logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Don't createth it lest you can ..., ... returneth it back where you foundeth it
akaCG
post Apr 22 2015, 11:57 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



A little while ago, I started a thread titled "FUNDAMENTAL transformation: Does our country still need some?". The debate question, basically, was:"What fundamentally transformative change(s) does our country, at this point in its history, still need to undergo? and why?". There were lots of responses (thank you, all who participated/contributed). Quite a few of them would make really terrific topic-starters, btw (hint hint nudge nudge, my fellow ad.gif-ers).

The one that caught my eye most of all, and serves as the inspiration for this thread, was this:
QUOTE(Dingo @ Mar 8 2015, 06:23 PM) *
...
3. Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.
...


Debate question:

If the above recommendation were adopted/implemented globally, how would the 7 billion or so humans currently inhabiting the earth be affected?

1. They'd actually live longer, healthier, happier lives than they do now, because ...

2. They'd pretty much not be affected, because ...

3. They'd live Iron Age type lives, because ...

4. They'd live Bronze Age type lives, because ...

5. They'd live Stone Age type lives, because ...

6. Other, because ...


This post has been edited by akaCG: Apr 23 2015, 02:41 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Dingo
post Apr 23 2015, 07:02 AM
Post #2


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 22 2015, 04:57 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Mar 8 2015, 06:23 PM) *
...
3. Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.
...


Debate question:

If the above recommendation were adopted/implemented globally, how would the 7 billion or so humans currently inhabiting the earth be affected?


Something magical about 7 billion? You start with principles that reasonable people should be able to appreciate and from there work out the practicalities.

You're questions are generally silly but thanks for reengaging the topic. thumbsup.gif

6. Other
You achieve a life without inflicting a lot of negative externalities on the planet and your fellow humans, like turning the planet into a poisonous junkyard. As to the affirmative details they will work themselves out as a kind of Golden Rule plays itself out with the planet and its inhabitants engaging in reciprocal sustanance with homo sapiens. Iron, bronze and stones will no doubt find their place in this principled narrative. flowers.gif


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 23 2015, 07:49 PM
Post #3


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo)
Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.

QUOTE(akaCG)
If the above recommendation were adopted/implemented globally, how would the 7 billion or so humans currently inhabiting the earth be affected?

1. They'd actually live longer, healthier, happier lives than they do now, because ...
2. They'd pretty much not be affected, because ...
3. They'd live Iron Age type lives, because ...
4. They'd live Bronze Age type lives, because ...
5. They'd live Stone Age type lives, because ...
6. Other, because ...

I'll go with
1. They'd actually live longer, healthier, happier lives than they do now.

It would require more physical effort to produce things, which would mean widespread physical fitness and more jobs. Not having everything like food encased in plastic bubbles would reduce the demand for oil. In the case of food products, their perishability would be a factor. It would become more necessary to control portions of foods, and people might eat less rather than feel the compulsion to ingest more than they should reasonably have. If more people cooked and ate at home, portion control would also be exercised.

Of course, there would be things for which we would need products that involve a high technical degree of manufacturing, e.g., medical supplies. But we could go back to sterilizing instruments (like syringes) rather than throwing them away. And once again, that would mean more jobs of a physical nature.

While it's not possible in our current civilization to leave no carbon footprint at all, we could do a lot better, and if the world actually tried to follow that recommendation closely, it would benefit those who participated.

Going back to Iron Age, Bronze Age, or Stone Age technology would not be practical, and I foresee something like that happening only if a massive solar flare took out the power grid, so that no electricity (let alone computers) was accessible to the population.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Apr 23 2015, 08:31 PM
Post #4


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



3. Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.

a great deal of this exists in this country and much of the EU today. there are industries that do nothing but recycle the raw materials from everything from cars to plastic toys etc.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 23 2015, 09:19 PM
Post #5


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 23 2015, 04:31 PM) *
3. Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.

a great deal of this exists in this country and much of the EU today. there are industries that do nothing but recycle the raw materials from everything from cars to plastic toys etc.

This is not about recycling (e.g. turning old tires into playground flooring).

"Dingo"'s proposal is to have the price of any product (pencil, car, computer, house, dress, pair of shoes, solar panel, fishing boat, IPhone, factory, refrigerator, Chinese take-out carton, MRI machine, dentist chair, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) reflect not only the cost of making it, but the cost of "returning to the earth" everything that went into making it.

