"Pick one thing"

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2248
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Tamara D. McConnell »

Thank you for the article. It's an interesting read.
edited to add: Kind of discouraging, though. Am I understanding correctly that there is no way out of the overpopulation mess?

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Noah M »

VanAR wrote:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16610.short

Relevant to this discussion...

Thanks. I really appreciate you sharing it.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Tamara D. McConnell wrote:Thank you for the article. It's an interesting read.
edited to add: Kind of discouraging, though. Am I understanding correctly that there is no way out of the overpopulation mess?

Some mutated super prion thing might ironically impress a dent for a while.

User avatar
VanAR
Posts: 590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:36 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by VanAR »

Tamara D. McConnell wrote:Thank you for the article. It's an interesting read.
edited to add: Kind of discouraging, though. Am I understanding correctly that there is no way out of the overpopulation mess?
Not with anything that we could "choose" to utilize anyway. The next century or so is likely to be very bleak for those of us who love biodiversity and the natural world. On the other hand, we are likely to reach some kind of a tipping point as well. I saw the author speak on this paper a year or so ago, and he made the point that when we hit the end of peak oil and easily-available fossil fuels, our ability to create virtually anything is going to be severely restricted. Even food- people don't realize that out ability to grow crops currently depends on producing artificial fertilizers via the Haber Bosch process, which is VERY energy-intensive. Once we can't do that as efficiently, then forget about meat, we will have trouble growing even basic grains and vegetables on the scale we do so today.

From a sustainability perspective, the only real option is to figure out a far more efficient way to capture renewables, especially solar. In the meantime, it would be great if we could figure out 4th-generation nuclear reactors. These are currently in "testing" and are able to basically use waste material as a fissile fuel. So instead of getting radioactive waste, you basically fission your fuel uranium all the way down to whatever non-radioactive elements/isotopes are the ultimate waste produced, plus a whole lot of neutrons and energy.

That still doesn't fix the climate problem, but it may be enough to retain some element of "modern" society even as everything else collapses due to a combination of fossil fuel exhaustion, famine, and disease/turmoil associated with a loss of most of modern society.

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

It isn't the number of people on Earth, but how they live.
Actually, it is both.

- If you think sheer numbers don't matter, go to India or China. There you will see that a billion poor people have quite a footprint. Six billion poor people is where we are now.

- And yes, today's 1 billion rich people also have quite a footprint. Three billion rich people (plus 6 billion poor), where we're probably headed? Ouch, this is going to hurt.

Thomas Friedman's "Hot Flat and Crowded" is a really annoying read (I hate his style - very repetitive and pedantic) but I agree with his overall premise - we can come out of this alright, but to do so will require a level of technological advance on the one hand, and human cooperation and shared sacrifice on the other, that will dwarf anything our species has ever attempted - let alone accomplished. It'll make the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Program look cheap and easy. I also agree with Friedman that the US - with our concentration of talent and wealth - ought to be leading this effort. Unfortunately we in the US presently seem to be unable to agree what day of the week it is. Let alone what matters and how to achieve it.

Aside - I suppose "some good news" is that Iran and Saudi Arabia are giving us some really, really good incentives to figure out whatever comes after oil. Why wait until we run out? There are some upsides to the world quickly stopping the stupendous flow of money going their way...

Back to the original question - I really do not care for its framing. We should all be doing EVERYTHING we can - not just one thing. There IS NO ONE THING. "One thing thinking" will lead to despair ("oh well, there's nothing to be done about it"), and then failure. Failure will make our children and grandchildren pine for the relatively small effects of the Second World War and the Great Leap Forward - not even a hundred million dead, not even a hundred million displaced. We thought the 20th Century was ugly? Failure to arrest anthropogenic climate change is not an option. Not unless you're a climate change denier.

cheers

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

Back to the original question - I really do not care for its framing. We should all be doing EVERYTHING we can - not just one thing. There IS NO ONE THING. "One thing thinking" will lead to despair ("oh well, there's nothing to be done about it"), and then failure. Failure will make our children and grandchildren pine for the relatively small effects of the Second World War and the Great Leap Forward - not even a hundred million dead, not even a hundred million displaced. We thought the 20th Century was ugly? Failure to arrest anthropogenic climate change is not an option. Not unless you're a climate change denier.
That's okay there are many ways to frame this query. I completely disagree on the rest of your statement however because doing nothing at all is what leads to despair While doing at least one thing can give a sense of achievement and the feeling that one is trying to be a part of the solution. The Racing Extinction program should be mandatory viewing in schools and for those who have children. It should provide incentive to change behavior, I cannot think of a better way to inform our species about the damage we are doing. But we must provide alternatives that are feasible and achievable.

Secondly, most of us are working class and can only afford to change so much in our personal lives much less the rest of the planet so...a big part of this must be supported by the uber wealthy (which includes developed nations) who are contributing a far larger carbon footprint through their lavish and wasteful lifestyles.

Keep up the dialogue
Cheers

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

I completely disagree on the rest of your statement however because doing nothing at all is what leads to despair While doing at least one thing can give a sense of achievement and the feeling that one is trying to be a part of the solution.
- I think that those who are doing nothing at all feel justified in their inaction, because they disagree about the diagnosis ("we have a problem, and it is anthropogenic climate change").

- I think that - among those of us who are doing something, because we agree with the diagnosis and feel a sense of responsibility - having a sense of achievement and the feeling that one is trying to be part of the solution are necessary but wholly insufficient steps on the path to actual solution.

