is when a product that is newly purchased is put to another use after the first use is completed. Recycling is processing of used materials (waste) into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials."

when factoring in the TOTAL environmental impact of a material's use, the latter is equally, if not more, important, as/than the latter.

pretty straightforward concepts, and very different ;)

See post 118, :lolspin: now your arguing with the dictionary?

Phixer
10/14/2013, 03:09 PM
i'll answer your question if and when you answer mine ;)

Already answered many post ago, dont care if you choose to accept it. Might as well move on.

Phixer
10/14/2013, 03:14 PM
there's that pesky definition thing again.

i think it's fairly obvious that terms like 'forever' in the context of this conversation (and most that use the term forever) are meant in the context of 'our' subjective timeline of existence.

a million years is forever, to a being who on avg doesn't make it to 100. i don't think anyone who uses the term 'forever' when speaking about plastic's 'lifespan' in the environment means 'until the end of the universe' ;)

An assumption. Most I know think of forever as well beyond their "subjective timeline of existence".
Our timeline of existence is irrelevant when compared to the planet or the universe. It these paramaters that govern our existence, not our actions that govern the natural order of things. To think otherwise is not responsible it is arrogant and naive. A miniscule 100 year lifespan if you dont smoke...LOL, or the 200 years of industry compared to 6 billion. Unless we get hit by a comet, the planet will be here long after our civilization with or without reefs and rain forrests.

It's is human nature to destroy things whether we do it intentionally or not, it is natures to balance. Nothing has ever changed that and nothing ever will, no laws, no inventions and certainly not the way we use plastic. Nature is harmony, mankind is chaos.

A million years is nothing in terms of the universe or the planet we live on. You cant alter nature to comply with something that lives less than 100 years. It's the other way around.

Plastic should be measured on those terms not the lifespan of a human. And... even on those terms the life of plastic and it's environmental impact is miniscule. So do things like plastic make us stronger or does they harm us?

My life has never been harmed by plastic, if anything it is better because of plastic. Maybe thats because I dont eat the bags.

vitz
10/14/2013, 03:19 PM
Who cares you cant alter nature to comply with something that lives less than 100 years. It's the other way around.

Plastic should be measured on those terms. And even on those terms the life of plastic is miniscule, the environment will adapt to it.

this is so not remotely close to anything i've written.

i'd suggest you slow down a tad, read what others are actually saying, before replying.

after you 're-use' a plastic bag to where it's so tattered you cannot use it, you then recycle it, by processing it into another re-usable bag.

do you really not grasp the difference?

StinkyBunny
10/14/2013, 03:55 PM
styrofoam stays in the environment forever. afaik, it's not considered to be recyclable, as a material.

Today Styrofoam is 100% recyclable. With all of these synthetic alternative manufacturers popping up they need every piece of scrap plastic they can lay their hands on. I'm all for recycling, but the infrastructure still isn't there for it. I remember a few years ago one of my customers saying that a major plastic manufacturer had 300 rail cars of bottle flake sitting on a siding, that's granulated bottles. Wanna know where it went? To Japan to fuel their power plants. We're getting there, slowly but surely.

power boat jim
10/14/2013, 06:09 PM
An assumption. Most I know think of forever as well beyond their "subjective timeline of existence".
Our timeline of existence is irrelevant when compared to the planet or the universe. It these paramaters that govern our existence, not our actions that govern the natural order of things. To think otherwise is not responsible it is arrogant and naive. A miniscule 100 year lifespan if you dont smoke...LOL, or the 200 years of industry compared to 6 billion. Unless we get hit by a comet, the planet will be here long after our civilization with or without reefs and rain forrests.

It's is human nature to destroy things whether we do it intentionally or not, it is natures to balance. Nothing has ever changed that and nothing ever will, no laws, no inventions and certainly not the way we use plastic. Nature is harmony, mankind is chaos.

A million years is nothing in terms of the universe or the planet we live on. You cant alter nature to comply with something that lives less than 100 years. It's the other way around.

Plastic should be measured on those terms not the lifespan of a human. And... even on those terms the life of plastic and it's environmental impact is miniscule. So do things like plastic make us stronger or does they harm us?