Take a guess as to how much more everything (including basics such as food, shelter, clothing, medicine) would cost under that sort of "protocol". And then, take a guess as to what the effects would be on the 7 billion people currently living on earth, especially the poor.

THAT's what this thread is about.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Apr 23 2015, 09:30 PM
Post #6


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Apr 23 2015, 04:31 PM) *
3. Any product created should come with a required protocol that returns it to the earth with the cost built in.

a great deal of this exists in this country and much of the EU today. there are industries that do nothing but recycle the raw materials from everything from cars to plastic toys etc.

And yet landfills have not gone obsolete, so obviously it's not everything from here to there.

But it is true that more stuff gets recycled because it make business sense. The trash from one business becomes the raw materials of another. There's also a profit motive to reduce the wasting of raw materials. It's all good stuff, but more has to be done before we hit near zero-sum balance.

As for quality of life issues, whatever happens could go either way, better quality or worse quality. Or the idea of life quality could be so subjective that it can't be measured in any meaningful way, for example the rich guy who is still leading a miserable life or the poor guy digging it all while needing very little. Those are the extremes. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, somewhat miserable, somewhat digging it, having some days worse/better than others.

For now it's hopeful to me that alternative energy sources are being harvested more each year and that battery tech is getting the R&D attention it needs. We might even figure it out before wiping ourselves off the face of the Earth. What's also hopeful to me is that newer generations have this stuff front-and-center in their minds because the future belongs to them.

In effect, human inventiveness and focus will save the world, not some mystical deity. On the other hand, human ignorance and flakiness could destroy the world. I'm rooting for the first hand.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 25 2015, 12:00 AM
Post #7


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 23 2015, 03:49 PM) *
...
I'll go with
1. They'd actually live longer, healthier, happier lives than they do now.

It would require more physical effort to produce things, which would mean widespread physical fitness and more jobs. Not having everything like food encased in plastic bubbles would reduce the demand for oil. In the case of food products, their perishability would be a factor. It would become more necessary to control portions of foods, and people might eat less rather than feel the compulsion to ingest more than they should reasonably have. If more people cooked and ate at home, portion control would also be exercised.
...

Here are just a handful or so snapshots of societies where it takes "more physical effort to produce things", where "physical fitness" is indeed quite widespread, where just about everybody (including children) has a "job", and where just about everybody exercises "portion control":

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I000...ng-Porridge.jpg
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upima...carry_water.jpg
http://kairosphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000JmTzZNP0QYk
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/2...-lanka-asia.jpg
http://www.hardrainproject.com/thumbnail.p....jpg&type=U
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/98/...2e857b46427.jpg

"[L]onger, healthier, happier" lives, you say? Really?

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 23 2015, 03:49 PM) *
...
Of course, there would be things for which we would need products that involve a high technical degree of manufacturing, e.g., medical supplies. But we could go back to sterilizing instruments (like syringes) rather than throwing them away. And once again, that would mean more jobs of a physical nature.
...

Under (to coin a term) The "Dingo" Protocol, all that "high techical degree of manufacturing" stuff would disappear. Think of it this way:

Could you and "Curmudgeon" have bought your car, if the price you had to pay for it had had to include not only the cost of making it, but also the cost of "returning to the earth" everything that went into making it?

Now extrapolate that to the price of, say, a hospital, with all sorts of "high technical degree of manufacturing" stuff that goes with it (e.g. MRI machines, blood analysis machines, hospital beds, fully-equipped ambulances, scalpels, forceps, sanitary gloves, drip bags, face masks, ... indoor plumbing, air conditioning, elevators, microwave ovens, ... etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ... etc.).

Heck, even modern birth control methods would disappear. After all, they are "high techical degree of manufacturing" type goods, as well.

Guess it's back to non-"high techical degree of manufacturing" solutions, ladies. Basic instructions thereof:

Step 1.
Make sure that your cervix is coated with generous amounts of honey or, if honey's not available, elephant dung. Or something like that, as long as it's not only "locally sourced" but "sustainable" as well, ... and stuff.

Step 2.
Lie back and ... think of Gaia.


ps:
If anyone is wondering about what the "Lie back and ... think of Gaia" is a cultural reference to, ...

Ask "Julian". smile.gif



This post has been edited by akaCG: Apr 25 2015, 12:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Apr 25 2015, 02:04 AM
Post #8


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 24 2015, 07:00 PM) *
ps:
If anyone is wondering about what the "Lie back and ... think of Gaia" is a cultural reference to, ...