- I think that a major risk we run, is declaring personal victory far too early. "I have not only done one thing, I have done three things!!! Whoopee!!!"
But we must provide alternatives that are feasible and achievable.
Agreed, and I repeat what I said above. And elaborate a little more below.
most of us are working class and can only afford to change so much in our personal lives much less the rest of the planet so...a big part of this must be supported by the uber wealthy (which includes developed nations) who are contributing a far larger carbon footprint through their lavish and wasteful lifestyles
I suspect that every single individual on FHF is part of the 15% or so of the Earth's population with a (relative to the other 85%) "lavish and wasteful lifestyle". You all speak English alright, and you're on the internet, with some free time...and I'm guessing you're living on at least 10X more than ~$1,300 a year, which is the global median income. While living on $13K/yr in the USA may not feel lavish and wasteful for you personally, you're still part of - and contribute to - a mega-consumptive society. But I'm not trying to do any wealth-shaming here, nor any class-baiting. Those aren't useful in this discussion.

My modest irritation with the framing? I feel it focuses our thoughts on personal-level actions, when what I think we 15% (as well as the other 85%...) really need to do is focus on collective action. I suppose what that means, in terms of the original framing, is a response along the lines of "stop voting for 1) climate-change deniers and 2) austerity worshippers, at all levels of our governments". Because government is our mechanism for BIG collective action. And this BIG problem requires - right now - BIG collective action. The longer we wait, the deeper the hole we'll need to claw up out of. It's kind of like the national debt that way - except the debt is a miniscule problem compared to the self-inflicted damage we'll suffer from unchecked climate change.

So these "feasible and achievable alternatives" don't only include "what cars and light bulbs are - and are not - available for me to buy", but also include things like carbon taxes, REDD markets, agricultural policies that (e.g.) put way more carbon back into the soil than in the air and water, mega investments in power demand management and zero-carbon electric generation, etc. Those are BIG collective actions. Some of us individually buying LED bulbs and hybrid cars and skipping a flight now and then isn't really going to do diddly, if the BIG collective actions are not also taken. We need to do both. If it was one or the other (and it isn't), I'd say skip the personal actions, and do the collective ones. Because those are what will provide the business certainty, and deliver the research & development support, and set the price signals that will influence the individual actions of billions of present and future individuals, to reverse anthropogenic climate change.

My $.02 anyway. Didn't - don't - mean any disrespect to anyone.

cheers

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

Jimi
You obviously understand that it "takes a village" but, that village must start with the individual. Every little thing counts because it is a collective action, Grass Roots programs in a bio regional format are a great way to start. You state some good points and I feel as if your being over critical of the query by dissecting my reply, but I sense your passion on the subject and I encourage you to learn more.
Boycotting those companies that abuse environmental laws is one Action I was hoping to see but I didn't see it?
When I speak of the uber wealthy I am not only talking about investment - I am also talking about leadership, for example; why was Pamela Anderson chosen to provide the Russian government with guidance on conservation biology and habitat preservation?

We can do better than this.

Cheers and if it's yellow let it mellow :lol:

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Noah M »

Boycotting those companies that abuse environmental laws is one Action I was hoping to see but I didn't see it?
I've tried finding a major corporation that hasn't abused the environment and environmental laws. I was not able to. Has anybody else? If we include all kinds of fraud, just to avoid playing favorites with unethical behavior, it gets even harder.

https://echo.epa.gov/trends/watch-list-reports

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. I'm saying we need to make sure our actions are feasible and have meaningful change.

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

Boycotting those companies that abuse environmental laws is one Action I was hoping to see but I didn't see it?
How would I get to work? Once, there, do my job? Heat my home? Cool my home and light my darkness? How would I eat?

Believe me, I've - like probably most folks here - nibbled at the margins of every single one of these issues - that's part of doing everything I personally can. Within the limits of my current paradigms, which - in all candor - I understand need to change, just as everyone else's must change too. But my point is, incremental personal action does not roll up into BIG collective action. It does roll up into significant, useful, meaningful action. But it will never be anywhere near enough, without the other stuff - which requires political effort and success.
I've tried finding a major corporation that hasn't abused the environment and environmental laws. I was not able to. Has anybody else? If we include all kinds of fraud, just to avoid playing favorites with unethical behavior, it gets even harder.
Exactly. Hopefully the Gulf oil spill penalties will change the calculus of abuse, however. "A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." This is the sort of policy change we need, to change the incentive structure so people make better decisions.

cheers

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

How would I get to work? Once, there, do my job? Heat my home? Cool my home and light my darkness? How would I eat?
Ride a bike, take the bus, carpool? Living sustainably is a choice not a mandate and any efforts to make that choice at an individual level will lead to a collective effort. When I was in graduate school we studied many of these issues and the take away is that until behaviors and expectations shift we will not achieve a thing. It's better to embrace change at all levels than have a negative attitude on how individual efforts do not have value.

In terms of food supply it is most definitely not a distribution issue it is a numbers game, one that we are losing rapidly because there is not enough food to sustain the number of people on this planet. When I was born there were around 3billion, now we have over 7billion and by 2024 (only 9 years away) we are expected to hit 8billion.

The other thing I expected was water availability comments but saw none - and this is where it will really get interesting: we have seen "oil wars" prepare for wars that will be fought over clean water because that is the oil of the 21st century.

