Garbage

[Makalakumu]

Yesterday, I took a load of stuff to the dump for a friend. When I got to the landfill, I was astounded by the sheer mountinous size of it. And in a moment of clairvoyance I saw people, centuries in the future, mining these things because that is where the majority of our worlds resources are ending up.

I was astounded at the size of our dump and I live in a small city. I can't even imagine what a dump would look like for a large city like LA or NYC!

 

[michaeledward]

Well, the old New York City dump looks an awful lot like Laguardia Airport.

We are an extremely wasteful society. I am embarassed by the riches we bring to the 'Swap Shop' of our local landfill. We have created a society where money is pretty easy to come by, and stuff is easier to come by, so there is no motivation to preserve.

One interesting comment I heard a couple of weeks ago is that; it is believed that 1/3rd of the planet's copper is in landfills (1/3rd in circulation - 1/3rd still in the ground).

Throw out any old mother boards recently?

 

[Lisa]

I think it would be an eye opener for a lot of people. Perhaps would even get them to 'reduce, reuse and recycle" a bit more. I sure hope everyone is trying to do their part.

 

[Makalakumu]

Throw out any old mother boards recently?

I just recently read that the Chinese import about 400 million tons of our electronic garbage so they can salvage the valuable resources in it. One has to wonder if we actually pay the Chinese government to take our garbage...

 

[Makalakumu]

I think it would be an eye opener for a lot of people. Perhaps would even get them to 'reduce, reuse and recycle" a bit more. I sure hope everyone is trying to do their part.

I can't see people giving up the "throw away" society on their own until it becomes to expensive to do so. By then, its too late.

I think that history is not going to be kind to us when it comes to this aspect of our culture...in fact, I can envision that THIS will be the dominant theme in future textbooks in regards to us.

 

[Kacey]

Planned obsolescence, wherein things are made so cheaply that it is cheaper to replace a broken item than to repair it, is a horrible system; unfortunately, a large portion of our economy is based on it. Many people are surprised to find out that I drive an 11 year-old car... and more surprised to find out that it has better mileage and lower maintenance costs than their late-model cars.

Freecycle.org is an example of a system intended to avoid the landfill by allowing people to recycle no-longer-needed items (from clothing to furniture to appliances) at no cost, and little inconvenience, to themselves, by posting items available and items wanted on an internet BBS - of course, there are people who try to take advantage of that system as well, by posting for diamond rings, cars, and similar items that they want, and can't (or are not willing to) pay for. Still, such organizations are a great way to avoid landfilling unwanted items, as are thrift stores such as those run by Goodwill and the ARC - all reasonable options for those who don't want to add to the landfill and don't want to hold a yard sale. Other non-profits (schools, charities, animal shelters, etc.) are also happy to take items you no longer need that are useful for their facilities or clientele - that's how I got rid a doghouse that came with my house that my dog wouldn't use; I gave it to a shelter, which sold it to raise money to help run their facility, and I got a tax write-off - and the dog house went to a dog that needed it, instead of a landfill.

Another idea is free recycling through the city (or whoever picks up the trash) where you live - Denver has a free recycling program in which recyclable items, including cans, glass, some plastic, and cardboard, can be left out in bins with every other trash pickup (so, every 2 weeks) at no additional cost - recycling in Denver is much more prevalent than it used to be, because it is now easy, convenient, predictable, and doesn't take much time or room to participate.

The only way to address this concern is through a change in societal thinking - a return to paying for quality, rather than quantity - and therefore increasing the investment people have in what they buy, which would reduce impulse buys on the large, low-cost items that are now clogging the landfills - furniture, cars (car leases lead to frequent turnover), computers (many of which contain toxic substances such as mercury), electronics (remember 8 track tapes? or beta videotapes?) - which leads to needing the newest and best of everything, adding perfectly good, useable items to the landfill because they take up space needed by the newer item.

 

[Lisa]

We have free recycling (well, sorta, it comes out of our city taxes). Every home was provided with a "blue bin" in which you place your recycling and on your garbage pick up day, it is picked up and sent to the recycling center. I think it encouraged our community to use the "reduce, reuse, recycle" method. I highly doubt we use it to its full potential but it is hard to find a home without a recycling bin in front of it on garbage day, so I think one can conclude that at least people are recycling some of their garbage. It take some getting used to, but with our children being taught to reduce, reuse and recycle in school, they are quick to remind us not to throw that out but to recycle it. It has become a habit in our home to rinse things out and recycle them as opposed to just chucking it in the garbage.

 

[DArnold]

I don't think one extreem or the other is a solution to the problem.

It would be nice, but examples show us that it is a combination that society will survive on.

If we did not move foreward we would all be using 8-Track tapes today!
Also, Society many times, can not keep up with technology.