Ask "Julian".

I saw no logical reason to "Ask Julian." so I highlighted and Googled your phrase. It lead me to a typically, for you, unexplained website which I was asked to join... That site had a link to shop where I found "Hide Your Shameful Nudity GO SHOPPING".

From another search engine, I found another irrelevant link to a post by Gregory of Yardale, on Moonbattery.

Perhaps you, akaCG, could explain what you are talking about occasionally, instead of telling us that we should harass someone else for an explanation of what the #$%& point you are trying to make!

America's Debate does not limit your responses to 140 characters and spaces. You should actually take the time occasionally to post a logical, well thought out contribution. There are plenty of editing tools available to allow you to do that!

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Apr 25 2015, 02:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 25 2015, 04:00 AM
Post #9


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 24 2015, 08:00 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 23 2015, 03:49 PM) *
...
I'll go with
1. They'd actually live longer, healthier, happier lives than they do now.

It would require more physical effort to produce things, which would mean widespread physical fitness and more jobs. Not having everything like food encased in plastic bubbles would reduce the demand for oil. In the case of food products, their perishability would be a factor. It would become more necessary to control portions of foods, and people might eat less rather than feel the compulsion to ingest more than they should reasonably have. If more people cooked and ate at home, portion control would also be exercised.
...

Here are just a handful or so snapshots of societies where it takes "more physical effort to produce things", where "physical fitness" is indeed quite widespread, where just about everybody (including children) has a "job", and where just about everybody exercises "portion control":

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I000...ng-Porridge.jpg
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upima...carry_water.jpg
http://kairosphotos.photoshelter.com/image/I0000JmTzZNP0QYk
http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/2...-lanka-asia.jpg
http://www.hardrainproject.com/thumbnail.p....jpg&type=U
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/98/...2e857b46427.jpg

"[L]onger, healthier, happier" lives, you say? Really?

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 23 2015, 03:49 PM) *
...
Of course, there would be things for which we would need products that involve a high technical degree of manufacturing, e.g., medical supplies. But we could go back to sterilizing instruments (like syringes) rather than throwing them away. And once again, that would mean more jobs of a physical nature.
...

Under (to coin a term) The "Dingo" Protocol, all that "high techical degree of manufacturing" stuff would disappear. Think of it this way:

Could you and "Curmudgeon" have bought your car, if the price you had to pay for it had had to include not only the cost of making it, but also the cost of "returning to the earth" everything that went into making it?

Now extrapolate that to the price of, say, a hospital, with all sorts of "high technical degree of manufacturing" stuff that goes with it (e.g. MRI machines, blood analysis machines, hospital beds, fully-equipped ambulances, scalpels, forceps, sanitary gloves, drip bags, face masks, ... indoor plumbing, air conditioning, elevators, microwave ovens, ... etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ... etc.).

Heck, even modern birth control methods would disappear. After all, they are "high techical degree of manufacturing" type goods, as well.

Guess it's back to non-"high techical degree of manufacturing" solutions, ladies. Basic instructions thereof:

Step 1.
Make sure that your cervix is coated with generous amounts of honey or, if honey's not available, elephant dung. Or something like that, as long as it's not only "locally sourced" but "sustainable" as well, ... and stuff.

Step 2.
Lie back and ... think of Gaia.


ps:
If anyone is wondering about what the "Lie back and ... think of Gaia" is a cultural reference to, ...

Ask "Julian". smile.gif

Well wow, akaCG, I think you got me. I thought that you were actually asking a serious question and that you were interested in getting a serious answer, not trying to trivialize my response. My bad.

People who spend their time playing computer games can learn to do better things with their time: garden, weave, sew, raise farm animals...all sorts of things that are not dependent upon a high level of technology. Most of the things involved in simple subsistence farming or clothes making take time, but they can be very rewarding. Anyone who has raised tomatoes in the summer time and has bitten into something that didn't come on a truck from far away and was fresh and juicy and produced by their own hands has known satisfaction.

And since you quoted me as having said,
QUOTE
Of course, there would be things for which we would need products that involve a high technical degree of manufacturing, e.g., medical supplies. But we could go back to sterilizing instruments (like syringes) rather than throwing them away. And once again, that would mean more jobs of a physical nature.
you know that I do not hold with the absolute notion that everything would have to be able to return to the earth.