Cheers

User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 11:28 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by cbernz »

lateralis wrote:there is not enough food to sustain the number of people on this planet.
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure this is a commonly-perpetuated fallacy. The developing world probably throws away enough food to feed a good portion of the world, and the rest could probably subsist on the food that we turn into fuel or feed to livestock. I mean, we feed millet to the birds, for crying out loud. In Africa that's a staple crop!

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Noah M »

lateralis wrote:

In terms of food supply it is most definitely not a distribution issue it is a numbers game, one that we are losing rapidly because there is not enough food to sustain the number of people on this planet. When I was born there were around 3billion, now we have over 7billion and by 2024 (only 9 years away) we are expected to hit 8billion.

The other thing I expected was water availability comments but saw none - and this is where it will really get interesting: we have seen "oil wars" prepare for wars that will be fought over clean water because that is the oil of the 21st century.

Cheers
Most of the papers I've looked regarding food supply argue that given our current unsustainable methods of production, we actually produce enough food (calories) or could produce enough to feed everybody. But the distribution of this food (wealthier nations have more than poor ones) is problematic.

I'm still on the fence about the water war hype. More or less, the amount of freshwater on our planet is fixed. Since we're not producing new water, any disputes regarding water will be distributional in nature. But I don't think water shortages will start wars. I think underlying political instability will lead to wars, and water shortages will only contribute to (exacerbate) these conflicts but not be the instigator themselves. Most environmental conflict I've researched follows this same pattern. There are a few authors (Meyers I think) who believe differently, but I don't agree with them.

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure this is a commonly-perpetuated fallacy.
Having studied this issue, I can tell u it's not. Fisheries are collapsing around the world and many countries routinely send their catch boats into other countries waters because they have fished out there own. And that's just fish. If we were All vegetarians there might be ample supplies but we continue to promote food production practices that are destructive and have little return.

As far as water goes, there will most certainly be conflict over its scarcity. Even with all the replenishment from the various global sources; oceans, rainfall, evapotranspiration regimes and cycles etc...there will be conflict and yes it will also exacerbate other issues and conflicts.

Read Paul Ehrlich or Buckminster Fuller, you'll get some good insight into these topics.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Noah M »

https://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
I can find more if needed.

I'm familiar with Ehrlich and do not agree with him (see my earlier posts). Many people don't agree with him. There are many elements of disagreement with Ehrlich.

I'm less familiar with Fuller's work on population and agriculture.

Fisheries decline, while related, is different than this discussion on agriculture.

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

Noah I was not comparing fisheries to ag I was making a point about food availability. Fisheries do experience boom and bust scenarios but if you stay up on current events you will know it is primarily due to anthropogenic influence - vis a vis overfishing, pollution, etc.
The Ehrlichs et al. are one of the founders of the sustainability movement and while not all of their predictions came to pass it is good that people agreed with them or we might be in far worse shape.

Anyone who believes we are not at a tipping point in regards to our species future and our collective actions/impacts on the planet is out of touch, and likely believes in unicorns and Sasquatch.

Oh yeah I boycotted Exxon after the Valdez incident in 1989 and have never returned. That's 27 years worth of gas that I bought elsewhere. Did it hurt their bottom line? Probably not but it was the right thing to do, its just too bad more people did not take the initiative.

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

The other thing I expected was water availability comments but saw none
"Carbon follows water." It can either go in the air, the water, or the ground.

Water management, highly linked with carbon management. Water management, another arena where taking individual "tactical" action feels very good, isn't actually harmful, and unfortunately, will hardly roll up into much of the solution. Another place that requires BIG, collective (in a democracy, = political) action. Which means the best individual action - strategic action - is getting better people elected.

For example, in my state about 80% of all water used by people, goes to agricultural irrigation. http://www.westernenergyalliance.org/kn ... study/utah. Of the remaining 20%, half or 10% of the total goes to residential use. Of that, 2/3 or say 7% of the total goes to residential landscape use. One third or say 3% goes to residential showers, toilets, washing your vegetables, etc.

If everyone in my state ripped out all their irrigated landscaping and went with (anything else), we'd save 7% of the water used in the state. If one house in seven statewide (or maybe half the homes in my county) would go with unirrigated landscaping, we'd save 1% of the water used in the state. Wow. I'm a little underwhelmed.

Homeowners do need to individually do their part, if nothing else to model "more-sustainable living" and - hopefully - influence others to take similar action.

I think I do - I've got a small lot, I've ripped 60% or more of my lawn out and attractively xeri- and hardscaped that space. I am fanatically skimpy on watering my little bitty patches of lawn. I've installed low-flow faucets and toilets. I take short showers, turn off the faucet while shaving & brushing my teeth, all that. But it really doesn't do diddly. I mean, I enjoy my bumblebees and hummingbirds and butterflies, a lot more than I liked mowing that grass and maintaining its sprinklers. I feel great about what I'm doing, sometimes even pretty damn smug. But...does it contribute much to "moving the needle"? I don't care to delude myself that it does. That's OK, I can still be smug, I'm doing what I can and I'm always looking to do more.

But - these efforts, along with those of my similar-behaving neighbors (there are a few of us - a very thin green line in Redlandia), do nothing about western water policy, which (along with energy and transportation policy) establishes market conditions that make it "profitable" to (just for example) grow alfalfa in the local desert, truck it to the coast, and ship it across the Pacific to China so they can grow & distribute beef cheaply enough for their customers to buy.

