Recycling.

[Darros]

Really shocked this topic doesn't exist.

Today in science class we talked about plastics recycling after a movie was watched. The movie said after frequent plastic recycling, plastic becomes toxic, and nothing is done about it.

Note how informational websites dont mention it.

http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefits-of-plastics-recycling.htm

I know recycling is good, but how much toxin goes into things we utilize daily?

[Cryptic]

Recycling... is... dangerous? Mind blown.

Ya know, I never did know that.

[Phoenix Wright]

Yes, with continuous recycling the plastics become increasingly toxic. When the plastic becomes poor, it goes to a landfill. What else do you expect to be done?

[Darros]

Today the teacher said some toxic plastics make it through inspection and continue to be recycled.

Though most is going to a landfill, some isn't. This is a problem.

Not to mention CO2 emissions from improper burning of it.

[Phoenix Wright]

Today the teacher said some toxic plastics make it through inspection and continue to be recycled.

Though most is going to a landfill, some isn't. This is a problem.

Not to mention CO2 emissions from improper burning of it.

If you're that worried, don't buy water bottles. I'm guessing there's solutions to your problems, but I don't know them, beyond what I've already said.

[lolDeath]

Water bottles? EVERYTHING has plastic, these days.

[Phoenix Wright]

Water bottles? EVERYTHING has plastic, these days.

Water bottles are things people buy these days and consume (where the toxins can contaminate it), though. But yeah, you're obviously right.

[Kanami]

Are the toxins fatal? If so give them to my sister I see the issue, but I doubt that to be the case. And I'm also unsure about the level of effect. Hell city air is toxic during the peak hours. Yet people still wind their windows down since it's a "hot day."

Furthermore environment/health issues are frequently exaggerated "This one man died!" doesn't really mean anything if it's a persisting problem it aided his dead but most likely isn't the sole cause.

Humans live too long anyway

I support a few environmental moves, but between non-recycling and the odd toxic bottle? I'll take the later.

[Inactive Account]

Plenty of toxins leach into the groundwater via landfills anyway; I'm not really sure that not recycling in order to avoid a few toxic water bottles will necessarily make us healthier. (Besides, production plants and recycling plants both output a lot of crap into the air, does it really matter which?)

...When it comes down to it, though, recycling barely even helps the fact that we consume so damn much. If people used reusable drink bottles more this would be less of a problem.

But I'll shut up before I go off on my anti-consumerist hippie rant.

[Byte2222]

No, I agree with you, the human race is too greedy and creates too much waste. It would really help if things didn't have so much packaging because we're not exactly about to buy less food etc. although we do have to realise that we shouldn't buy what we don't plan to use.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Byte2222

[Kanami]

I still think that playing Russian roulette with countries is better then "trying" to not produce waste. It doesn't matter how much is recycled, how many people become more waste efficient. Doesn't change the drain on resources. :/

[Phoenix Wright]

I still think that playing Russian roulette with countries is better then "trying" to not produce waste. It doesn't matter how much is recycled, how many people become more waste efficient. Doesn't change the drain on resources. :/

Well...it does actually. That's its purpose. If it wasn't fulfilling that purpose to a degree, why in the hell should anyone do it?

If the human race wants to survive one hundred years from now, theoretically, we must consume less. All of us. It really is our only option, since you know, Mars and Venus don't support life and all.

[Kanami]

Right, my mistake, didn't go into enough detail.

What I meant is that resources are going to get drained in the end anyway. Since even if we do get all "nature-effective" we're pulling on and using more resources then nature can replenish. It's not really about maintaining a balance anymore, since we've exceeded a "balance" and are doomed anyway. It's only a matter of how much longer we can make the resources last. Personally.... I don't care what happens to this world after I've departed from it :P

[Defeatist Elitist]

Right, my mistake, didn't go into enough detail.

