From: dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Social inhibitions to environmental change
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:01:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <1307@abb-sc.abb-sc.COM>, ksm@abb-sc.abb-sc.com (Ashley) writes:
> 
> In article <lif807INNhon@news.bbn.com>, dhardin@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes...
> >In article <1298@abb-sc.abb-sc.COM>, ksm@abb-sc.abb-sc.com (Ashley) writes:
> >> 
> >> 	A beautiful example is the 4-wheeler people. My experience indicates 
> >> that most of the 4-wheeler crowd use the parks and space set up for them, but 
> >> many would prefer to "challenge" their trucks on virgin wilderness. 
> >> Occasionally I catch them plowing down the wildlife and vegetation in the 
> >> local preserves and parks and it makes me furious. I've even seen cretinous 
> >> assholes shooting at the hawks with scoped rifles!
> > 
> >Just so we start off agreeing with each other, this kind of behavior
> >makes me furious.  People who think they love nature when they really
> >just like destroying things bug hell out of me.

I left this little bit in for a reason.  Sometimes, the environmentalists
can do more harm than good, and we need to be careful about what we do
to "help" the environment or to "enjoy" it.

> The real goal in this suggestion is to get the stuff 
> *out* of the landfills. I have spent some time looking at a local landfill and 
> have seen lots of plastic sitting around. The amount of plastic frusterated me 
> and I've been brainstorming on ideas of how it could be re-used effectively. 
> I'd rather it did not get buried there and a shredded, pressed plastic and (?) 
> particle board or sheetrock would be a useful place to put it. 

I think this answers at least some of my objections, although again, I would
question how much energy it takes to shred and press it.  We'd all like to
get it out of the landfills, but you have to be careful that what you do 
with it is a net gain and not a net loss.

> 	I am advocating a sustainable yield cut, *not* abandonment of all 
> timber use. I would also like to see rotation cutting so that large areas get 
> relief from harvesting for periods of 10 to 40 years, depending on the growth 
> cycle of the trees there (some trees grow slower than othersand will need more 
> time to replentish themselves). 

No one disagrees with this, I'm sure.  (Except for the shitheads making the
decisions, but they aren't reading this.)

> On a recent trip to the landfill, I saw a large number of porcelain bathroom 
> fixtures being crunched and buried along with other trash. I posted this 
> because I really couldn't see why these where not being re-used. I don;t know 
> enough to be sure, but I believe that reclaiming porcelain would not be too 
> environmentally hazardous.

I think we need to make a distinction between re-using and recycling.  If
there's a practical re-use for an old toilet, then that's great.  (Assuming
that most of us don't really want to use them as planters in our living 
room, or to keep on hand to throw at friends.)  The idea of using them as
a reef that's been discussed is very interesting.

The objection that Lizard and I had came from your idea of grinding them
up and making new porcelain things out of them.  That would be a net loss
in energy and probably in pollution.

> Again, I wrote this after seeing a local building demolished and sent off to a 
> dump. I thing *any* way we can lessen the amount we put into landfills is good 
> and I certainly saw a lot that could be reclaimed there. I don't think we can 
> make any reasonable percentage of new buildings from old, but I would like to 
> see the disposal of the old buildings done more efficiently. That is my aim 
> here.

I think we all agree on this, if the things that are currently put into
landfills aren't used in MORE destructive ways.

> When I mentioned exporting the bio-intensive technique to the farmers, I was 
> presuming that we are talking about farming on a *much* larger scale than our 
> little "20 square feet of denial". With crop rotation and carefull planning, I 
> think we could have a self-sustaining farm. Remember that some plants will be 
> returing some things to the soil, as well as taking. Manure is available on a 
> large farm. I think it could work, and probably quite well. Does anyone have an 
> example?

It works for a while, but I think you do run into the same problems that I
was talking about.  Eventually, you buy fertility from somewhere else.  If
I'm not mistaken, many of the old African and Near-Eastern cultures used
agriculture techniques that we would consider extremely benign by our
standards.  On that kind of time scale, they still burned the land out.  But
I *think* it can be sustained for longer than the 100 years that we're
talking about.  I'm getting away from my knowledge base here, so I'll shut
up.  If anyone knows more about this than I do, more info would be welcome.

> 	My goal here Dawn is not to make our current recycling 100% effective 
> (impossible with current materials, I know), but to see our resourses used 
> betterand to direct technology to come up with better uses of our resourses, to 
> use renewable resourses. I don't propose to have the answers, but I would like 
> to push for changing the way we create things to be more friendly. That isn't 
> too difficult in some places and with a little R&D, could be a reality in 
> others. There has to be ways to make our waste products reclaimable by the 
> envornment and renewable to us. It involves a change in the way we look at 
> things and the way we develop technology, but I think that is a good thing and 
> a necessary step in our evolution. Anyway, it's no less valid than going into 
> space and will improve our ability to do things when we get there.

I understand your point and think it's worth making.  What I was saying
is that it just doesn't add up, and it never will add up.  Recycling isn't
going to be 100% effective with *any* materials, or any technology.  I
don't know what it's at now -- I think 50% recovered is considered pretty
damn good -- but even if we get it up to a miraculous 90% there's still
going to be a net loss.  With the best recycling in the world, we're still
looking at system depletion and diminishing expectations.

That's no excuse for not cleaning up after ourselves.  But being neat and
tidy with the earth isn't going to substitute for supporting ourselves.
Cleaning up after yourself is a limited virtue if you don't have the 
necesities of life.

Dawn

Joseph Campbell gave me hope and now I have been saved.
"Folk Song" by Bongwater