Besides constituting a strange & inequitable (sorry about those brown laws and dead veggies and orchards, California!!! sucks to be downstream!!!) use of the most truly priceless resource, water, this situation is also contributing quite a bit to anthropogenic climate change. Think about all the electricity used to pump all that water all summer long, the tractor emissions to cut and bale the hay, the truck emissions to get the hay to port, the ship emissions to get HAY BALES TO FREAKING CHINA!, the hay-truck emissions in China, the cattle burps and farts, more truck emissions moving the butchered beef to stores and restaurants and homes...phew.

Well, I am glad I ripped out all that lawn. I really do prefer the butterflies and flowers. And I save a few bucks a month in summer, on water bills and lawnmower gas. But was doing that "the one thing"? Meh.

So - (playing along...) - what's the one thing? I think - vote smart. Maybe if you're in a hopeless-politics state like me, move to a swing state! Ditto if you're in a "sure-thing state". Ha ha.

cheers

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jimi wrote:Water management, another arena where taking individual "tactical" action feels very good, isn't actually harmful, and unfortunately, will hardly roll up into much of the solution. Another place that requires BIG, collective (in a democracy, = political) action. Which means the best individual action - strategic action - is getting better people elected.
What is the intent behind electing certain people? So they'll enact laws forcing people to do things for the environment?

Collective action (a bunch of individuals making the right choices) doesn't (well, shouldn't) require coercion. It may require a better-educated citizenry, but at least in my lifetime, the environmental aspect of our actions has been taught fairly matter-of-factly from the early elementary academic years. We need to explore why that curriculum (provided, directly or indirectly, through that collective action of 'electing better people') isn't sinking in.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Its very difficult for human beings to sustain interest in far future goals and conditions - far future meaning; beyond own personal future, or that of their children. Ideologically passionate, and communicatively, but not enough to change behavior, be they entrenched in tradition, convenience, or gratification.

Its the nature of the aberrant unbeast.

User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 6:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Noah M »

Kelly Mc wrote:Its very difficult for human beings to sustain interest in far future goals and conditions - far future meaning; beyond own personal future, or that of their children.
Some call it "intergenerational genocide"

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

What is the intent behind electing certain people? So they'll enact laws forcing people to do things for the environment?
Two questions, two answers.

1) To change policy, to better-meet the challenges of the present and the confidently-forecasted future.

2) No. Force doesn't really stick, people need to want to do something if you want that something to last. Ram it down their throat, it's coming back up. Make it yummy, down it stays.
Collective action (a bunch of individuals making the right choices) doesn't (well, shouldn't) require coercion
Coercion is the worst way to wield power. The best way is to allow people to do the right thing, the fair and moral thing. The second best way is to allow people to act in their own best interests, in a transactional manner. Both of these approaches requires offering people choices, and having people be aware of them, and what the various ramifications of the different options are.

I think what is needed are true statesmen, not hit men or con men or carnival barkers, as representatives. People who can listen and learn, change their minds and actions when reality demands it, and make deals. People who know the difference between a wasteful expenditure and a wise investment. People who aren't afraid of getting fired for doing what's needed, but are also willing to stick it out for the long haul if the people will have them.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3679
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by jonathan »

Kelly Mc wrote:I've seen and read some stuff that says the only real dent that could be made would be to reduce agricultural co2 emissions (and Epic water expenditure) That's the biggie.

In order for the downward spiral to be quelled all herpers would have to end the dependence on meat industry, but in order for that to have an effect, everyone in the world would have to be a vegan herper lol.

The truth is, not eating meat (forget going cold turkey - just eat a LOT less) is such a tiny impact on our lives compared to the other measures.

And yet it could easily be the biggest one. The meat industry currently utilizes something like 35% of available land area on Earth. It is a HUGE impact, much bigger than we usually imagine.

If rich people would just make choices other than meat 80-90% of the time, it would have a massive positive impact on almost every environmental problem.



SurfinHerp wrote:I watched the show and it made me feel guilty about all the driving that I do for herping. I thought the special cameras that show the otherwise invisible emissions of CO2 and methane were pretty cool - and revealing.

My dream is to have an all-electric SUV that has a 300 mile range and can be charged by a home solar power system.

Until then though, I guess I'll do more night hiking and less road-cruising.
Yeah, I don't know how big a difference it makes, but I just feel the same way internally. I feel dirty if I'm road-cruising and it's not on the way to a specific destination. That's why even when I was herping a ton, I couldn't get myself to road-cruise more than 3-4 times a year, and even then only for a couple of hours and usually with friends. And I didn't like really really long drives to herping destinations either. There's more than enough herping to be done close to home (or in nice tie-in's with visiting family or business trips).

Not saying this is how everyone has to do it, but it felt like the direction I had to go personally.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3679
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by jonathan »

On the whole "population vs. resource consumption" question, this is an issue we've gone in circles about on this forum before. (And also recently on certain herper's facebook pages.)

I would argue the following points as true. Do with them what you will.

1) The amount of flexibilty in population growth is far less than the amount of flexibility in resource consumption. If we compare "unchecked population growth" with "most draconian anti-growth measures possible", the most we're going to affect the global population by would be a factor of 2, and likely far less than that. Yet even developed Western countries differ in resource consumption by a factor of 4 or 5, and at least a factor of 10 is possible (especially if draconian measures are considered). Right now the per-capita resource consumption between the most-consuming and least-consuming countries differs by a factor of 40.

2) Population measures act extremely slowly. Even a major world war or a huge epidemic wouldn't make a meaningful short-term or long-term dent. Even draconian reproductive laws that could only be enacted by a totalitarian government will take generations to make an impact.