Further, I also said
QUOTE
While it's not possible in our current civilization to leave no carbon footprint at all, we could do a lot better, and if the world actually tried to follow that recommendation closely, it would benefit those who participated.


In other words, I don't believe that it absolutely possible to use the earth to make everything and to return it all to the earth. For all the technology we have, we haven't figured that out yet, and it will be a long time before we can ever do that. But it shouldn't stop us from trying.

And FYI,

!. Sheepskin condoms would probably help also...they've been around for centuries.
2. I am past the age of worrying about contraception, so I needn't lie back and think about Gaia any more than I would "lie back and think about England." The very fact that I know what you're referring to is an indication that I'm too old to reproduce. rolleyes.gif

Seriously, though, do you really think that your arguments are valid because you can bring up some links reminiscent of Third World appeals where people have no choice but to undertake physical labor to get anything done?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Apr 25 2015, 04:20 AM
Post #10


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 24 2015, 05:00 PM) *
Under (to coin a term) The "Dingo" Protocol, all that "high techical degree of manufacturing" stuff would disappear.

Under the Dingo protocol old tires could be converted into swing seats, syringes could be recycled as long as that is doable but their final life would be a return to earth in its original state rather than become long term toxic junk. Obviously for a long lived product that was doing good work the percentage of cost for that return would be relatively small. Since we have plenty of precedents for restoration I'm only asking for that product that is broken down to include as best as can be determined the cost of full restoration for all products. If that added 10% to the product on average wouldn't that be worth it considering the alternative? And wouldn't that cost incourage better product choice?

Right now what most comes to mind for me is the proliferation of plastics that are injecting life choking strands throughout our biological environment. Is demanding restoration so radical? Then of course we are talking about the spewing of ghgs that need to be brought into balance with our photosynthetic capabilities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 25 2015, 12:26 PM
Post #11


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 25 2015, 12:20 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 24 2015, 05:00 PM) *
Under (to coin a term) The "Dingo" Protocol, all that "high techical degree of manufacturing" stuff would disappear.

Under the Dingo protocol old tires could be converted into swing seats, syringes could be recycled as long as that is doable but their final life would be a return to earth in its original state rather than become long term toxic junk. Obviously for a long lived product that was doing good work the percentage of cost for that return would be relatively small. Since we have plenty of precedents for restoration I'm only asking for that product that is broken down to include as best as can be determined the cost of full restoration for all products. If that added 10% to the product on average wouldn't that be worth it considering the alternative? And wouldn't that cost incourage better product choice?

Right now what most comes to mind for me is the proliferation of plastics that are injecting life choking strands throughout our biological environment. Is demanding restoration so radical? Then of course we are talking about the spewing of ghgs that need to be brought into balance with our photosynthetic capabilities.

According to akaCG, I guess we're supposed to throw up our hands and abandon the thought of reducing our toxic impact on the earth because he is seeing what you are saying as literally an all-or-nothing approach.

I do know that some plastics are being manufactured at this time that do break down in sunlight. There is a law in your state (California) where plastic grocery bags are prohibited, so alternative packaging is used, such as cloth bags or paper, or no bags at all if they aren't necessary.

I don't think that you are suggesting, Dingo, that applications in medicine be abandoned (such as radiation therapy or chemotherapy or laser surgery) that cannot be effectively replaced by applying leeches to bleed a patient or scraping willow bark to make aspirin. But since you were interpreted as promoting getting rid of everything technical and modern with your desired approach, you have been set up to be wrong in akaCG's mind.

The irony is that as we continue to take from the environment and leave unbiodegradable garbage in place of natural resources, Third World scenarios will continue to proliferate, and there will be more starvation and unpotable water. Until that hits the grand old U S of A in a serious way when unarable land and toxic water sources jeopardize our own population's existence, it's altogether too inconvenient or inconceivable (yes, that overused word from The Princess Bride) for us to change our ways, especially where plastics and chemical run-offs are concerned. There will continue to be human interest stories where some farmer can ignite the water coming out of his faucet, and we'll shake our heads and say "That's the cost of having the energy that we need to live," and not worry about it further until it gets up-close and personal.

And a postscript: Please note that in response to akaCG's links to poor people in Asia and Africa, I did not post myriad links to 300-lb. Americans sitting on the sofa eating junk food and working their thumbs to the bone on the latest video game in order to bolster my claim that Americans would be healthier being more active and productive. You didn't see a single fat person needing oxygen or a cane carrying that water or working in the rice fields.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Apr 25 2015, 01:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Apr 25 2015, 02:05 PM
Post #12


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 24 2015, 11:00 PM) *
2. I am past the age of worrying about contraception, so I needn't lie back and think about Gaia any more than I would "lie back and think about England." The very fact that I know what you're referring to is an indication that I'm too old to reproduce. rolleyes.gif

Ah yes... I had forgotten my mother's two favorite quotations when I was growing up: (With a nod to akaCG's posting style)

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/202.html (Please note that the original quote is dated 1912!)

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/sex-the_pl...ion/213574.html (note that this quote precedes not only the "Sexual Revolution" that followed the marketing of birth controls, but precedes the American Revolution as well. Mother always misattributed this to Winston Churchill.)

Yes, such links can show that in the entire history of the human race, one woman and one man found sex to be routinely unrewarding. (And the quotations were likely published because they were so out of step with everyone else's sense of reality as to make everyone laugh!)

With a nod to Dad, another famous quote: http://www.bartleby.com/364/31.html

During her second marriage, mother learned that sex was enjoyable. (And routinely phoned at 3:00 AM to tell her children how wrong she had been while raising us!)

This is not a factory lunchroom, so I won't speculate on why aka CG felt Julian should be able to cite the opinion of a single married woman which was first published over a century ago. Oh wait! I guess I am speculating...

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Apr 25 2015, 02:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Apr 25 2015, 09:15 PM
Post #13


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 25 2015, 05:26 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 25 2015, 12:20 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 24 2015, 05:00 PM) *
Under (to coin a term) The "Dingo" Protocol, all that "high techical degree of manufacturing" stuff would disappear.

Under the Dingo protocol old tires could be converted into swing seats, syringes could be recycled as long as that is doable but their final life would be a return to earth in its original state rather than become long term toxic junk. Obviously for a long lived product that was doing good work the percentage of cost for that return would be relatively small. Since we have plenty of precedents for restoration I'm only asking for that product that is broken down to include as best as can be determined the cost of full restoration for all products. If that added 10% to the product on average wouldn't that be worth it considering the alternative? And wouldn't that cost incourage better product choice?

Right now what most comes to mind for me is the proliferation of plastics that are injecting life choking strands throughout our biological environment. Is demanding restoration so radical? Then of course we are talking about the spewing of ghgs that need to be brought into balance with our photosynthetic capabilities.

According to akaCG, I guess we're supposed to throw up our hands and abandon the thought of reducing our toxic impact on the earth because he is seeing what you are saying as literally an all-or-nothing approach.

Yes, supposedly I'm trying to take us back to the stone age. No, I'm just advocating a respectful nontoxic way of living on planet earth. Incentives for restoration like building in ultimate return to earth requirements at cost would seem to me to be part of the solution. I have to forgive CG his usual spin and repetitious silly links just for giving focus to the issue of restoration and eliciting great comments from folks like yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 25 2015, 11:15 PM
Post #14


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 25 2015, 12:20 AM) *
...
... syringes could be recycled as long as that is doable but their final life would be a return to earth in its original state rather than become long term toxic junk.
...

To the best of your ability, kindly describe the "original state" of a syringe (i.e. the state at which point it can be "return[ed] to earth" without any risk of its being a "long term toxic junk" hazard).

ps:
If it helps any, here are the materials of which various types of syringes are composed:

Stainless steel
Carbon steel
Nickel
Plastic
Glass

Source: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Syringe.html

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Apr 26 2015, 11:52 AM
Post #15


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(akaCG @ Apr 25 2015, 04:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 25 2015, 12:20 AM) *
...
... syringes could be recycled as long as that is doable but their final life would be a return to earth in its original state rather than become long term toxic junk.
...

To the best of your ability, kindly describe the "original state" of a syringe (i.e. the state at which point it can be "return[ed] to earth" without any risk of its being a "long term toxic junk" hazard).

ps:
If it helps any, here are the materials of which various types of syringes are composed:

Stainless steel
Carbon steel
Nickel
Plastic
Glass

Source: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Syringe.html

It appears pretty simple to me; based on the information you provide -> Iron, nickel, carbon, silicon, in their earth friendly broken down state.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Apr 26 2015, 09:11 PM
Post #16


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 26 2015, 06:52 AM) *
It appears pretty simple to me; based on the information you provide -> Iron, nickel, carbon, silicon, in their earth friendly broken down state.