My life has never been harmed by plastic, if anything it is better because of plastic. Maybe thats because I dont eat the bags.

All of what you say is based on what sounds like your own philosophies. None of what you say is rooted in any type of natural science basis. I have read this post above several times and it makes nearly no sense to me at all. Its alot vague statements and double talk.

You say your life has never been harmed by the use of plastic... How do you know that. Water bottles may give off BPA. Plastic is a petroleum product, manufacturing it requires oil. That has problems associated with it that effects all of us.

You keep stating man is chaos nature is harmony. In Nature there is neither. What you perceive as balance and chaos is simply cause and effect. The only other thing nature guarantees is entropy.

Phixer
10/14/2013, 08:46 PM
All of what you say is based on what sounds like your own philosophies. None of what you say is rooted in any type of natural science basis. I have read this post above several times and it makes nearly no sense to me at all. Its alot vague statements and double talk.

You say your life has never been harmed by the use of plastic... How do you know that. Water bottles may give off BPA. Plastic is a petroleum product, manufacturing it requires oil. That has problems associated with it that effects all of us.

You keep stating man is chaos nature is harmony. In Nature there is neither. What you perceive as balance and chaos is simply cause and effect. The only other thing nature guarantees is entropy.


Of course and based on personal experience. What else? Natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have. So what is the point in not proving it for yourself through your own experience. Science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says. Why not use your own scientific method and validate for yourself.

Is plastic is bad, like I said I see no evidence of it harming me. It's never harmed me, and Ive experienced for a very long time. If it is harmful and Im not harmed by it then I accept that at face value. Thats not being naive thats living in reality Jim. One own experience is all that really matters.

And how do you know it has been harmed by plastic? There is no way to prove this, scientifically or otherwise. Just the mere act of walking down the street exposes you to all kinds of carcinogens. Are you attempting to say plastic is the same as asbestos?

And that entropy has outlasted mankind by a few billion years. In nature there is both chaos (natural disasters) and harmony (perseverance and evolution) Id call that pretty harmonious and balanced. Much more so than any man made system created within the last 6 thousand years.

Thats a nice boat, whats the hull made of?

Phixer
10/14/2013, 09:10 PM
this is so not remotely close to anything i've written.

i'd suggest you slow down a tad, read what others are actually saying, before replying.

after you 're-use' a plastic bag to where it's so tattered you cannot use it, you then recycle it, by processing it into another re-usable bag.

do you really not grasp the difference?

Post 118 again vitz. Apparently those who publish dictionaries dont know the difference either. Re-use and recycle are synonymous. Your confusing this with the intended purpose of the bag, its service life as a bag may be up but it can still be re-used for other purposes even if this means melting it down and starting over to make a net to catch your fish with.

Of course you can re-use a tattered old bag, look at Jane Fonda. :lmao: It's known as innovation and works much better than denial. Off the top, how about shredding it and using it for packing material? That packing material will last a long time (pretty sustainable). Ive used them as a weed barrier beneath recycled rubber compost also. That with my recycled/reused saltwater keeps the weeds away. What happens when you melt it down and make it into something else, are you re-using this plastic for another purpose or is this recycling...both the same.

power boat jim
10/14/2013, 09:29 PM
Of course and based on personal experience. What else? Natural science consistently fails to provide answers. So what is the point in not proving it for yourself through your own experience. Science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says.

Is plastic is bad, like I said I see no evidence of it harming me. It's never harmed me, and Ive experienced for a very long time. If it is harmful and Im not harmed by it then I accept that at face value. Thats not being naive thats living in reality Jim. One own experience is all that really matters.

And how do you know it has been harmed by plastic? There is no way to prove this, scientifically or otherwise. Just the mere act of walking down the street exposes you to all kinds of carcinogens. Are you attempting to say plastic is the same as asbestos?

And that entropy has outlasted mankind by a few billion years. In nature there is both chaos (natural disasters) and harmony (perseverance and evolution) Id call that pretty harmonious and balanced. Much more so than any man made system created within the last 6 thousand years.