3) The majority of our resource depletion (and the most controllable factor) comes from the 1.2 billion people in the developed world and the 1/2 billion wealthiest people in the rest using 10x as many resources as they need (with China rapidly trying to join us and double that number), not the 5 billion people living at a baseline level.

4) History has shown that population growth is checked when a population has security and education. Every nation that has given its poor people food/livelihood security and basic human rights has slowed its population growth meaningfully. We have to figure out how to do this without simply throwing them into the ultra-materialist "next step" that we in the West live out and promote.

5) No matter what the population levels, greedy humans have shown the ability to increase their resource consumption. There is absolutely no population measure on the table that will not require us to make significant changes in how we consume resources.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3679
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by jonathan »

Jimi wrote:Two questions, two answers.

1) To change policy, to better-meet the challenges of the present and the confidently-forecasted future.

2) No. Force doesn't really stick, people need to want to do something if you want that something to last. Ram it down their throat, it's coming back up. Make it yummy, down it stays.
Collective action (a bunch of individuals making the right choices) doesn't (well, shouldn't) require coercion
Coercion is the worst way to wield power. The best way is to allow people to do the right thing, the fair and moral thing. The second best way is to allow people to act in their own best interests, in a transactional manner. Both of these approaches requires offering people choices, and having people be aware of them, and what the various ramifications of the different options are.

I think what is needed are true statesmen, not hit men or con men or carnival barkers, as representatives. People who can listen and learn, change their minds and actions when reality demands it, and make deals. People who know the difference between a wasteful expenditure and a wise investment. People who aren't afraid of getting fired for doing what's needed, but are also willing to stick it out for the long haul if the people will have them.

Yeah, I'm really strongly on board with this. People almost always find a way around forceful coersion in the long-run, or there are side-effects that are as bad or worse than the situation that coersion was initially trying to solve.

That's why I think we need to lead the way as individuals first, and as communities, and only then can we get whole nation and dissenters to follow in our example. We need to prove that we're committed enough in what we believe that we are willing to do it ourselves, whether or not others follow along, and that it leads to a good life. No one is coming along for any serious ride unless we who are committed show the way.

User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 11:28 am
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by cbernz »

Reducing meat consumption is a great idea. Another thing that might help is to buy in-season local produce as much as possible. Rich people with huge farms growing crops in poor countries for export is not only bad environmentally, but further contributes to hunger.

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

Reducing meat consumption is a great idea.
Yes, this is huge. Your best "pick one thing" might be "eat less meat". Global meat consumption is a major - dominant, even - driver of terrestrial habitat loss due to land devoted to feed production, freshwater habitat loss due to water consumption and water quality degradation, and nearshore habitat loss and degradation due to polluted inflows, and primary and secondary greenhouse emissions. It's driven by both individual consumption levels and sheer human population size.

My first trip to the humid tropics (and seeing the landscape devastation) in my early 20's got me off beef. I mean I'll have a burger, or BBQ brisket, at a restaurant maybe 3-4 times a year. But from the grocery store? Never. I feel good about it, living my values etc etc. And yes, if enough of us do this, maybe we'll have an effect on the price of beef, driving it low enough so that the only economical way to grow cattle is "the right way" (to some, anyway), on grassland ranges, with very little room for expenses like grain and soybean feeds and prophylactic antibiotics.

But with current domestic policies (water law) establishing conditions ("cheap" water) that make it "profitable" to do things like in my example above (growing a LOT of alfalfa in the desert), well, I'm not so sure. Plus with globalization, our missing demand for beef can pretty easily be filled with new demand from (and probably new production in) China or wherever. Particularly if we continue to have domestic energy & transportation policies (no emissions controls on ships or airplanes; no cost charged anywhere for carbon emissions) that enable the super-subsidized alfalfa to be sent "profitably" to China or wherever.

It's a curious situation. Setting aside environmentalism, if we had a real market for water it would never be used like this. An acre-foot of water used industrially or residentially in a city, or even agriculturally in an orchard or greenhouse or near-urban truck farm, would produce a much greater return than an acre-foot used to grow alfalfa in the desert. Basically, we're all subsidizing the rural and corporate lifestyles of a very few people. It's "profitable" because of current policy. I'd personally rather see the alfalfa fields converted to solar installations, with a fraction of the water used to keep the glass clean, and the balance split somehow between the environment (leave it in the river to flow to the Sea of Cortez) and more-intensive uses - creating jobs in the cities. But that's not profitable - and usually quite hard to do legally - under current policy.

Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns. I'll even twist Dick Cheney's words and say that "conservation is a great and necessary individual virtue, but it's not sufficient - it cannot replace better collective policy". And if you recall the Dick's actual words, he was sneering at those of us practicing our individual virtues. When guys like that are in power, it doesn't matter how many of us are doing this or that - it's not gonna change their behavior, they're gonna do what they like. Which is why I say we need to identify and elect (and retain, where applicable) some real statesmen, people with energy and intellect and critical thinking skills. But we also need to let them do their jobs, which means making some deals and pissing us off sometimes, all in service of long-term greater good. I'm pretty disappointed in how extreme both the major parties have become, there aren't many centrists left. It seems like they can't win a primary, which is a whole 'nother topic.

cheers

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jimi wrote:Coercion is the worst way to wield power. The best way is to allow people to do the right thing, the fair and moral thing. The second best way is to allow people to act in their own best interests, in a transactional manner. Both of these approaches requires offering people choices, and having people be aware of them, and what the various ramifications of the different options are.
Aha. This sounds much more palatable than what I fearfully inferred from your original "we need to elect the right people" suggestion. :lol:

It seems many folks these days have no faith in themselves, their fellow man, or their own ability to influence said fellow man, to modify behaviors of their own volition (i.e. without government coercion) for the betterment of the environment. These people apparently think the solution is to accept (even cheerfully elect, in some cases) a socialist government.