What I meant is that resources are going to get drained in the end anyway. Since even if we do get all "nature-effective" we're pulling on and using more resources then nature can replenish. It's not really about maintaining a balance anymore, since we've exceeded a "balance" and are doomed anyway. It's only a matter of how much longer we can make the resources last. Personally.... I don't care what happens to this world after I've departed from it :P

Not necessarilly, if we reach a point where we have sufficiently effective solar, hydro, wind, etc power, we'll be pretty well off, as we could probably effectively synthesize most substances (now, we can synthesize things like oil, it just takes a lot of energy to do so, more than we would get through its combustion). Sure we're screwed if we're still here when the sun dies, but if we can't manage to get off this rock by then, then we don't deserve to live. :P

[Phoenix Wright]

Right, my mistake, didn't go into enough detail.

What I meant is that resources are going to get drained in the end anyway. Since even if we do get all "nature-effective" we're pulling on and using more resources then nature can replenish. It's not really about maintaining a balance anymore, since we've exceeded a "balance" and are doomed anyway. It's only a matter of how much longer we can make the resources last. Personally.... I don't care what happens to this world after I've departed from it :P

Natural resources found on Earth don't have to be and already aren't our only sources of power.

Not necessarilly, if we reach a point where we have sufficiently effective solar, hydro, wind, etc power, we'll be pretty well off, as we could probably effectively synthesize most substances (now, we can synthesize things like oil, it just takes a lot of energy to do so, more than we would get through its combustion). Sure we're screwed if we're still here when the sun dies, but if we can't manage to get off this rock by then, then we don't deserve to live. :P

JESUS, I wish I could see the day we get off of this planet. why cant i live to be a billion, huh God?!!!

[Kanami]

@Power

Who said anything about power? While it's an important resource it's not the only one. Other key resources being food and land amongst others. You can say that we can just build up (flats) but sociology shows that crowding isn't a good idea.

@Space

Well if we can create farming stations in space, and space colonies (Haha Gundam world) then things might be easier, but at present I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon. Unless there's a way to stabilize human population growth, (stop increasing) even going out to space is only prolonging things.

@Other news

I've derailed this from recycling to sustainability haven't I? XD

[Defeatist Elitist]

@Power

Who said anything about power? While it's an important resource it's not the only one. Other key resources being food and land amongst others. You can say that we can just build up (flats) but sociology shows that crowding isn't a good idea.

Food can be easily synthesized/farmed. As for space, increased quality of life brings a drop in birth rate, so yeah~ Malthus was wrong. 8]

@Space

Well if we can create farming stations in space, and space colonies (Haha Gundam world) then things might be easier, but at present I'm not seeing that happen anytime soon. Unless there's a way to stabilize human population growth, (stop increasing) even going out to space is only prolonging things.

There is a way to stabilize the population. In my country, Canada, we would actually be losing population rapidly if we didn't have massive immigration. A higher quality of life leads to a lower birth rate.

[Kanami]

Food can be easily synthesized/farmed. As for space, increased quality of life brings a drop in birth rate, so yeah~ Malthus was wrong. 8]

It can be synthesized/farmed, easily or not is another issue. And while I won't say "organic or nothing else." can't agree to synthesizing being a solution by itself. Otherwise, I demand a decrease in prices, *Waves her grocery bill for last week in peoples faces* As for Malthus, not really what I was referring to. But that comes below.

There is a way to stabilize the population. In my country, Canada, we would actually be losing population rapidly if we didn't have massive immigration. A higher quality of life leads to a lower birth rate.

Losing population? That would be nice globably. I can't understand why people would want kids more then two kids. Replace the father and mother with new life. That should be more then adequate. Instead you have a lady on news boasting her thirteenth kid <_<

While I'm no economist, there will probably always be a higher standard and a lower standard. And prices tend to follow. Meaning that if the government issued a million dollar to everyone, prices of G&S would increase with it. I agree with the higher quality of life leading to less children concept. But I'm not convinced on the discrepancy being "Having trouble living" poor. Or "Poorer then the social average" poor.

