The Green: Earth, humans, and the need for self-preservation

Jul 26, 2007 17:50

(edit: Yes, this is essentially an argument about semantics ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 19

iskandar July 27 2007, 01:38:33 UTC
was this borne out of a recent event, or were these thoughts just tumbling around in your head

Reply

purgatorio July 27 2007, 01:53:09 UTC
I was reading an article in New Scientist that was supposed to be about how the universe got its laws, and the opening was going on about how lucky we were to live in a universe where all of the laws allow for life, and the Goldilocks theory and shit, and it pissed me off. Well of COURSE the laws of the universe are going to lead to the development of stuff that likes those laws. Anyway, somehow this ended up coming out.

Reply

iskandar July 27 2007, 01:58:52 UTC
word em up. it's been so long since I've seen a Kat rant, and your writing has gotten even better <3

Reply

purgatorio July 27 2007, 02:23:53 UTC
Yeah, my poor little LJ has been neglected. And thanks. ;)

Reply


linaeri July 27 2007, 02:07:05 UTC
omg hi. i remember who you are. i missed you.

Reply

purgatorio July 27 2007, 02:27:28 UTC
Hieeee. :D My six-month bong binge has come to a close, so hopefully I'll be coherent enough to do more than just read everyone else's LJ posts again. ^_^

Reply

linaeri July 27 2007, 02:31:11 UTC
of course! only a bong binge would provoke such outlash on the environmentalists ;)

funny though... alicia and i were hanging out a couple of weeks ago while I was in OC for the weekend, and was like "katrina has fallen off the face of the planet!"

Reply

purgatorio July 27 2007, 03:44:36 UTC
It was also coupled with an (ongoing) anime binge, so a rambling titled "The Impossibility of Free Will: The necessity of a soul for human accountability" might be on the horizon.

Reply


ashaface July 27 2007, 17:18:20 UTC
Yay! I'm glad to hear this argument. The instructor of my economics class last spring spent a whole class one time talking about how recycling is more or less bullshit and we're not running out of resources and so on. I don't know a lot about the subject so I can't say I agree or disagree, but the majority of people are on the opposing side of that view so it's nice to see some variety of opinion.

Reply

purgatorio July 27 2007, 18:26:55 UTC
Yeah, it's hard because we've been imprinted since elementary school to think that recycling anything is better than using other materials to make a new one. Aluminum started the party, and that makes sense because it's a finite resource. However, things like paper and glass started elbowing their way in and before we knew it, everyone wanted to come to the block party of recycling. There is a reason you get actual money for aluminum cans and you get like a dollar for 80 pounds of glass bottles or newspapers. And I imagine your economics teacher was aiming at the same point: The more scarce a resource is, the more it's worth. If the recycling center is paying $.05/lb for something, the resource probably isn't scarce.

And then there's the mythos of overflowing landfills and the evil of creating waste, while there's little talk about just how expensive and dirty it is to recycle *renewable resources*. As I said, though, that's another rant... ^_^

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

My other subject was funnier purgatorio July 28 2007, 16:39:28 UTC
@$%#^)#$%^* the back button on my mouse leading to the loss of my comment!

Anyway, the Pfand thing in Germany is by law, which means an artificially inflated value. Here recycling is largely privatized, afaik. At least the part that takes place once you leave the store. /hug capitalism

The idea of having to pay $.50 to make sure people recycle SAND is kind of offensive to me. @_@ I guess travelers get to makeup for the cost of how difficult it is to recycle glass and plastic in the first place?

Germans are crazy. It's their fault I have a lame last name, too!

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

numbars purgatorio July 28 2007, 17:06:56 UTC
1. omg hi!

2. Yup.

3a. No doubt, and #2 is why #3a has gotten lost. And maintaining the quality of life is what I was trying to infer with my oh-so-brilliant aquarium pH comment. The things that you don't like are things that disturb that delicate pH level in our little tank, and the more out of control those things get, the more difficult it is for humans to exist long enough to reproduce. "Quality" is just the short-term check for longer-term viability. I kinda skipped to the end. That and I tend to think of things on a very large (long?) timescale. Or timeline. You know what I mean.

4. Nope! And I totally want to be a cyborg, c'mon. I can't wait for cybernetic implants that make me less human and more AWESOME. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

4. <3

Reply

Re: numbars iskandar July 28 2007, 19:25:30 UTC
you just wanna get your parts fused by Picard

Reply

Re: numbars purgatorio July 31 2007, 23:11:39 UTC
Who doesn't?

Reply


xypher00 August 6 2007, 16:37:28 UTC
Woah! She lives!

ps - less deep thoughts, you lost me at the first sentence. =P

Reply

xypher00 August 23 2007, 02:27:50 UTC
When you finally check your journal again (say a year or so), here's something for you: http://p076.ezboard.com/Purgatory/bpurgatory68743

=P

Reply


Leave a comment

Up