Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing I'd point out is that the reason so many poor societies have a gazillion kids
is that they are the parents' retirement fund so until a rising economic boat lifts everyone
(r-i-i-i-ght..), they will never stop having so many.
Stateside families having 19 kids are hardly idiots any more than dogs or cats doing the same are idiots; certain folks being fruitful are needed to compensate for other certain folks (mainly city-dwellers) who end up fruitless (childless). Everyone on this board's progenitors' preprogrammed mission in life was to carry on their line; whether they choose to pursue that mission (or do so in a big way) is up to them.
Avoiding having kids for environmental impact reasons uses similar faulty reasoning to offing yourself or others for the same purpose. Either you have kids that consume resources, or somebody else will take up the slack with their genetic material and consume resources. Might as well be your material.
To make a deep, lasting, positive impression on the impact mankind has on this planet, the best way (IMO) is to leverage your own talents, time, and the free-market system to build a new and improved way of doing things (improved economically and environmentally) to replace the numerous 19th and 20th century ones we have going today. Economic theory states that if your way indeed is better, you'll be rewarded handsomely for it.
Worrying about which type of bag to use is silly. Designing, patenting, and marketing a successful better bag (maybe a photodegradable or compostable one made from seaweed, indistinguishable from today's current ones until it gets left outside) is a far more useful way to spend one's time. Instead of reducing one person's trash by <1%, if successful, you would reduce everybody's trash by <1%. Now that math's encouraging.
I wasn't sure if you truly did not care about your carbon footprint, but then I figured you must be sarcastic if you offered to pick up someone else's recycling. The "posterior" comment, I'm sure, is 100% true.
I appreciate that mortimer cuts to the chase... he has no patience for that politically-correct "carbon footprint" crap and asserts that wasting stuff is not cool, and conserving is just plain common sense. x 10!
Stateside families having 19 kids are hardly idiots any more than dogs or cats doing the same are idiots; certain folks being fruitful are needed to compensate for other certain folks (mainly city-dwellers) who end up fruitless (childless). Everyone on this board's progenitors' preprogrammed mission in life was to carry on their line; whether they choose to pursue that mission (or do so in a big way) is up to them.
Avoiding having kids for environmental impact reasons uses similar faulty reasoning to offing yourself or others for the same purpose. Either you have kids that consume resources, or somebody else will take up the slack with their genetic material and consume resources. Might as well be your material.
To make a deep, lasting, positive impression on the impact mankind has on this planet, the best way (IMO) is to leverage your own talents, time, and the free-market system to build a new and improved way of doing things (improved economically and environmentally) to replace the numerous 19th and 20th century ones we have going today. Economic theory states that if your way indeed is better, you'll be rewarded handsomely for it.
Worrying about which type of bag to use is silly. Designing, patenting, and marketing a successful better bag (maybe a photodegradable or compostable one made from seaweed, indistinguishable from today's current ones until it gets left outside) is a far more useful way to spend one's time. Instead of reducing one person's trash by <1%, if successful, you would reduce everybody's trash by <1%. Now that math's encouraging.
Avoiding having kids for environmental impact reasons uses similar faulty reasoning ...
It's not faulty reasoning.
It might be fanatical, but it's not faulty.
Having 19 kids IS idiotic.
Some people have a need or predisposition to have some children
and I respect that. Just downloading one after another just because
you can is idiotic. I'm not going to give a number, like 3 or 5 or 11
as the border between idiot or not idiot, but at some point ....
There is also the having-one-while-you-are-still-in-high-school issue. Idiotic?
Yes. Insurmountable problem? No. In the year 2010, it is idiotic. We all do
idiotic things.
Not admitting that what you did is idiotic is idiotic. <== ( I really like that sentence. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Worrying about which type of bag to use is silly.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
Designing, patenting, and marketing a successful better
bag ... is a far more useful way to spend one's time.
That would be useless for most people.
My point was that it doesn't matter what bag you use if you just
keep using it over and over until it no longer works as a bag is best.
It doesn't matter if it is compostable or anything else.
Some people have a need or predisposition to have some children
and I respect that. Just downloading one after another just because
you can is idiotic.
Got any supporting bases?
If you can afford to support your family, why is any given number idiotic?
If you can't afford to support your family without government (or other societal) support, I submit that that's not idiotic either; merely selfish. If I steal your money and get away with it, that's many things, but not an example of idiocy.
I appreciate that mortimer cuts to the chase... he has no patience for that politically-correct "carbon footprint" crap and asserts that wasting stuff is not cool, and conserving is just plain common sense. x 10!
I agree with mortimer on just about everything he said. For me, I'd like to attempt to (though may not always be very successful):
1. conserve natural resources as much as possible (i.e., not be wasteful)
2. try to eat more healthy and support local/organic farmers if possible
3. use my own 2 legs to get from point A to point B as much as possible
4. not fall into various consumer culture traps for the sake of convenience and/or laziness
This is just the plan I've set out for myself - certainly it doesn't work for everyone, hence personal responsibility. Finding ways to do these things doesn't consume all my time, and you won't find me on any picket line complaining about plastic bags or driving cars or anything. it's just a way of thinking that sort of pulsates in the back of my mind as I go about my day.
Perhaps the term "carbon footprint" (probably why I encased it quotation marks from the beginning) is too chic and political of a term for a topic I consider fairly non-PC and more just plain common sense and personal responsibility.
Back to the dreaded bag question... not just European cities... in other US cities where I've lived, it has been commonplace to offer their own bags. Our Trader Joe's was giving them away when they first opened. Is this not the case in Albuquerque (do TJ's or Albertson's/Smith's not offer their own bags)?
Back to the dreaded bag question... not just European cities... in other US cities where I've lived, it has been commonplace to offer their own bags. Our Trader Joe's was giving them away when they first opened. Is this not the case in Albuquerque (do TJ's or Albertson's/Smith's not offer their own bags)?
Now I'm back to my ancient history stories... when I moved here in 1990 I had been used to shopping in a food coop in Boston where I always bagged my own stuff in my own canvas bag and walked a few blocks home. I expected to continue the practice here but started getting dirty looks from the baggers at my neighborhood supermarket. Finally I got the indirect comment (bagger to cashier), "yeah, have you seen that other person who comes in here late with her own bag? That is a real pain in the ass." So I thought I was creating a problem for the baggers who weren't used to stuffing a floppy canvas bag and started leaving it home. I found other uses for the plastic and paper bags I was bringing home.
ANYWAY.... now places are much more used to it. I regularly see people with their own bags, don't you? Yes, Trader Joe's and Sunflower (at least) have offered their own reusable cloth bags either for free or for cheap, like a dollar each. Even some of the major supermarkets have caught on. If "green" is trendy they want to make a buck.
I believe Albertson's, Sam's, Costco and Walmart have their own cloth/whatever reusable bags... I prefer them because they have a larger capacity, less trips from the vehicle. We use them. Not sure what brands we have.
Rich
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
x 10!