For example. The technology has been around for over a decade to put 20 CD's on a disk about the size of a half-dollar. Unfortuantly at the time it was cost prohibitive. (similar to Beta vs. VHS).
But now this technology is better and cost less.
So what do you do now?
Get rid of your VHS, CD's, and DVD's?
No, the market would not handle the cost.

So the market waited a while and now the same technology is coming in another form... ipods

Many times the decision is in the form of a combination of all:

Common Sense Recycleing
Forced Behavior Recycle laws
Market Forces The market can not keep up with technology

Just a thought,
Douglas Arnold

 

[Makalakumu]

Just a thought, if market forces are driving our "throw away" society into eventual extinction through unsustainablity, would it make any sense to wait until these same market forces "solve" the problem?

I don't see any solution to this problem in capitalism. In fact, I think that unsustainable growth and egregious waste is probably a flaw in the entire system.

 

[DArnold]

Just a thought, if market forces are driving our "throw away" society into eventual extinction through unsustainablity, would it make any sense to wait until these same market forces "solve" the problem? I don't see any solution to this problem in capitalism. In fact, I think that unsustainable growth and egregious waste is probably a flaw in the entire system.

First.
What problem? Mankinds existance? Mankinds nature?

Second
The doom phylosophy of "eventual extinction" is not agreed upon by all! But it is a good sound bite for one side of the arguement!

Third
The market does not always drive society, nor does society always drive the market. Some times its one, some times its the other, some times it's mutuall!

Fourth
Who says growth is unsustainable

Fifth
egregious is subjective

Sixth
"...a flaw in the entire system" is just as subjective as egregious.

Generalisms do not hold up well when talking of global issues unless your King George the II

Douglas Arnold

 

[Makalakumu]

First.
What problem? Mankinds existance? Mankinds nature?

The problem is that most of our natural resources are ending up in gigantic mountains of trash scattered across our country...and now being imported to other countries.

Second
The doom phylosophy of "eventual extinction" is not agreed upon by all! But it is a good sound bite for one side of the arguement!

Agreed upon by all or not, when a society depends on easily available non-renewable resources and then runs out of those resources because of poor choices, it, at the very least, goes into decline. Depending on the resource in question and depending on the dependency that the society has generated will determine whether or not it crashes.

Third
The market does not always drive society, nor does society always drive the market. Some times its one, some times its the other, some times it's mutuall!

Okay.

Fourth
Who says growth is unsustainable?

Not all growth needs to be unsustainable. Our growth and the growth of the entire First World, just happens to be unsustainable.

Fifth
egregious is subjective.

True. But, IMO, descriptive. I suppose one could defend the amount of waste that our society generates as neccessary...

Sixth
"...a flaw in the entire system" is just as subjective as egregious.

Subjective, yes. Descriptive of reality? IMO, yes.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just a thought, if market forces are driving our "throw away" society into eventual extinction through unsustainablity, would it make any sense to wait until these same market forces "solve" the problem?

I don't see any solution to this problem in capitalism. In fact, I think that unsustainable growth and egregious waste is probably a flaw in the entire system.

We're not going to go extinct through 'unsustainability'. We'll adapt as certain resources become harder and harder to come by. Should we recycle and limit our uses of certain resources? Certainly, but the 'doom and gloom' chicken little idea that we're all going to die if we don't recycle isn't supported by reality.

Keep in mind, all this is a product of success as a society. If we were all hunter gatherers, I suppose, we wouldn't have huge landfills. We'd, of course, also live quite brutally shorter lives. It's a bit of a trade-off.

I always find it ironic when I hear people whine that there are 'too many poor' in one breath, and then whine that we are so wealthy we all throw everything away in the next.

 

[Makalakumu]

We're not going to go extinct through 'unsustainability'. We'll adapt as certain resources become harder and harder to come by. Should we recycle and limit our uses of certain resources? Certainly, but the 'doom and gloom' chicken little idea that we're all going to die if we don't recycle isn't supported by reality.

At the very least, our society will not persist if we continue as we are. Further, it is useful to note what has happened to other societies throughout history that have grown unsustainably and were forced to "live within their means." It wasn't pretty. People talk all of time about how we should conserve more and that we should recycle...but I don't think that people have a clear idea of what the end result could look like if we do not.

Keep in mind, all this is a product of success as a society. If we were all hunter gatherers, I suppose, we wouldn't have huge landfills. We'd, of course, also live quite brutally shorter lives. It's a bit of a trade-off.

This is something I've been pondering...is growth possible without waste? Can societies continue to advance and reduce/reuse/recycle? As it stands now, any effort to cut waste would cost our economy billions. A large program would litterally topple the house of cards.

I always find it ironic when I hear people whine that there are 'too many poor' in one breath, and then whine that we are so wealthy we all throw everything away in the next.

I, too, find that ironic.