Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
As for "being on pins and needles", that has to do with basically every other conversation we're having being like one step away from an argument and I'm having to grapple with whether to keep trying to keep the conversation from blowing up or to more properly represent my thoughts.
Your viewpoint seems to involve interpreting everything as a social influencing scenario wherein people's (e.g. the Pope's, CNN's, even my) actions can (and should?) be interpreted as representing (or even pushing?) some associated coordinated set of ideas based on some sort of stereotype in your mind that any such action might resemble, as opposed to actions standing on their own which -- at most -- can be said to coincidentially resemble parts of those sets of ideas, but with the caveat that they may not represent those stereotypes.
Frankly speaking I would find this incessant focus on the social dimension of everything -- the constant interpretations of the actions of others through such lenses of preconceived social representations, and the constant practice of choosing one's own actions primarily based on how they look through such lenses -- to be a torturous one, albeit a very strange choice of torture. And that is my opinion that that statement indicates. In case you didn't get it (which seems the case, given your response), it's not "hell" in the sense of "these actions you do make you represent evil". It's "hell" in the sense of "putting yourself through hell".
Because I never actually said my opinion was "maintaining it as it was" (my opinion is rather different, as I explained earlier), yet somehow you came to that idea. But I am aware that that idea is in the "stereotypical environmentalist opinions/beliefs/ideas" box.
The odd thing is that I did not imply the latter either. Only the former, by noting that you seem to interpret everything as social posturing, and that this way of seeing the world seems to be a very bad idea, because along with this viewpoint comes your apparently seeing everything that people do as some sort of -- and pardon me for using a turn of phrase that happens to namedrop a hobby of yours -- fashion statement. Or worse yet, as some sort of political football.
So you really are insisting on the idea that "they aren't explicitly mentioning God; this is a problem!", never mind the fact that God being the center of one's religious beliefs does not necessarily mean incessantly babbling about God?
Heck, if you had said this about a denomination (such as one of the evangelical ones) whose tenets emphasized personal belief and the importance of proselytizing all day every day, then your criticism might make more sense. But Catholicism definitely encourages doing good as part of one's faith, not just spouting about faith.
Actually, "Cynicism", and specifically, an undue amount of cynicism, might be a more accurate term to describe the kinds of interpretations you ascribe to the things people do. For whatever reason you are interpreting the Pope's action as an attempt at "promoting himself as a mainstream novelty figure", rather than first considering how it fits into the actual religious beliefs themselves, not to mention that Popes have historically had many things to say about things that don't directly involve God-spouting.
A problem is that you're labeling the idea as "neo-paganist" in the first place, and then going further in using that to draw a conclusion about the Pope's motive.
That said, clearly neither of you are having a good time, so... I dunno. Think more about whether what you're posting will invite replies you won't dislike responding to.
I spent so long writing this that Glenn eventually posted first, I guess I'll just post it anyways before reading that post, may reply later.
What's happening now, at least to me, seems like it'll lead to us ranting about the other's viewpoints, rather than the topic at hand. That's not something I ever want to do, because it's a road of little benefit, a lot of hurt feelings and possibly razed friendships.
I never want to change who you are. I guess I've said this before, but I think arguing with you can expose flaws in my own thinking (like that time I was flippant about the Tlaib Blood Libel thing, having not looked it up properly) and together we can reach a consensus or even, magically, something that approaches the truth.
I guess I'm sharpening my own "blade" of thoughts by arguing against your... that stone thing people sharpen blades against. And you're doing the same.
I understand that this is what he's saying. However, communication is half the message you're sending, and half the way you say it. For example, it took a lot for me not to insert digs or owns into my reply, or even just dig in and respond fully.
I didn't, and still don't, appreciate the way he said it. However, that's okay.
I don't want to say I "forgive" it, because forgive is a big and powerful word, but I understand how he came to say it the way he did, so I don't mind it. I will admit it made me mad, but that's just pride and other emotions out of my control (that I managed to bring under control). That's why I took my time before replying.
I mean, I love GMH. That means being willing to understand things like that.
Also, because this is the era of participation trophies and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings; I loves all youse guys.
Darn it I actually teared up writing this. I've never even physically met any of you.
Unrelatedly, I made so much fun of those lyrics to Life is just a miracle and now it turns out I needed them.
I find that arguing is never fun, yet I have a strong need to do it anyways. I guess it's the same for guys who are into like, just actually fighting each other for sport (though that's way more painful).
