[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Brashears on Hanson
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.961213010107.829065B-100000@OBERLIN.EDU> Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU> writes:
>
> On 13 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:31:26 EDT, Toby Reiter <str4552@OBERLIN.EDU>
> > wrote:
> > l
> > >You don't seem to know your statistics too well. About half of most
> > >landfills is recyclable or compostable paper and paper products.
> >
> > I see no statistic in that sentence. I have no idea where you get
> > your "about half" thing from. If it's compostable, it will be
> > composted. have no fear. Land fills are full of good healthy
> > bacteria who are specialists on the subject.
>
> The statistic, dummy, is the fact that 95% of our waste could be
> immediately reentered into the economy instead of sent to a landfill.
> Because this takes some degree of clue to figure out, people without a
> clue tend not to get it. The concept is waste equals food. In other
> words, and one thing which is the effluent of a process becomes the
> influent of another.
> The reason that dumping compostable materials in landfills is a problem is
> twofold. First, landfills, because of the way they are designed, do not
> tend to decompose items very quickly. I.e. there are 20-40 year old
> newspapers in landfills which are still readable, as well as intact
> ancient banana peels. The second reason this is a problem is because we
> spend money and resources to create fertilizer when an even better
> source-- food, yard, and paper scraps, are left to languish in a
> landfill. They serve no use there and any nutrients that may be found
> there are counteracted by the presence of toxic chemicals and metals.
>
> >
> > Recyclable? Hell you've been in a classroom, seen all the dust coming
> > off the blackboard, all those little recycled sea shells. Why then do
> > you natter on?
>
> That's not recycling that's using. In other words, sure oil used to be
> living plants and animals, so you are using elements that were previously
> used for something else, but most people, even ardent
> anti-environmentalists, would have to concede that oil is a virgin
> resource.
>
> > If it doesn't turn up as slag this it will turn up as igneous that.
>
> True, on a universal scale, the amount of matter and energy will always
> remain constant, but the problem is that once a piece of metal is buried
> in a landfill, it has become de-concentrated to the point that we will
> prefer to use virgin resources. The problem with your argument is that
> it ignores the practical limitations of resource recovery after dumping
> because of geographic entropy.
>
> > > Another
> > >20% glass, plastic, and metals, about 25% food and yard waste, and then
> > >about 5% toxic substances. In other words, about 95% of the material that
> > >goes into a landfill is recyclable. Any plastics or toxins that cannot be
> > >recycled probably shouldn't have been created in the first place.
> >
> > Green Avenger,
> >
> > I am very puzzled. (What are you avenging? And what colour was _it_?
> > Against whom are you doing your hyperthyroid avenging?) I am
> > perfectly prepared to concede the truth, plus or minus a few percent,
> > of everything you say here.
> >
> > So?
> My point is that your argument that humans do not throw away useful
> materials is just blatantly untrue. Even if people never threw away
> perfectly good but simply outdated appliances (which they do), they still
> could be categorized as wasteful for throwing away items which could be
> used as inputs in other aspects of production. Look at an ecosystem. In
> it, all waste which is created becomes the food for some other organism.
> Your arguments are about as nonsensical as a physics teacher who
> attempted to prove the lack of intelligence of animals by stating "Have
> you ever seen a squirrel play golf?" In the current light of this
> conversation, who do you feel has more intelligence an ecosystem which
> insists it be responsible for its inputs and outputs, or a random guy who
> insists he's doing the world a favor when he throws away his styrofoam cup.
> The green avenger part is just my way of saying that I accept my
> responsibility for being vigilant and caring for the earth. Anyone who
> refuses to see himself or herself as part of nature is not truly living,
> so David? Go get a life!
>
> Toby Reiter
I see Mr. Reiter has learned quite a few slogans in his freshman
environmental studies class. Do you suppose they chant them in
unison? My son's 5th grade class was made to chant environmental
slogans.
Let's see we have
1. "Anyone who refuses to see himself or herself as
part of nature is not truly living".
2. "Get a life".
3. "Green avenger".
4. the concept of an ecosystem with intelligence
5. "... people without a clue tend not to get it.", i.e. people who
disagree with Reiter's teacher disagree with Reiter's teacher.
The main error of this post is that Reiter's teacher (Could he tell us
the name, so we could argue with the ventriloquist rather than with
the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs. Labor costs dominate any kind
of recycling. People will do a certain amount of separating trash for
a while when pumped up by a cause, but they will slack off when the
next excitement comes along.
A sufficiently coercive regime can make people waste their time for
ideological reasons, but then an ideological police force is required.
I see Reiter as an ideological drill sergeant. "Pick up all the
styrofoam in this landfill. Bend down there! All I want to see are
elbows and assholes!"
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Follow-Ups:
References: