S.I.RTechnically, NASA HAS discovered a (probably) habitable planet... 20 light years away.Gliese 581 in Libra?
calvin_0
#21
Forum archive
Back to Debates
It just claims there is "some criticism", yet it doesn't state who criticizes what, and offers no references to said criticism.
But i would definitely like to see any sources that back up those criticisms.:)
I love Penn and Teller.
But i really hate libertarian philosophy.
Many people take Penn and Teller's word as fact.(I can see you don't)
But many times they are also blinded by their libertarian beliefs, and reject things that contradicts those beliefs.
This episode is one of these cases, IMO.
First let's start with the two idiots they found to show how religious people are about recycling.
I wonder how many people they had to try until they found two that were too ashamed to admit on camera that they probably wouldn't go through such a hassle.
I mean, would you?
I know i probably wouldn't.Or at least be pretty pissed that i had to do it.
Sensationalism at it's best.
They attack an ad from the 70's to add a pinch of racism to Keep America Beautifull.
Then lets look at the guy they use as an authority figure, Daniel K. Benjamin.
Senior Fellow at the PERC institute.
According to PERC:
Typical libertarian idealism.
He is basically the only source here.
The entire episode is basically a tv adaptation for his paper, Eight Great Myths about Recycling.
A good rebuttal , IMO, to the whole video can be found here:Recycling Is Not Garbage
If there is any specific claim you would like to discuss, please let me know.Man, wikipedia really let me down this time.
I think this source pretty much covers everything.
So, let me know if there is anything in it you disagree with.
Recycling Paper - Why?
redoperator
#22
theres a difference between finding something and FINDING something.
Oteupaiecona
#23
NatewlieRead the criticism right below where you're pointing.That's the problem with Wikipedia.
It just claims there is "some criticism", yet it doesn't state who criticizes what, and offers no references to said criticism.
But i would definitely like to see any sources that back up those criticisms.:)
redoperator
#24
I have to agree with that, I stay away from using Wikipedia as a legit source like a plague. one can easily get in there and say "there is harsh criticism" even though there is not.but, maybe this is the "criticism"? http://www.bcheights.com/news/group-offers-criticism-of-recycling-practices-1.1783686
Oteupaiecona
#25
Usually Wiki backs it's claims with sources.
But if they make a claim and don't offer any source, then it might of been anyone who just wrote that, and there is no way of verifying it's validity.
Thanks for the link though.
I have to get some sleep right now, but i'll definitely read it tomorrow.EDIT:
Ok, so i couldn't resist and read the source you provided.(I have to get up at 5 am)
But that article seems to be only about single stream recycling, versus separating your trash into various categories (paper, plastic, etc)
I'm a little confused ???
But if they make a claim and don't offer any source, then it might of been anyone who just wrote that, and there is no way of verifying it's validity.
Thanks for the link though.
I have to get some sleep right now, but i'll definitely read it tomorrow.EDIT:
Ok, so i couldn't resist and read the source you provided.(I have to get up at 5 am)
But that article seems to be only about single stream recycling, versus separating your trash into various categories (paper, plastic, etc)
I'm a little confused ???
Natewlie
#26
Oteupaiecona · #23That's the problem with Wikipedia.One source of criticism, granted it is biased, but it's mostly for the sake of entertainment.
It just claims there is "some criticism", yet it doesn't state who criticizes what, and offers no references to said criticism.
But i would definitely like to see any sources that back up those criticisms.:)
gaynorvaderOP
#27
I had a response all written, with sources and everything then I lost it in an IE crash :(
I'll try and find the sites again, but will point out to Mark_80 that the sources listed on that Wikipedia page either have no information on them or are over 10 years old.
[quote author=gaynorvader"]
That's why you cycle where you cut down trees. If you need the yield of 100 acres of trees a year and it takes 10 years to grow a tree, you buy 1000 acres of land and cut down 10% a year, regrowing as you go.[/quote]
[quote author=Masamune]Eliminating tree growth for paper? if most people recycled paper we would barely need new paper. Trees can be used for fruit, oranges, coconuts and much much more, wouldn't you think that people would plant those aswell?[/quote]If you're trying to tell me that fir, pine, sequoia, oak, etc. trees are grown for their fruit, stop. You cannot recycle paper endlessly. Each time paper is put through recycling the grains are worn down and the paper quality is worsened until it is unusable. In order to increase the quality of recycled paper, virgin pulp is mixed with the recycled pulp.
[quote author=Masamune]EDIT: 1 other thing what do trees and plants take in during photosynthesis and name 1 crucial bi product of photosynthesis that is in air.
[/quote]I'm beginning to think you didn't read my second post at all :P
[quote author=gaynorvader"]
Around 90% of Earth's oxygen comes from algae, not trees, although they do produce a minimal amount.[/quote]
I'll try and find the sites again, but will point out to Mark_80 that the sources listed on that Wikipedia page either have no information on them or are over 10 years old.
Masamune DateWe should recycle, it takes many years for it to grow 100 years, 200 years and even more.Some trees do live that long, and longer, but most trees used in paper production reach maturity much, much quicker than that.