Now lets talk about hypocrisy... what is your boat hull made of?

No hypocrisy here, since the boat spends most of its time in a natural fluid,anything bad should be balanced out by the harmony of its surroundings.

Boat builders have taken steps in using controls to reduce exposure to fumes because the fumes from the curing fiberglass were deemed harmful to the people working with it. Dont really know if its dangerous to the end user or not.

I also dont think I was being a hypocrite since I never said I would not use plastic or that all of it is dangerous. All Im saying is how can you be sure that every type of plastic that you have come into contact with over the course of your life has done you no harm? Asbestos is so different then plastic I wont even address that comment.

Natural sciences include chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology and earth science. Each of these are governed by the scientific method which means most of the results and findings are quantifiable and not open to opinion. So, to say the natural sciences are wrong more then the are right is so far off base that you must have a different definition of what the natural sciences are then the accepted one.

vitz
10/14/2013, 09:36 PM
Post 118 again vitz. Apparently those who publish dictionaries dont know the difference either. Re-use and recycle are synonymous. Your confusing this with the intended purpose of the bag, its service life as a bag may be up but it can still be re-used for other purposes even if this means melting it down and starting over to make a net to catch your fish with.

Of course you can re-use a tattered old bag, look at Jane Fonda. :lmao: It's known as innovation and works much better than denial. Off the top, how about shredding it and using it for packing material? That packing material will last a long time (pretty sustainable). Ive used them as a weed barrier beneath recycled rubber compost also. That with my recycled/reused saltwater keeps the weeds away. What happens when you melt it down and make it into something else, are you re-using this plastic for another purpose or is this recycling...both the same.


a comedian, you are not, and....

/facepalm

anyone who contends that reuse and recycle are synonyms needs to re-examine their perceived faculty of the english language.

i s'pose you never heard the phrase 'reduce, reuse, recycle'.

you're acting like a petulant child, and i'm fairly certain you're arguing *way* out of your league. ;)

r-balljunkie
10/14/2013, 10:00 PM
oh the irony. i think im the ONLY person on RC who doesnt own a car, actually rides a bike everywhere i go.....scuba gear on my trailer as i hit the reef to go diving.
i dont think i care any more or less than anyone else.......

jdhuyvetter
10/14/2013, 10:11 PM
oh the irony. i think im the ONLY person on RC who doesnt own a car, actually rides a bike everywhere i go.....scuba gear on my trailer as i hit the reef to go diving.
i dont think i care any more or less than anyone else.......

If I lived on an island I could throw a rock across, I wouldn't own a car either. A boat yes, car no.

Phixer
10/14/2013, 10:11 PM
No hypocrisy here, since the boat spends most of its time in a natural fluid,anything bad should be balanced out by the harmony of its surroundings.

Boat builders have taken steps in using controls to reduce exposure to fumes because the fumes from the curing fiberglass were deemed harmful to the people working with it. Dont really know if its dangerous to the end user or not.

I also dont think I was being a hypocrite since I never said I would not use plastic or that all of it is dangerous. All Im saying is how can you be sure that every type of plastic that you have come into contact with over the course of your life has done you no harm? Asbestos is so different then plastic I wont even address that comment.

Natural sciences include chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology and earth science. Each of these are governed by the scientific method which means most of the results and findings are quantifiable and not open to opinion. So, to say the natural sciences are wrong more then the are right is so far off base that you must have a different definition of what the natural sciences are then the accepted one.


Accepted by whom? I live in the real world and do not accept theories. I accept reality. Does this make me ignorant for not accepting what science says?
Jim here is some science... according to http://eartheasy.com/play_eco-friendly_boating.htm

"The volume of hydrocarbon and oil pollution entering North America's waters every year from recreational boating is estimated to be more than 15 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill (up to one billion litres per year). "

They could be wrong, do you believe them? Let me know and I'll post what OSHA and the EPA says. Does this mean your boat is causing harm?

Im sure your a responsible person (and pretty sharp after reading some of your posts) so this probably dosent apply to you (although the mfg of gel coated fiberglass boat hulls is another story).