Well, either that, or it'd just blow up, which would result in a more gratifying conflagration where both of us get to let loose at each other.
On the other hand, arguing "about the topic at hand" would likely amount to the usual back-and-forth of an internet political argument where I'm spending huge amounts of time researching pointless trivia, frequently involving messy instances of hearsay and he-said-she-said. (The "blood libel" thing is an apt example of this.)
Maybe you find this experience enlightening, but I don't. Especially when it's about trying to speculatively extrapolate shades of meaning from people's words -- something I really don't like doing, and also a thing that I really don't like other people doing either.
Furthermore, I also take no pleasure in researching such trivia in the context of an antagonistic political argument where I basically have to constantly watch my back for "gotchas" in everything that I say myself. (Which in turn means I have to spend forever composing my messages too, after researching all the stuff.)
A whetstone.
Sorry to be blunt (but that's just how I am)...I don't feel this same way. Maybe arguing with you (or otherwise arguing about politics on the internet) can help hone some skills that may come in handy later, but I actually just feel like I'm wasting my time researching and picking apart details, many of which probably don't even matter in the bigger picture. Sure, I could try to debunk individual points (and that's assuming I don't get a face full of more new links to read thoroughly and dissect, in reply). But even succeeding in this accomplishes little of substance.
If you're thinking about doing so by having a long-winded internet argument about politics, then I've learned from experience that doesn't work.
Instead, I tried to lend a consensus-like atmosphere to the conversation by focusing on the practically meaningful, and while I'm not unaware of the ideological/aspirational, I purposely ignored them, since I've found them to be an argument-prone waste of time. I do a similar thing when talking about politics, where I try to stick to key information that's easily known and under no dispute, and talk about it with a tone of emotional distance and a mind toward focusing on the practical impacts of stuff.
That's about all I can do to keep things from blowing up. (Short of yelling at people directly, but if I do then it's already blown up anyway. But I'd rather a conversation blow up than try to keep a lid and force it to seethe.)
Perhaps not to me, or in this reply (and I wonder if your post would be more fun if you did), but you do leave little things that seem like digs or offhand/backhanded comments of various sorts. More accurately, they're "that's an odd thing to say" comments, unless I...well...speculatively extrapolate shades of meaning from them. (The gratuitous "this is the era of participation trophies" is one example.)
Individually, they could be interpreted as offhand comments of little meaning, and they're often irrelevant to the topic at hand, so I generally just ignore them. But there's definitely a tone of obliqueness to them, implying an undercurrent of some sort, in a "you know what I mean" way. (Whereas I'd just be "lemme just come out and say it out loud".)
These sorts of comments can be fun if the conversation isn't taken seriously (and I think that the stuff you put in the spoiler tag probably wasn't meant seriously, so it's probably unfair of me to use this example). But in a political conversation they're a sign to me of "no, I will not enjoy this".
(More generally, that undercurrent also likely has to do with stuff like "why the frack are we suddenly talking about neo-paganism?".)
FYI you're not the only person who does this, and frankly it's why I don't like discussing politics even with people who are my partisan allies.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, @Stormtroper and @lrdgck, but this strikes me as a difference between how @fourteenwings and I talk (or at least between how he talks and how I think), especially when it comes to political stuff. Actually, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of the stuff I've written.)
I would like to underscore my point about really disliking speculatively extrapolating meaning from people's words, though.
But yeah, see you next flamewar I guess lol. I would say "good game" as a metaphorical handshake except this isn't really a game at all.
I am also disinclined to remove nuclear power. It's very much not a perfect solution, but it is something that can supply baseload power while we improve and deploy solar PV tech and energy storage tech, for example.
Being wary of the drawbacks of nuclear power doesn't mean shutting it off. Not to mention these are supremely expensive infrastructure projects; assuming that they're being used safely (for the time being) I don't think they should go to waste...particularly since they're at least useful for tiding us over to a future that's less GHG-emissions-intensive and may involve more distributed power generation.
I'd be hesitant about expanding nuclear power without figuring out more details with regards to safety issues, though -- including safe disposal of nuclear waste. (Reductions in nuclear power may or may not be useful at this time; my opinion on that is less clear.)
Re GMOs: I find I differ from some of my fellow environmentalists in that I have little problem with GMOs per se, and I would encourage them to examine exactly what genetic changes are being made then simply encourage appropriate scientific scrutinty as to the effects of those changes on, say, wild populations of that plant species, or other concerns as relevant.