On the other hand, if I'm now reading you correctly, you would prefer to elect people that, rather than penalize people for not doing whatever the centralized planners say is the "right thing" (e.g. fines for not separating their recyclables or banning types of light bulb), would remove barriers and empower people to be able to do the "right thing" (e.g. eliminating penalties, such as being required to still pay an electric company a customer charge for installing solar panels on their home and going "off the grid" or citing people for harvesting rainwater).

If that's more your meaning, then I'm on board.

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

There will come a time, and its more than likely - that all of our theorizing about political parties and human affairs will make the meaningfulness of catching rainwater in a barrel a very different thorn in ones side, indeed.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3679
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by jonathan »

cbernz wrote:Reducing meat consumption is a great idea. Another thing that might help is to buy in-season local produce as much as possible. Rich people with huge farms growing crops in poor countries for export is not only bad environmentally, but further contributes to hunger.
I first gave up beef when I learned that a heavy contributor to malnutrition in Guatemala was that a huge amount of local farmers' land had been taken over by wealthy beef ranchers for export. Something like 70% of Guatemalan farmland was now being used for beef, a product that most of their own people couldn't afford!



Later, I began to work in social programs in Los Angeles for the Sisters of Notre Dame. Right before I joined up with them in 2006, one of their own, Sister Dorothy Stang, was brutally assassinated in Brazil by hitmen hired by a wealthy rancher. She had been living among villagers whose land was being taken and forest was being destroyed by loggers and ranchers. She stood up for poor people who were making their own, sustainable living off the land, and was killed as a result.

The rancher who hired the hitmen was never brought to justice.

IMF pressure on Brazil to develop faster and increase exports encourages them to cut down more and more of the rainforest for these ranchers and loggers. The IMF never pressures anyone to protect human rights, preserve their environment, or develop an economy based on sustainability.

For anyone interested in how we in wealthy countries contribute to hunger abroad with our agricultural policy, I strongly recommend, "Enough: Why the World's Poorest Starve in an Age of Plenty".


I didn't actually realize how huge a contribution to global warming meat production was until 2-2.5 years ago, when I began undertaking research as the chair of a taskforce that was setting the environmental agenda for an international organization. I already knew about all the local environmental and social problems that meat production caused, but the sheer scale of the issue blew my mind.

I'm not a vegan, but my wife and I now buy meat 1-2 times a year at most, and never beef or pork. We do eat meat when we're served it if there aren't suffiicient options, but when realistic I try to convince event organizers at functions I help plan to choose away from meat as much as possible.



(p.s. - none of this has anything to do with hunted meat. I happily gorge on sustainably hunted meat.)

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

I think including the dairy industry is important. Needing no disclaimer to soften the social perception that is misguided by demographical farce to disclose that I dont buy/eat meat or milk anymore, I definitely have a different view of sustainably hunted wild meat. Though my preference would be to have hunted it myself because I was hungry. But if I was presented with a venison steak, or duck hunted by someone who approached the pursuit with a wholesome mind I know I would eat it.

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

Aha. This sounds much more palatable than what I fearfully inferred from your original "we need to elect the right people" suggestion. :lol:
I hope and believe that you know from "the corpus of my work here" that I'm an optimistic realist, a businessman at heart. Not some wild-eyed jihadi. Plus, I've taken some management and leadership courses in my career, and have tried to maintain attention to what works and what does not. People tend to adopt, maintain, and improve what they worked for, what they earned or paid for, what they invented or created. People tend to ignore, reject, or destroy what they didn't ask for, didn't pay for, or had no part in creating. Unfortunately, when you're in a position of leadership (particularly one of "incomplete authority" - you're not the "uber-boss") you discover that people are busy and distracted and often rather lazy, and it's a hell of a job to get them to help out by participating along the way.
a socialist government
I don't really find that label very useful. It's more of a club or wedge to divide people; worse yet, it has no commonly-accepted definition, so one never really knows what another means by it. I think it's more ideological ("jihadist") than political ("business"), which I frankly find disturbing.
On the other hand, if I'm now reading you correctly, you would prefer to elect people that, rather than penalize people for not doing whatever the centralized planners say is the "right thing" (e.g. fines for not separating their recyclables or banning types of light bulb), would remove barriers and empower people to be able to do the "right thing" (e.g. eliminating penalties, such as being required to still pay an electric company a customer charge for installing solar panels on their home and going "off the grid" or citing people for harvesting rainwater).
- In general, yes - carrot is way better than stick. I think a little stick can be useful, particularly in the early stages when people are just kind of on autopilot and haven't clued in yet that there are some choices being presented to them, and they need to pay attention and do a little homework. So they tune into the fact that former barriers have been removed, and they now have more ways to "do the right thing".