Just like most people are responsible enough not to pollute the seas with their plastic bags and conversely have not been harmed by them.

Oh and if science is right more than it is wrong why did it create plastic?

ReachTheSky
10/14/2013, 10:12 PM
Of course and based on personal experience. What else? Natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have. So what is the point in not proving it for yourself through your own experience. Science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says. Why not use your own scientific method and validate for yourself.
No offense but I don't think you understand science very well, if at all. You are drawing wild conclusions and focusing exclusively on how something impacts yourself. Science is the exact opposite of that.

Phixer
10/14/2013, 10:24 PM
a comedian, you are not, and....

/facepalm

anyone who contends that reuse and recycle are synonyms needs to re-examine their perceived faculty of the english language.

i s'pose you never heard the phrase 'reduce, reuse, recycle'.

you're acting like a petulant child, and i'm fairly certain you're arguing *way* out of your league. ;)

Your right, your arguments are much more comical especially when defeated by a "petulant child".

Phixer
10/14/2013, 10:25 PM
No offense but I don't think you understand science very well, if at all. You are drawing wild conclusions and focusing exclusively on how something impacts yourself. Science is the exact opposite of that.

LOL of course not....Yes, how it impacts me, that was mentioned a long time ago? I could care less about speculative issues such as how peanut butter affects the mating habits of the "yellow bellied sap sucker" or if lizard **** causes warts because most of what is presented is not proof, just theory guised as science with no proof. There is no scientific method to prove these claims so I like to take it down a level and ask how it affects one directly. Most of the time it doesnt.

I've studied long enough to know I dont know but know enough to dispute some elements of it. Hope that makes sense.

I know very little about so many things. But I do know myself and what works for me as self centered and unpopular as that may appear to some. And I think others out there may feel the same way.

"They say a man never really knows himself... until his freedom's been taken away. I wonder... how well you know yourself? "

Tychus Findlay

r-balljunkie
10/14/2013, 10:41 PM
If I lived on an island I could throw a rock across, I wouldn't own a car either. A boat yes, car no.

actually two decent golf drives wide, 2+ miles long......morning rush hour is killer :)

power boat jim
10/14/2013, 11:12 PM
Accepted by whom? I live in the real world and do not accept theories. I accept reality. Does this make me ignorant for not accepting what science says?
Jim here is some science... according to http://eartheasy.com/play_eco-friendly_boating.htm

"The volume of hydrocarbon and oil pollution entering North America's waters every year from recreational boating is estimated to be more than 15 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill (up to one billion litres per year). "

They could be wrong, do you believe them? Let me know and I'll post what OSHA and the EPA says. Does this mean your boat is causing harm?

Im sure your a responsible person (and pretty sharp after reading some of your posts) so this probably dosent apply to you (although the mfg of gel coated fiberglass boat hulls is another story).

Just like most people are responsible enough not to pollute the seas with their plastic bags and conversely have not been harmed by them.

Oh and if science is right more than it is wrong why did it create plastic?

I think you may be confusing science with an agenda vs pure science. Unfortunately, there are alot of agendas out there. The site you linked is run by someone who is more of a naturalist then a scientist. As far as the 2 stroke pouring 1/3 of its fuel into the water, its the most ridiculous claim I have ever herd. Any one who believs these claims and I do mean claims knows nothing on how an internal combustion engine works and has probably never even operated one.

And as for dumping 15x the Amoco Valdez by the boating public, all I can say is where is the oil slick? I dont know that recreational boating uses fifteen supertankers of fuel each year let alone spill that much. My boat has catalytic converters on it and burns next to no oil. I think you are confusing extremest agenda/ claims in place of scientific fact. Once you can separate the two you might see things differently.

vitz
10/14/2013, 11:14 PM
Your right, your arguments are much more comical especially when defeated by a "petulant child".


:lmao:

Phixer
10/14/2013, 11:18 PM
I think you may be confusing science with an agenda vs pure science. Unfortunately, there are alot of agendas out there. The site you linked is run by someone who is more of a naturalist then a scientist. As far as the 2 stroke pouring 1/3 of its fuel into the water, its the most ridiculous claim I have ever herd. Any one who believs these claims and I do mean claims knows nothing on how an internal combustion engine works and has probably never even operated one.

