At 04:12 PM 7/21/96 CST, Jivan wrote:
>"True" recycling will involving the substance back into the nature in the shape
> and form it was before extraction.
Jivan this is one of the most extreme examples of what I think of as the
'straw man syndrome': redefining a position in an extreme form never
intended by its proponents thus making it easy to demonstrate that it is
ridiculous. Demolishing the 'straw-men' may entertain and encourage
opponents of the original position but it does nothing to convince even the
most tentative supporters to change their minds.
>Typical recycling does not extract the substances out of the nature but
uses the
>products already extracted- mostly.
Yes, this is more like what we mean by re-cycling. It is intended to reduce
the need to remove materials from their natural state by recycling within
the human economy, from useful product to useful product, NOT to return
extracted material to nature. Recycling from the 'top' to the 'top' not the
'bottom' to the 'bottom'.
In fact nature probably would complete the grand cycle eventually if we
simply put things in land-fill. Eventually those items would be dissolved,
digested, compressed or melted etc. until they would be impossible to
distinguish from material which had never been used by humanity.
Unfortunately a few life forms might get damaged on the way, may be even
become extinct.
The point is DO our attempts to recycle have less impact outside the human
economy than extracting more raw materials and dumping our rubbish for
nature to do his thing?
I do not think the answer will be the same for every product or material.
Some are probably better reused, some better recycled and others better
dumped. Also some may be better recycled but may require the development of
new technology and new materials to make recycling better. We need research
not assumptions. (Tell that to any economist friends too!!
>The best and most difficult solution is to reduce population and thus
consumption.
I am always suspicious of people who say this. They usually assume that this
should be done by encouraging other nations to use birth control rather than
by reducing the size of their own families. I do agree that the total
population of the world needs to be reduced; or at least the rate of
increase needs to be progressively reduced until it is zero. I have heard,
however that the countries which have the lowest birth rates are those with
greatest affluence and greatest equality. I do believe that affluence and
equality are the best birth control. Affluence for all may be difficult, at
least until population growth is reduced, equality, however, need not yet be
equality in poverty. We should work towards it urgently before it can only
be achieved by everyone starving.
Helen Marsh: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: +64 9 473 9760
5 Neilon Place, Browns Bay, Auckland North Shore, New Zealand
http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon
UBINZ - Universal Basic Income - http://www.iconz.co.nz/~iwgordon/ubinz.htm