"MasamuneIf we had to cut the trees down and plant on a plot of land roughly 1mile by 1mile all the trees would've been cut down before the new trees would've grown. The replacement of trees that would've been cut down would be very slow.I'm guessing you missed this:
[quote author=gaynorvader"]
That's why you cycle where you cut down trees. If you need the yield of 100 acres of trees a year and it takes 10 years to grow a tree, you buy 1000 acres of land and cut down 10% a year, regrowing as you go.[/quote]
"MasamuneRecycling paper may use bleach but what if you mix a bit of bleach with water and placed paper in it would be better than using just bleach.Most modern European paper mills use a process that doesn't use bleach to whiten the paper. This method cannot be used in recycling as it doesn't work when the trace amounts of bleach leftover in paper after using other methods is present.
[quote author=Masamune]Eliminating tree growth for paper? if most people recycled paper we would barely need new paper. Trees can be used for fruit, oranges, coconuts and much much more, wouldn't you think that people would plant those aswell?[/quote]If you're trying to tell me that fir, pine, sequoia, oak, etc. trees are grown for their fruit, stop. You cannot recycle paper endlessly. Each time paper is put through recycling the grains are worn down and the paper quality is worsened until it is unusable. In order to increase the quality of recycled paper, virgin pulp is mixed with the recycled pulp.
[quote author=Masamune]EDIT: 1 other thing what do trees and plants take in during photosynthesis and name 1 crucial bi product of photosynthesis that is in air.
[/quote]I'm beginning to think you didn't read my second post at all :P
[quote author=gaynorvader"]
Around 90% of Earth's oxygen comes from algae, not trees, although they do produce a minimal amount.[/quote]
Oteupaiecona
#28
Natewlie · #26One source of criticism, granted it is biased, but it's mostly for the sake of entertainment.Thank you.
I love Penn and Teller.
But i really hate libertarian philosophy.
Many people take Penn and Teller's word as fact.(I can see you don't)
But many times they are also blinded by their libertarian beliefs, and reject things that contradicts those beliefs.
This episode is one of these cases, IMO.
First let's start with the two idiots they found to show how religious people are about recycling.
I wonder how many people they had to try until they found two that were too ashamed to admit on camera that they probably wouldn't go through such a hassle.
I mean, would you?
I know i probably wouldn't.Or at least be pretty pissed that i had to do it.
Sensationalism at it's best.
They attack an ad from the 70's to add a pinch of racism to Keep America Beautifull.
Then lets look at the guy they use as an authority figure, Daniel K. Benjamin.
Senior Fellow at the PERC institute.
According to PERC:
PERCPERC —the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets. Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, it began as a think tank where scholars documented how government regulation and bureaucracy have led to environmental degradation. At the same time, they sought to explain how markets could be harnessed to improve environmental quality. From this work originated the idea of free market environmentalism.The all mighty free market will save us all...
Typical libertarian idealism.
He is basically the only source here.
The entire episode is basically a tv adaptation for his paper, Eight Great Myths about Recycling.
A good rebuttal , IMO, to the whole video can be found here:Recycling Is Not Garbage
If there is any specific claim you would like to discuss, please let me know.Man, wikipedia really let me down this time.
I think this source pretty much covers everything.
So, let me know if there is anything in it you disagree with.
treec_cynda
#29
People recycle paper because they like doing science experiments. Judging by the way you actually recycle paper (see the Beakman's World episode) it's pretty much a science experiment.
Zydaline
#30
LOLOGIC!
treec_cynda
#31
Thank you.
RandomRedMage
#32
Recycled paper is a lot more nature friendly. Think of it this way. Your fucking squirrel you have your tree, you live there, your family has lived there for generations, you STORE YOUR WINTER NUTS IN THAT TREE. Tha tree is your LIVELYHOOD. then some jackass comes and chops that shit shown and all the trees for a 100 acres around it.What do you do now little squirrel. >.>Long story short recycled paper means we don't have to fuck up the environment for other animals. Dont think just because we can walk on our hind legs and communicate over vast distances, and use tools, that we are any less a bunch of stinking over populated animals.
ace1o1
#33
I recycle paper because then you don't have as much trash at the end of the month. Plus, why not. It saves my school money and gives them money as well.
athemoe
#34
recycled paper doesn't look that nice...
ace1o1
#35
It can make pencils.
RandomRedMage
#36
"Doesn't look that nice" Are you telling me your entire stance on this subject is aesthetics? WHO THE FECK CARES. Make a goddamn cardboard box out of it! You don't need a pretty white sheet of paper to make a cardboard box.
Loonylion
#37
theres actually evidence that recycling can be bad for health now. Apparently when newspapers are recycled, mineral oils from the inks remain in the pulp, which is subsequently made into cardboard. if that cardboard is used for food packaging, the mineral oils can actually leech out of the cardboard into the food (even through the waxed paper bags used in cereal packets) and contaminate it with toxic substances.
Oteupaiecona
#38
This is very plausible, and it makes sense.
However, a quick search yielded no good results.
Do you have any sources for this?
However, a quick search yielded no good results.
Do you have any sources for this?
theunderling
#39
If its then made into bog-roll,you could end up with gum disease.Maybe every Government could pay and install Bidets into everyones house....
msg2009
#40
Nah they tickle, I don't want one
Showing posts 21–40 of 64 · This discussion is archivedBack to top