*Would like to propose the one child policy in a nation which doesn't prioritize males this time* XD

[Defeatist Elitist]

It can be synthesized/farmed, easily or not is another issue. And while I won't say "organic or nothing else." can't agree to synthesizing being a solution by itself. Otherwise, I demand a decrease in prices, *Waves her grocery bill for last week in peoples faces* As for Malthus, not really what I was referring to. But that comes below.

Please don't even get me started on anything like that. :P

Losing population? That would be nice globably. I can't understand why people would want kids more then two kids. Replace the father and mother with new life. That should be more then adequate. Instead you have a lady on news boasting her thirteenth kid <_<

While I'm no economist, there will probably always be a higher standard and a lower standard. And prices tend to follow. Meaning that if the government issued a million dollar to everyone, prices of G&S would increase with it. I agree with the higher quality of life leading to less children concept. But I'm not convinced on the discrepancy being "Having trouble living" poor. Or "Poorer then the social average" poor.

*Would like to propose the one child policy in a nation which doesn't prioritize males this time* XD

What I mean is that poorer countries, especially ones with low female literacy rates, less advanced gender equality, higher infant mortality rates, and just more general poverty tend to have higher birth rates. In countries without adequate social security, for example, you want to have as many kids as possible, so you can get them all working as quickly as possible, and so that when you get too old, some of them might take care of you, because otherwise you're screwed. Sure there will always be a higher and lower standard of living, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that once people reach a certain standard of living, birth rate will begin to drop.

[Kanami]

What I mean is that poorer countries, especially ones with low female literacy rates, less advanced gender equality, higher infant mortality rates, and just more general poverty tend to have higher birth rates. In countries without adequate social security, for example, you want to have as many kids as possible, so you can get them all working as quickly as possible, and so that when you get too old, some of them might take care of you, because otherwise you're screwed. Sure there will always be a higher and lower standard of living, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that once people reach a certain standard of living, birth rate will begin to drop.

The one problem I have with gender equality is now that the woman has the right(?) to work and is expected to, there's no incentive for me to get married of find a man XD

The kids = Look after you when your older concept has always confused me in poor nations. I mean most of their elderly die alot younger then a "rich nation" country. Say the retirement age is 50 (usually higher). A man in a poor nation probably wouldn't live much longer past that age anyway. And since they usually don't have a retirement age in place, he could continue working much after.

While I won't deny that a certain standard leads to less births. Prices tend to rise as well when the lower classes start catching up. So the standard likewise fluctuates based on the market.

Either way, this is another argument entirely, and I'll cut the derailing until something regarding recycling comes up again. Since this is now shifting from sustainability to something completely different to recycling.

[Defeatist Elitist]

The kids = Look after you when your older concept has always confused me in poor nations. I mean most of their elderly die alot younger then a "rich nation" country. Say the retirement age is 50 (usually higher). A man in a poor nation probably wouldn't live much longer past that age anyway. And since they usually don't have a retirement age in place, he could continue working much after.

Considering nutrition and health are far worse in these nations, and most work is very physical, being 50 probably means you're almost incapable of supporting yourself. :P

While I won't deny that a certain standard leads to less births. Prices tend to rise as well when the lower classes start catching up. So the standard likewise fluctuates based on the market.

The standards will fluctuate, but, well, let me put it this way. In my country, the overall standard of living is far above what it was 200 years ago. Sure, we have lower class and upper class and differences in standard of living, but the overall standard of living has increase, and likely will continue to increase. Until then, the only places really likely to be overpopulated are poorer nations anyhow.

Edit: Also, don't worry, this is barely even off topic for SD. It's not a religious debate yet (mostly because Phoenix hasn't vomitted his retard bile all over it), so it's really nothing. 8]

Edited October 12, 2010 by ZXValaRevan