- I also don't want to appear I'm silently condoning the disparagement of "centralized planners". See my comments on "socialist government". There are great ways to do planning, and terrible ways to do planning, and you can also try to get by with - or default into - no planning. I don't support a conceptual dichotomy wherein the only choices are terrible planning or no planning. Good planning identifies good options to choose from - which people should then be able to compare and select. Unfortunately, the best way to identify good options is to get people to help identify them - recall my comments on "participating along the way". Which sort of nudges you into poor planning, or no planning.

cheers

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jimi wrote:People tend to adopt, maintain, and improve what they worked for, what they earned or paid for, what they invented or created. People tend to ignore, reject, or destroy what they didn't ask for, didn't pay for, or had no part in creating. Unfortunately, when you're in a position of leadership (particularly one of "incomplete authority" - you're not the "uber-boss") you discover that people are busy and distracted and often rather lazy, and it's a hell of a job to get them to help out by participating along the way.
Agree on all counts. Heck, sometimes I think a "benevolent dictatorship" wouldn't be so bad (as an elected position with term limits) from a decision-making process--as an option. Then again, the ponderous legislative and separation-of-powers system we have in place helps (not guarantees) that the people we elect to represent us think through the long-term consequences of their decisions and policies. (Realistically, I know they largely don't).
a socialist government
I don't really find that label very useful.
Understood. An expedient shorthand on my part as I headed out the door.
I also don't want to appear I'm silently condoning the disparagement of "centralized planners". See my comments on "socialist government". There are great ways to do planning, and terrible ways to do planning, and you can also try to get by with - or default into - no planning.
I should clarify--my intent is not to disparage (unless warranted by action/inaction), but to condone healthy skepticism. I do find it ironic that so many people who espouse the "question authority" mindset (to the extent they display it on T-shirts and bumper stickers, at least) advocate the relegation of important decisions they could make themselves to an outside entity. I suppose "freedom" to some people means "relief from tedious, but necessary decision-making that was once an individual's responsibilty."

I apologize for driving the thread off-topic somewhat. Jimi, I agree that the "one thing" is a flawed proposition from the outset.

I hope you make it back out to the Far East (Sanderson) soon, with more time to chat!

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Forgive me for this, its a quick derail, but I live in a city of Question Authority bumper stickers, often that sentiment is expressed by a culture of healthy people in the prime of life who pretend (and sometimes forget and actually believe) they suffer various maladies so that they can have a medical marijuana card.

I suspect they don't really have the initiative to do anything too pro active most of the time in making decisions reality, which is probably a blessing in disguise.

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Kelly Mc wrote:I suspect they don't really have the initiative to do anything too pro active most of the time in making decisions reality, which is probably a blessing in disguise.
:lol:

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Or, not in disguise lol

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Ah.. However if that (quote was appropriated) as a kind of jab at an apolitical assumption you have about me, that you haven't the initiative to address directly, you couldn't really say that if you knew anything about decisions I have made recently, in how I spend my time and energy.

Transparency rocks, just sayin'!

User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by klawnskale »

I do find it ironic that so many people who espouse the "question authority" mindset (to the extent they display it on T-shirts and bumper stickers, at least) advocate the relegation of important decisions they could make themselves to an outside entity. I suppose "freedom" to some people means "relief from tedious, !

In reality, the people you cite as an example would in all honesty would be more authentic if they wore T-shirts or bumperstickers displaying this:

Image

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

:thumb: shoot i wish somebody could photo shop a beard and a fake dred man-bun on him.

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Oh, golly. Man-buns. I just found out about those a couple of months ago and now it seems I can't escape them, even in the relative sanctuary of FHF! :P

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

Lol, sorry! Yeah the dyed green buns now those are somethin special, on a 40 year old. Aw I should quit, true though.

User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by klawnskale »

Couldn't find Alfred sporting a "man bun" but will this do?

Image

User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4483
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 12:03 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Kelly Mc »

That's just too Splendid!

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Surely man-buns can't be good for the environment. Dreads...possibly (but I just keep my hair short, requiring less maintenance).

Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Jimi »

I apologize for driving the thread off-topic somewhat. Jimi, I agree that the "one thing" is a flawed proposition from the outset.
Oh, I helped carry it off-topic too...nevertheless, good conversation.
Heck, sometimes I think a "benevolent dictatorship" wouldn't be so bad (as an elected position with term limits) from a decision-making process--as an option. Then again, the ponderous legislative and separation-of-powers system we have in place helps (not guarantees) that the people we elect to represent us think through the long-term consequences of their decisions and policies. (Realistically, I know they largely don't).
I occasionally have such daydreams - I have been impressed with the speed (if not always the quality...) of decision-making in China (by no means a benevolent dictatorship, but still one which needs to attend to their public's sentiment). When Chinese deciders decide something, boy they get after it! (Sometimes it's heartening, e.g. reforestation, sometimes sinister, e.g. making offshore islands.) But in general I'm WAY, WAY more comfortable with our ponderous republican (small r) system, when it actually can have extended discussions and make informed, considered decisions. When our reps have to do stuff in a hurry, or when one side or the other rams something down the other's throat, often it seems to come out poorly. E.g., get overturned in court, or play out badly on the ground.

I think some of our system's machinery is a little (or a lot) clunky - more so than it used to be, or than it should be. For example (agreeing with your "realistically...they don't" statement) I believe one of the reasons our representatives are having a harder time having extended discussions & making good-enough (lasting, long-run bettering) decisions together is that they "have to" spend nearly all their time 1) raising money for their next campaign and 2) commuting weekly back and forth from DC to their home district (a relatively recent habit & expectation which I don't think is really a good thing - it inhibits their getting together socially, getting to know each other as people, growing trust so they can actually negotiate & make deals). I also think there are some ginned-up rules that have proved to be unhelpful - e.g. the "requirement" for a bill to have a majority of the majority to even be eligible for a full vote. Less inclusivity, less give-and-take, less actual representation, less votes, less decisions.