And as for dumping 15x the Amoco Valdez by the boating public, all I can say is where is the oil slick? I dont know that recreational boating uses fifteen supertankers of fuel each year let alone spill that much. My boat has catalytic converters on it and burns next to no oil. I think you are confusing extremest agenda/ claims in place of scientific fact. Once you can separate the two you might see things differently.

The EPA and OSHA say similar things about the boating industry Jim.

I know the article was speculative, my point is that:

Some agendas are started by naturalists. Naturalists who like to hide behind false science and hand pick what they want to hear. Here's whats funny. The same science that created plastic is what they like to rely upon to save them from it?

Whats always correct?... personal experience. It's always correct because it works for the individual. There is truth in experience, at least for the beholder. And thats fine with me. Ive never been harmed by plastic (disclaimer personal experience here) (and willing to believe) any more than you have been harmed by the boating industry or believe yours harms the environment. Thats not science, thats personal truth.

Deinonych
10/14/2013, 11:40 PM
"They say a man never really knows himself... until his freedom's been taken away. I wonder... how well you know yourself? "

Tychus Findlay

You are quoting a video game character? :eek1:

Phixer
10/14/2013, 11:47 PM
You are quoting a video game character? :eek1:

Yes Starcraft 2. Thats his avatar, Tychus Findlay ... Jim Raynors buddy. An awesome game.

Was wondering if anyone would pick that up?

Mldukes
10/15/2013, 12:23 AM
In 1937 the only viable resource was eliminated as an industrial competitor to timber, oil, and coal. Creating monopolies and ultimately bringing us to the oil dependant world that we live in today.

power boat jim
10/15/2013, 07:19 AM
The EPA and OSHA say similar things about the boating industry Jim.

I know the article was speculative, my point is that:

Some agendas are started by naturalists. Naturalists who like to hide behind false science and hand pick what they want to hear. Here's whats funny. The same science that created plastic is what they like to rely upon to save them from it?

Whats always correct?... personal experience. It's always correct because it works for the individual. There is truth in experience, at least for the beholder. And thats fine with me. Ive never been harmed by plastic (disclaimer personal experience here) (and willing to believe) any more than you have been harmed by the boating industry or believe yours harms the environment. Thats not science, thats personal truth.

Just FYI, OSHA is a regulatory agency that comes up with creative ways to protect workers. They have nothing to do with the environment. The EPA is far more complicated, but generally help enact laws that do pertain to the environment. Alot of putting numbers on emissions among other things. This is where the Science by agenda can become an issue since its run by the government.

As for the rest of you post I cannot disagree, personal experience can be a valueable tool in uncovering the truth. With enough experience you can formulate a theory, which leads to an experiment(s) then you can draw a conclusion based on the data you have compiled.If The data can be reviewed and duplicated it usually becomes scientific fact. See so you have become part of the scientific process and didnt even know it:D

KafudaFish
10/15/2013, 12:29 PM
Man I love this thread, I really do. We could have answered Vitz’s question with a simple yes or no answer and be done with it. Instead we have gone around the horn multiple times and I hope that we continue. The best threads/discussions in life really are all encompassing.

Phixer you have stated no one is going to change your opinion of the world because “you live in the real world and you do not accept theories” and that “personal experience is always correct and that it works for the individual”. Yet you have flip-flopped back and forth between using the natural sciences and your opinions/experiences to justify your reality and stance.

As you stated, “filling a page with opinions” won’t change the facts, yet when someone else uses science to support the argument you disagree and you use your sense of reality. Why use both sides of the discussion if you don’t believe in one of them?

You stated that “natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have” and that “science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says”. How did you conclude that? Science is not about being right or wrong but being able to DISPROVE scientific theories based upon predictions that can be tested through repeatable experiments.

Here are three examples of science over the last few centuries related to your train of thought though I doubt if you accept them since they are “just theories”. You don’t support scientific theories but what about scientific laws?

