It's always good to dip back into an older
stream. There's good stuff there.
Unfortunately, there
isn't any debate about recycling. When I try to tell people that it really
doesn't work, I usually get rolled eyes or quickly dismissed. Recycling is
an issue that, in general, has moved beyond reproach. I think it's great
that Andy is bringing up the issue for us to discuss, but people have been
convinced that there is a crisis regarding landfills and trees, and that we need
to do something NOW. And that just isn't the case. So, yeah, I'd
love for there to be more public discussion, but any time someone suggests that
recycling isn't a good thing, they're usually written off as a
crackpot.
It's not faith that
some magic bullet will come along, nor is it even a magic bullet. Looking
at the history of progress and technology, looking at what's been developed
so far, and looking at what's likely to be developed, I trust that the
technology is coming to make fossil fuels far less of a necessity. It's a
far larger folly to say that we'll stay at the same technology level for the
next two hundred years. We're not living at the level that they did in
1807, so it's unreasonable to say that in 2207 they'll be doing what we
do. Look at the progress that's been made just in the
past decade. From gas efficiency to a real marketable hybrid car,
this shows that you can't assume that we'll be in the same place we are now when
the oil is supposed to run out. (And, again, this estimation is loaded
with assumptions about the current technology. We've been hearing dire
predictions about running out of oil for many decades now. We should have
run out by now if they were to be believed.)
So, yeah, it's a way of
saying that we shouldn't do anything now. But that's a good thing because
it isn't a problem right now. We're in no danger of running out of oil nor
are we in danger of running out of land. It's like going to the doctor for
a runny nose and getting sent in for chemotherapy. This is my biggest
problem with the general environmental movement. Everything is a crisis
that has to be fixed NOW, and fixed using whatever drastic means are
necessary. That just isn't the case. Sure, it would be wonderful to
use less landfill space. But is it worth the fleets of trucks, the expense
of labor, the vast amounts of time, and the huge taxpayer cost to do so? I
don't think it is.
Sorry, I didn't mean to
imply that because it's in the developing world that it's not a problem for
us. That isn't what I wanted to say at all. I wanted to say that the
best way to help with population growth is to get these countries more
economically stable and with a higher standard of living. Make it so that
you have less infant and child deaths, and so that it isn't critical for people
to have as many children as they can.
But even in the
population issue, I don't think we're anywhere near a crisis point. And
even so, how can you control it without trampling over people's rights?
Looking in states like China that have population controls, you're seeing people
kill female babies to meet the government mandate. (Not that government
has any business telling people how many children to have. Of course,
China's never really cared about silly things like "rights"
anyway.)
I do like the research
that's being done with alternative fuels. Things like ethanol are
especially useful because even though it's a costly fuel that could never meet
our needs, it can be used as a suppliment to standard gasoline. The
"vegetable cars" are also interesting, especially if they can find ways to get
it as more than a niche market. I'd be delighted to someday in the near
future pull up in my affordable hybrid, fill up with mix of petrol and ethanol,
and instead of there being regular, premium, super and diesel, the choices are
regular, premium, diesel, and some kind of completely source.
J/
|