Note that a number of food plants are already very much the result of thousands of years of selective breeding, and some already have a bunch of problems with them. For example, Cavendish bananas (by far the most popular variety of bananas commonly sold in stores) are known for being very susceptible to disease, particularly since it's a monoculture. And from what I've heard, oranges are the product of a series of crosses between citrus fruits and the seeds are nearly infertile, but rather it's just propagated via other means.
Far as I understand it, there is a concern that modified genes could affect the wild-type species, and hence my saying there should be appopriate scientific scrutiny of this risk. (If anything, wild-type plants would naturally have much more genetic variation.) There's also a thing about ag companies purposely making seeds that are infertile after a generation, and that's scummy in my opinion.
As for consolidation to produce economies of scale, I'm not sure how much more this would help; I'm already aware there are farmers making small margins and having business risk heaped on them from ag supplier companies. Basically going back to a sharecropping model (I think this would be an applicable term?) doesn't seem like a socially sustainable prospect.
(If anything, it may be more useful to come to the realization that things (both food and other manufactured goods) arguably "ought to be" more expensive than they are now given that people are getting stuff for cheap thanks for cheap labor and whatnot.)
Meanwhile I think there's probably something to be said about converting more urban and suburban land (and rooftops, see below) to small-scale agriculture, in temperate and tropical areas. You might not get economies of scale in things like urban farms but you can get other benefits from it, such as increasing nutritional value of the available food supply in some places, improving air quality and other quality-of-life (e.g. trees providing shade), particularly in urban centers, and improving community resiliency by increasing self-sufficiency. In densely packed cities, this could also be combined with "green roofs", which might in turn reduce urban heat island effects, and could (with sufficient tech and proper planning) also benefit the water supply.
In general, this is about making more efficient use of space, rather than wasting it on bare rootops or suburban laaaaaaawns. (Lawn maintenance is obnoxious; homeowners' associations that mandate it are even more obnoxious. I'd prefer to switch it out for something better. Like, y'know, growing your own food.)
At sufficient volumes it may even reduce material transport costs (either trucking or car trips to the grocery store), but I doubt it'll make much of a dent in this regard. (But one could also say that every little bit helps...we'll see I guess.)
Combine this with a greater emphasis on planting local/native species for food, and this could even make for a cultural revitalization wherein localities actually regain local flavors, literally and figuratively.
As for pesticides, I think part of the reason for considering genetic modifications is that they might work better than pesticides. (And pollination is a very important ecosystem service that's easily overlooked, after all.)
For what it's worth, I'm writing this from the perspective of someone living in and most familiar with economic, social, and environmental conditions in the United States. Obviously, such conditions vary from place to place, so my comments may not be applicable elsewhere.
And thanks to my habit of prattling on and on this is already a very long post. I'll leave comments on the other stuff in your post to a later reply.
Environmentalist groups managed to get the distributors of the movie to pull out of their deal due to the "misinformation" presented in the movie. Curiously enough, it was some of these same environmental groups the movie was meant to address (and certainly the means supported by most of them).
These criticisms mentioned here (I haven't watched the movie itself) aren't new and are imperfections of current clean-energy tech. Solar power (particularly solar photovoltaics, as opposed to solar thermal) is known to currently involve the use of resources likes rare-earth minerals, whose supply is limited and may be subject to geopolitical complications. (A similar problem I think may occur with energy storage tech.) It wouldn't surprise me for wind power tech to have similar issues.
That said, the further that demand and economies of scale push this field, the faster it's expected to improve, with regards to cost and (hopefully) with regards to choices of materials. Ideally they'd be producible locally. I think there are some research efforts underway to replace those materials with organic materials, but I am not very familiar with these efforts...though I'd guess that the more money there is to be made here, the more incentivized this research is.
Anyhow, the fundamentals remain strong on solar, as far as I know -- there is well more than enough light energy that hits our planet, to power all of human civilization. It's just a matter of how much, and how efficiently, it can be captured. (Wind doesn't enjoy this distinction, though it may still be locally useful.)
And yeah, electric cars do depend in turn on the ultimate source of that electricity...which may be the burning of fossil fuels, kinda defeating the GHG reduction purpose. However, (1) that would mean that changing the electricity supply to a non-GHG-emitting source would be able to change a bunch of the transport sector in one fell swoop -- not to mention that many electric grids already have some amount of renewable energy generation, (2) electric cars may be at least somewhat integratable into a more distributed electric grid (which I like for various other reasons), (3) to my understanding, electric cars are more efficient than internal-combustion cars in part because they're able to recoup kinetic energy from braking into recharging the battery (which also makes them oddly more energy-efficient in city streets than in expressways), and (4) even if there's no net GHG reductions at all, at least electric vehicles allow for replacing distributed air pollution sources (i.e. all the exhausts of cars) with much-easier-to-manage point-source pollution from a power plant, which has local air quality benefits.
Electric cars do contain batteries that use minerals that may be hard to come by, so they're kinda subjected to the same issue as mentioned above, this time regarding energy storage tech. Honestly, the electronics industry is gonna have to figure that out, more generally, because it isn't just solar PV or electric cars that have these resource supply issues; they're present to various extents in other consumer electronics like laptops and cell phones too.
Also a couple things from before: Hell yeah I nailed it! It's always necessary.
I'm surprised the movie came to the same ultimate conclusion as The Population Bomb. Which, I have to admit, was a book I admired fervently as a young'un (though as should be obvious I don't anymore). Though with a bit more general self-flaggelation.
Anyways, as much as I disagreed with some major parts, I learned quite a bit. Decent doc.
I guess there's an argument for central planning, but that's burdening the energy grid with basically 4x the amount it works with now (assuming even just half a country charges their cars at night). And even in central planning, we have to depend on people to maintain their cars well enough to sustain the initial efficiency (then there's wear and tear).
Every single decent smartphone probably contains things obtained from war conditions (or even worse, via Chinese environmental standards). Plus, the batteries all have to be dumped after 4-5 (and are gigantic).
I don't yet know the details, but I wouldn't be surprised if major companies that on other hands engage in business practices that have deforestation impacts might actually be aware that these aren't exactly great things to be doing yet continue doing them anyway out of infrastructural inertia.
Nor would I necessarily refuse their money. Their influence, perhaps, but only if it's in a bad direction. You can probably guess that I don't particularly care to be a purist, lol.
We already depend on people to do this for internal-combustion cars anyway; the only disruption in this last regard is to switch from one knowledge base to another.
As for market share (or power consumption share, rather) of electric vehicles, we're nowhere near massively ramping them up yet, but gradually adding/replacing vehicles with EV capacity (including some hybrids). This gradual ramp-up means that baseload power sources can also catch up as needed, and gives the electric utilities time to catch up, not just with "burn more fuel for baseload power" in the short term but also with regards to implementing cleaner (in various ways) energy sources in the long term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_alligator#Reproduction
Tropical Storm Cristobal is the earliest storm in the season with a C name, beating 2016's Tropical Storm Colin by three days.
I hate to be positive about a MegaCorps 'sustainability' initiatives but here I am.
*"very sad", I started watching the first Zenon movie today.
The point was to get rid of single-use plastics.
Which are, frankly, harder to recycle and a waste of petrochemicals anyway.
LEGO's whole business model is selling more and more every year, therefore producing more and more every year. They may be backward compatible, but that's none of their business aside from for good PR, their whole interest is in making more.
Thanks for pointing that out? I mean, of course it's a good thing and a valiant effort and I'm quite pleased with the resulting product, which is why I'm so miffed in the first place. It's a feeling like anti-schadenfreude.
Genuine question; Are harder plastics easier to recycle because they can stand a few more rounds of wearing down/being remade?
Because I hate washing plastic bags. I use a zipper bag or a sandwich bag once and now I have to wash it, especially if it's soiled with food waste. Especially if it's greasy food waste, because that means (1) I need to use detergent, and (2) grease clings to plastic like nobody's business, and it'll stay in the corners of bags even if I give it a normal wash, so I have to turn it inside out and scrub the darned thing.
I could throw it out but that would be wasting the money I spent buying the bag. Doubly so if the bag is still in otherwise great condition, airtight, etc..
...oh, right, yeah. There are environmental benefits to avoiding single-use plastics. I almost forgot to mention that.
Is this even really hygienic?
In terms of economics;
Single Use of Plastic Bag=Profit on Use
Single Use of Plastic Bag+Any further uses-((Intensive labor required to clean said bag each time (not to mention your time)+.0004% of Product+.000000000000000003% of Water Bill)xall further uses)=You've certainly definitely made a loss.