Breaking things down to their basic elements is not always an "Earth Friendly" process,

Stainless steel is an alloy of multiple elements that is by definition resistant to natural corrosion and often non magnetic. Therefore, it is very difficult to isolate it and return it to its basic elements.

Carbon steel will rust over time, but junkyards exist because the time span is long enough to sell scrap metal as a profitable enterprise.

Plastic is something which is not easily returned to its elements. I used to work maintenance in an industrial incinerator that was capable of burning PVCs among other waste materials. There was nothing "Earth Friendly" about the energy consumption involved.

Glass has often been combined with other elements than silicone and oxygen to give it color, resistance to rapid temperature changes, etc. Museums have examples of some of the earliest glass ever made, and it is still glass. It is likely more resistant to natural deterioration than plastic. If I recall correctly, part of the recipe for making glass is to include glass with the sand in order to give the sand something to fuse to. Carbon and Silicon bond in similar fashions; and we may yet discover that glass, like plastic, is a polymer.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Apr 26 2015, 09:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Apr 26 2015, 09:36 PM
Post #17


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Apr 26 2015, 05:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 26 2015, 06:52 AM) *
It appears pretty simple to me; based on the information you provide -> Iron, nickel, carbon, silicon, in their earth friendly broken down state.

Breaking things down to their basic elements is not always an "Earth Friendly" process,

Stainless steel is an alloy of multiple elements that is by definition resistant to natural corrosion and often non magnetic. Therefore, it is very difficult to isolate it and return it to its basic elements.

Carbon steel will rust over time, but junkyards exist because the time span is long enough to sell scrap metal as a profitable enterprise.

Plastic is something which is not easily returned to its elements. I used to work maintenance in an industrial incinerator that was capable of burning PVCs among other waste materials. There was nothing "Earth Friendly" about the energy consumption involved.

Glass has often been combined with other elements than silicone and oxygen to give it color, resistance to rapid temperature changes, etc. Museums have examples of some of the earliest glass ever made, and it is still glass. It is likely more resistant to natural deterioration than plastic. If I recall correctly, part of the recipe for making glass is to include glass with the sand in order to give the sand something to fuse to. Carbon and Silicon bond in similar fashions; and we may yet discover that glass, like plastic, is a polymer.

In the case of syringes, sterilizing them means that they can be re-used for many years, so biodegrading them is a lesser consideration. The needles would still have to be replaced. That is a given. But not having to dispose of tens of millions of syringes would in itself be sparing the environment from a significant amount of non-biodegradable trash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vsrenard
post Apr 27 2015, 12:19 AM
Post #18


********
vsrenard

Sponsor
September 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,065
Member No.: 5,438
Joined: September-6-05

From: SF Bay Area
Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Other




If the above recommendation were adopted/implemented globally, how would the 7 billion or so humans currently inhabiting the earth be affected?
6. Other, because ...


I'm not of the opinion that any product can be necessarily returned to the earth, and that all products should bear such a cost. Still it would do us much good move away from a disposable mindset to one that conserves where possible. Where it is possible, recycling should be a given, with cost of goods amortized over expected multi-use lifetime.

Looking at the societal cost of common goods is not a new idea--consider the recent surge in urban farming and farm-to-table food. People have taken the reasonable idea of eating foods local to your area and made money and jobs off of it. Live in a city with poor transportation? Cost share a car by renting one by the hour. Tired of throwing away pens when they run out of ink? Buy a refill (something most of us don't do). Even better, go back to refillable ink pens and do away with the excess plastic all together.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if the cost of goods were increased to make one think twice about whether you really need that new car--better yet would to be think about how to improve transportation so everyone doesn't need a car to get through an average day. Converting back to a less disposable way of life, but with knowledge we have now and will continue to pursue, need not be a scorched earth scenario.

QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 25 2015, 05:26 AM) *
And a postscript: Please note that in response to akaCG's links to poor people in Asia and Africa, I did not post myriad links to 300-lb. Americans sitting on the sofa eating junk food and working their thumbs to the bone on the latest video game in order to bolster my claim that Americans would be healthier being more active and productive.



Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Apr 27 2015, 01:29 AM
Post #19


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Apr 26 2015, 05:11 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Apr 26 2015, 06:52 AM) *
It appears pretty simple to me; based on the information you provide -> Iron, nickel, carbon, silicon, in their earth friendly broken down state.

Breaking things down to their basic elements is not always an "Earth Friendly" process,

Stainless steel is an alloy of multiple elements that is by definition resistant to natural corrosion and often non magnetic. Therefore, it is very difficult to isolate it and return it to its basic elements.

Carbon steel will rust over time, but junkyards exist because the time span is long enough to sell scrap metal as a profitable enterprise.

Plastic is something which is not easily returned to its elements. I used to work maintenance in an industrial incinerator that was capable of burning PVCs among other waste materials. There was nothing "Earth Friendly" about the energy consumption involved.

Glass has often been combined with other elements than silicone and oxygen to give it color, resistance to rapid temperature changes, etc. Museums have examples of some of the earliest glass ever made, and it is still glass. It is likely more resistant to natural deterioration than plastic. If I recall correctly, part of the recipe for making glass is to include glass with the sand in order to give the sand something to fuse to. Carbon and Silicon bond in similar fashions; and we may yet discover that glass, like plastic, is a polymer.

Thank you, "Curmudgeon"! I truly/really/wholeheartedly mean it.

You are, of course, absolutely right about this. The process of un-manufacturing things back into their pre-manufacture individual component elements such that said elements can then be "returned to earth" in their "earth friendly broken state" would be anything but simple. Even when it comes to something as simple as a syringe (let alone when it comes to, say, a car, or an MRI machine, or a microwave, or an airplane, or a washing machine, or a computer, or a house, or a "bionic arm", ... etc.), it would be somewhere between nearly impossible and utterly impossible.

Now, as anyone who's in possession of even as little as a mere smidgeon/shred of common sense would be able to "compute", ...

The cost of doing something that is somewhere between nearly impossible and utterly impossible to do is not just a fraction (e.g. 1/10th) of doing something that, given the obvious fact that it's already being done (e.g. syringes are already being produced), is obviously quite possible to do. It is somewhere between high multiples thereof and reeeeeeeeeally high multiples thereof.

Therefore, of course, ...

The adoption/implementation of the "Dingo Protocol" would mean that even the currently "filthy rich" couldn't afford to buy, say, a car. Or, say, a computer.

Therefore, of course, neither could the rest of us.

Therefore, of course, ...

All sorts of products (from syringes all the way up to MRI machines and beyond) would simply ... no longer be produced.

Therefore, of course, ...

My answer to this thread's debate question is ...

3. They'd live Iron Age type lives ... at best, because [see above].



This post has been edited by akaCG: Apr 27 2015, 01:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Apr 27 2015, 04:59 AM
Post #20


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,198
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Debate question:

If the above recommendation were adopted/implemented globally, how would the 7 billion or so humans currently inhabiting the earth be affected?

6. Other, because ...


I have known a grat number of people in my life who lead very modern lives while:

Shopping in resale shops for used items to recycle/repurpose... We usually spend under $5 for clothing items for instance, some of which come with original retail tags still attached. I have a large collection of unmatched coffee mugs which I will likely will to my church when I die. Some are attractive. Some have witty sayings. Some inspire me. When I set a coffee mug down at coffee hour, I know which mug is mine on any given Sunday.

Purchasing used computers for less than $20 and installing alternate operating systems such as LINUX to keep them operational.

Working with volunteers to create community gardens in urbam areas.

An attorney I know raises goats in the city to cut down on the cost of waste disposal and mowing the lawn.

The will of a friend, who lived an "Earth friendly" lifestyle, left all of her wordly belongings to the friends who attended her funeral. We were all asked to take a brown bag of her ashes to fertilize a meaninful spot in our lives.

As a retiree, I have the time to relax and enjoy my life. It never ceases to amaze me that I have more time, more expendable income, and less stress.

A supervisor once pointed out to me that for small families, it is more economical to dine out than to operate a home kitchen. There are the additional benefits of easier portion controls, no spoled leftovers, less stress, and no dishes to wash. It also helps to maintain entry level jobs in our local community.

Re:
QUOTE
Thank you, "Curmudgeon"! I truly/really/wholeheartedly mean it.

QUOTE(Thomas Pynchon)
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.


This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Apr 27 2015, 05:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 26th, 2020 - 05:00 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.