I think the most salient outcome of much less discussion & much less deciding, is severe frustration within the electorate, which has manifested in the 2008 election (Obama's "change") and the 2016 campaign (e.g., Trump's populist appeal). Basically, we the people seem to agree the system isn't working very well, we just seem to have different ideas about why, and what to do about it. If we the people can agree on the problem(s), the diagnosis, we would have an easier time figuring out solutions, the prescription. So I think something useful for us all to do right now, is to try and get on the same page about the diagnosis. Not throw out the very notion of "a loyal opposition", not to think of anyone not sharing our specific beliefs as enemies. I'm dead certain that in terms of fundamental values (rule of law, freedom of speech & other Constitutional rights, universal suffrage, equality of opportunity, etc), we have a lot more in common than we disagree about. I'm not afraid of Americans, but I'm concerned for America. We can work it out though - IF we want to.
Collective action (a bunch of individuals making the right choices) doesn't (well, shouldn't) require coercion. It may require a better-educated citizenry, but at least in my lifetime, the environmental aspect of our actions has been taught fairly matter-of-factly from the early elementary academic years. We need to explore why that curriculum (provided, directly or indirectly, through that collective action of 'electing better people') isn't sinking in.
I don't know that the problem lies in curricula. But I don't have small kids, I don't know what kids are being taught these days. And the "decider demographic" probably has a median age of about 55 years - pretty far removed from their primary educations. Anyway, it seems like people these days feel increasingly entitled to "their own facts", negating the value of education, the concept of reality, etc. How can a republic function with an ignorant - a deliberately, even proudly obtuse - electorate? It's deeply troubling. Some days I think "we look a bit like the Germany of 1931". Or maybe the Russia of 2015. (That sure kills those "benevolent dictator" daydreams I mentioned.)
I hope you make it back out to the Far East (Sanderson) soon, with more time to chat!
Yep, I'm hoping to make it to Mena. Maybe with a carload of herpers, maybe just by my lonesome. Or with wife in tow, if I can get her to fly out with me. If I can't do that, then maybe Snake Days. I'm trying to get more herping in outside my region, and I'm not hopelessly antisocial.

cheers

daniel
Posts: 110
Joined: July 2nd, 2013, 9:29 am
Location: California

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by daniel »

Pretty interesting and relevant to the discussion in regards to population trends.

http://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=41398297&refid=asa

User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by lateralis »

I apologize for driving the thread off-topic somewhat. Jimi, I agree that the "one thing" is a flawed proposition from the outset.
Not really, picking at least one thing is taking a step in the right direction. Not doing anything or relying on elected officials to do the dirty work is fatalistic and lazy not to mention pessimistic. The original question was what would people change or do to contribute to positive change not a proposal that doing one thing will solve our collective woes.

Our choices define our future both individually and collectively so as you choose how to collaborate and cause change keep your kids future in mind too; what we all do now will define the type of world they inherit.

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2444
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 11:13 pm
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by chris_mcmartin »

lateralis wrote:
I apologize for driving the thread off-topic somewhat. Jimi, I agree that the "one thing" is a flawed proposition from the outset.
Not really, picking at least one thing is taking a step in the right direction.
You're already moving the goalposts! So now it's "at least" one thing... :P


How about reducing our agricultural footprint by curtailing our farming of things which have little to no nutritional value--cut out coffee and wine!

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2248
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by Tamara D. McConnell »

I don't want to live in a world without coffee. I'm sorry, but I just can't see that as a good world. Isn't there something else we can give up instead?
edited to add: I've already given up drinking, drugs, and running amok with bad men. Please let me keep coffee and cussing.

User avatar
klawnskale
Posts: 1211
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:09 pm

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by klawnskale »

chris_mcmartin wrote:
lateralis wrote:
I apologize for driving the thread off-topic somewhat. Jimi, I agree that the "one thing" is a flawed proposition from the outset.
Not really, picking at least one thing is taking a step in the right direction.
You're already moving the goalposts! So now it's "at least" one thing... :P


How about reducing our agricultural footprint by curtailing our farming of things which have little to no nutritional value--cut out coffee and wine!

Then include tobacco and beer to that list.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3679
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: "Pick one thing"

Post by jonathan »

klawnskale wrote:
chris_mcmartin wrote:You're already moving the goalposts! So now it's "at least" one thing... :P


How about reducing our agricultural footprint by curtailing our farming of things which have little to no nutritional value--cut out coffee and wine!

Then include tobacco and beer to that list.
It's be interesting to see where beer, wine, tobacco, coffee, and tea all fit on the footprint.

Tobacco especially is supposed to be awful for the environment. Coffee and tea seem to be getting worse as they go to bigger and bigger farms and more factory methods. And beer/wine have to have a pretty big impact.

Still, I would guess all these things are minor compared to other issues. And even though I only occasionally drink tea and rarely or never any of the others, they do seem to have a positive benefit in many people's lives. Face it, 80% of the food Americans consume isn't for its "nutritional value" either.

Rather than insisting on stopping any of those things cold turkey for their environmental benefit, I would suggest we take them into consideration in regards to our overall overconsumption. If you're drinking two six-packs a day (R.I.P. grandpa) or can't get through the day without one or two gigantic cups of $3 coffee, then there might be a way to back off and make your life better on more than one front. 90% of the world manages to get through the day without consuming so much of that stuff.

Post Reply