I want to be like "Just destroy the environment man it's fun!" but I switched to wax paper vs
Ziplocszipper bags a while ago specifically because of this sort of thing. As long as you learn to fold stuff well enough (or even secure it with bits of tape) you'll be fine for just like, food you're taking somewhere.I don't really have a solution for freezer bags for meat or whatever but you're certainly getting that handed to you in plastic at the supermarket or butchers anyways.
Unrelated: Mattel have taken to using plastic encasing rather than stapling dolls to backing card with fasteners. It certainly helps getting stuff out of the box, but like... it's not exactly better? I know the plastic pin they used to put in the back of doll heads got stuck permanently in there half the time but still.
I mean, I wash my dishes the same way.
How am I profitting on a plastic bag that I buy from the store? I've objectively made a loss by the fact that I'm taking liquid assets (my money) and exchanged it for an item I can't ever turn back into the equivalent amount of money. I can get one single use out of it, or I can use it carefully and get multiple uses out of it. I objectively get more utility out of the latter.
Actually, I probably overstated it in my last post because I was feeling annoyed at the topic popping up, even though now that I think about it I probably should have just washed out the bag rather than leaving it for several hours later. It's not that intensive unless the bag is soiled with something greasy, because I can just wash it out like anything else, I give it a good rub and dry it out. I have to wait longer for it to dry, and the fact that it's not solid means that it's a little more of a pain to rub, but if I'm careful that all I've used it for is to hold something like fruit, then rinsing it is all I really need to do. It's only when it's been used to hold an oily food that it becomes a real pain.
lol contrarianism
The supply of the things is hyperabundant and therefore they cost way less than anything should. If you throw it away and never think about it again after using it to conveniently carry stuff somewhere, you've saved time and effort (but not nature). Otherwise, you have to bring your own bags or reuse others.
The profit isn't initially in cash, but in convenience. However it becomes a loss as it eats at your mind and efforts, no matter how little that is.
You don't need to be careful if you toss it!
Multiple-uses turn single-use into a loss due to labor and the off change you catch E.coli anyways.
>that feel when oil/grease escapes it's container and contaminates a plastic bag
Just because stuff is "hyperabundant" doesn't justify wasting it. And I still have to buy it, I still need to get it from the store and I still need to pay money for it. Low monetary cost =/= no cost (especially since you're now bringing the value of time into the mix).
Or it turns into me not needing to keep buying boxes of plastic bags.
Also, if I might catch E. coli from that, then I might catch E. coli from the rest of my dishes. Or, more practically, I won't, because I wash my hands after I use the bathroom anyway.
Currently, our locality burns our trash, and we get a little bit of energy out of it. Of course, not everything will burn, at least not necessarily cleanly (even if we leave out the more noxious stuff), so it's not like burning trash makes trash go away entirely.
For actual recycling, though, food residue on cardboard/paper leads to rot and pests, which makes attempts to recycle them a pain in the ass.
I don't actually know whether plastic sandwich bags are recyclable, but that's because plastic bags' recyclability is a pain in the first place, and mixing plastic bags into regular recyclables is frowned upon because plastic bags tend to gum up the works.
As for food scraps on *those*, my guess is that similar problems with pests would affect recycling of food-soiled plastic, in general, which would explain why recycling guides tell people to rinse out plastic recyclables anyway. One can of course ask whether this makes for a waste of water, but that's a different question.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/31/18203972/polybags-plastic-online-shopping-meal-kits-patagonia
FYI the very basic background science TL;DR is that when you have lots of stuff (trash, chemicals, etc.) in runoff to the water, that often carries lots of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus, from anything from fertilizers to yard/food waste and more). In the open water, the relative lack of nutrients is something that tends to keep the water clear (and in turn lets sunlight reach the bottom, in shallow coastal areas like here). Adding a bunch of nutrients often causes an explosion in algae growth, which turns the water a strange green color, chokes off the sunlight from reaching the bottom (which has its own consequences), and uses up the dissolved oxygen; the lack of oxygen causes a "dead zone" where fish and other marine organisms suffocate.
There are other chemicals that have environmental impacts, but the above is the basic big picture of why large "nutrient loads" cause fish kills.
In turn you can measure nitrogen and phosphorus content in the water as well as dissolved oxygen. If you've ever managed an aquarium (or even a swimming pool) you'll probably be familiar with considerations like these.