Look at the work of Newton and his Theory of Mechanics and then the work of Einstein. Without one the other may have never been scientifically accepted. What about Newton’s work on calculus and the effects on physics and statistics?

Because the natural sciences were discussed how about Darwin’s work and the Theory of Evolution? We could go into great detail but that is beyond this discussion and hits on some of the UA issues. I brought this up for the historical significance as much as anything. Some argue that this theory should be scientific fact. Should it? Do you accept it? So far, there have been no experiments that have tested this theory and have disproved it. Perhaps 200 years from now someone else will propose a new hypothesis, test it, post their results, have those results peer-reviewed, the hypothesis becomes accepted as scientific theory, the person is awarded the Nobel Prize and the cash and then goes on the late night talk show circuit but until then the science supports his theory.

Finally and more recently what about the work of Pons and Fleischmann? Ever heard of them? Why not? (Why do I feel like I am sitting at a bar in Boston with Robin Williams discussing science?).

They conducted some earth shattering science, science that could change the world and yet most people probably have never heard of them.

Again why? Because with today’s science, their claims and results cannot be reproduced and it is believed that the results were due to some error. Yet with all of that, there are some researchers that continue the work in efforts. Perhaps history will be kind to them and credit them with “saving all the world’s energy problems”.

One of the biggest issues with open discussions when using science and reality/ personal experience is a person’s reality cannot be quantified. Humans, even though some are “higher life forms who spend less time breeding”, are for the most part simple creatures. People like pretty packages i.e. numbers and science even when they do not understand it or agree.

Don’t believe me? Back to the beginning of this thread everything you stated that was wrong was based upon overpopulation. At what point is the world considered to be overpopulated? What is your answer? What number just flashed in your head? Did you just pick some random number? Is it 42?

What value is your number? How did you come up with that? Wouldn’t it support your argument if you could say that at 8.2 billion people the human population has reached a critical value and anything beyond that the system can no longer support these levels? Then what? Harmony or is it chaos?

Still don’t believe me? What happens in a court of law? Eye witnesses take the stand and describe their personal experiences and to them, everything they state is the truth/correct/factual because of that experience. Seems pretty straight forward doesn’t it? Then an expert witness, who has no personal interest in the case, takes the stand and uses science to show that perception/reality wasn’t reality.

My Cousin Vinny anyone?

So of the two which holds more sway, the science or the sense of reality of the eye witness?

As far as your statement about harm and asbestos how do you know that asbestos is harmful? It was a great product. It did everything it was suppose to do. It was a great insulator and even was used in child clothing as a fire retardant. I bet that some are reading this right now that wore it years ago.

It has been used for thousands of years and the popularity grew as the result of the Industrial Revolution but guess what? It was discovered that there were some issues with it.

How did we determine that? Nope not personal opinion but science. Yeah for science.

If PaulB comes across this, I know that he worked with it and I also know that he use to bathe in Agent Orange. Luckily he is healthy as a horse and it is probably because he is as stubborn as a mule. Does this mean that because his personal experiences are different than others that the scientific data showing the effects should be discredited? No.

We could continue to list many more chemicals such as PCBs, and DDT but then we would be discussing science once again and we all know that according to you science is flawed because it leaves more questions unanswered than answered. If you think about it that is one of the goals of science as illustrated by my three examples above.

What about coal ash? Is that an issue? What does the EPA say? Is it considered a toxic material? As far as the USEPA it really isn’t that bad. Perhaps it is the modern day equivalent of asbestos but we won’t know will we?


So when it comes down to it, it should be logical to go with science over our version of reality.

Now I am sure you are either going to ignore all of this, take some stab at humor to by pass this, you are going to go into another emotional/denial stance or maybe even you are going to make a comment about weakness or others being a cat (nice going around the UA on that one) but it is a good thing that you used a man made system to get all of your points across especially when you are not dependent on it. But my personal favorite that I almost forgot is the “I don’t mean to insult you” line when in reality that is exactly what will follow.


See this has been much more fun than just a simple poll.

dc
10/15/2013, 12:40 PM
I can't think of a single reason to leave this open any longer.