Register to reply

Why I don't recycle

by slide_Rules
Tags: economics, environment, recycling
Share this thread:
DaveC426913
#19
Jun9-10, 10:21 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
Knowledge about disease and sickness would make living in one's own filth dumb. It would be cost effective to be clean even if doing so was horribly inconvenient. Avoiding the very (often fatal) consequences of becoming ill back then would be worth the effort.
So you only bother to make an effort if it is personally, directly beneficial to you directly?


Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
Fusion research is a valid scientific endeavor for governments
Not yet it isn't. It is only valid if we see it as in investment in the future.

Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
Automated trash sorting research is also a valid endeavor for governments.
It certainly may be. But we're not there yet.

What do you propose in the meantime? Sit on your duff and toss your plastic into landfills?
slide_Rules
#20
Jun9-10, 10:27 PM
P: 20
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Exactly: for me it is as simple as having two trash cans in my kitchen!
I've done that - but not anymore. I live in a 600 sq. ft. apartment with my significant other. It's inconvenient and space inefficient for me to have a 2nd 'trash' can.

Then there's the time to rinse things - or they can smell or attract bugs - 10 or 20 minutes per week.
The environmental 'costs' are meaningless to me. We've been land filling with paper and plastics for 100 years - we can do it for another ~100 until we can sort the waste stream.
DaveC426913
#21
Jun9-10, 10:27 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
Then, why are you bothering to recycle if its expensive and inefficient! -it doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's a bad idea and a waste of money in that case.
Really? You really don't get the logic?

To make a long-term positive change in behaviour, it is almost always inefficient at the outset. In some ways it gets better right away, but not in all ways at once. Not everything can happen at 00:01 on day 1.

Think of road widening (as and off the top of my head example). Closing one lane of a busy two-lane road is inefficient because it causes traffic congestion (inefficent, waste of money) in the short-term. We do it though, because we know
- it must be done
- it will pay off when everything comes together and the new six-lane road opens up.
Cyrus
#22
Jun9-10, 10:29 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Really? You really don't get the logic?

To make change in behaviour, it is almost always inefficient at the outset. Not everything can happen at 00:01 on day 1.

Think of road widening (as and off the top of my head example). Closing one lane of a busy two-lane road is inefficient because it causes traffic congestion (inefficent, waste of money) in the short-term. We do it though, because we know
- it must be done
- it will pay off when everything comes together and the new six-lane road opens up.
I got a better idea, spend your* tax dollars on something that is expensive and inefficient, not mine. Really? Recycling must be done? Why? (The problem is that you don't have any logic)

*That one's for you humanino.
DaveC426913
#23
Jun9-10, 10:33 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
I got a better idea, spend your tax dollars on something that is expensive and inefficient, not mine.
Wait. You don't believe in research and development until after a process becomes profitable? You don't think widespread change has to happen in phases? You don't think changing consumer behaviour should happen in parallel with change in process (as oppsed to after the dust has settled)?
Cyrus
#24
Jun9-10, 10:34 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Wait. You don't believe in research and development until after a process becomes profitable? You don't think widespread change has to happen in phases? You don't think changing consumer behaviour should happen in parallel with change in process (as oppsed to after the dust has settled)?
<shrug> Recycling is not "research and development". And why should I have widespread change "in phases"? And what "dust has settled"?

Come on Dave, support your opinion as to why you're wasting my tax dollars.
slide_Rules
#25
Jun9-10, 10:35 PM
P: 20
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
So you only bother to make an effort if it is personally, directly beneficial to you directly?


What do you propose in the meantime? Sit on your duff and toss your plastic into landfills?

RE: In general, yes.
I won't poison the environment - but I don't consider putting plastic, paper, or aluminum in a landfill poison.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I see fusion research a a valid future investment.
I do NOT see sorting trash as an valid future investment.

I work, stand, play, sit, and jog all while tossing plastic (and paper and aluminum) into landfills.
DaveC426913
#26
Jun9-10, 10:44 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
<shrug> Recycling is not "research and development".
You seem to be claiming that we should not put effort into something until after it becomes profitable.

Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
And why should I have widespread change "in phases"? And what "dust has settled"?
So we'll just wake up one Monday morning and
- the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?
- we will instantly know how to use them?
- the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas, service zones premarked?
- the processing plants will all be ready, fire up in concert and be running at full capacity?

- and we won't have to pay taxes for this until AFTER it's all implemented? Is that the way it works?
etc.etc.
Massive change - especially when it comes to consumer behaviour - is a huge process.
DaveC426913
#27
Jun9-10, 10:47 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
I do NOT see sorting trash as an valid future investment.
You feel that a machine should take responsibility for that which you do not wish to.


Even when there is, as yet, no such machine.
Cyrus
#28
Jun9-10, 10:48 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
You seem to be claiming that we should not put effort into something until after it becomes profitable.
If you're spending my tax dollars on something expensive and inefficient, there better be a very good payoff.

So we'll just wake up one Monday morning and
- the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?
- we will instantly know how to use them?
- the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas road maps deployed?
- the processing plants will all be ready, fire up in concert and be running at full capacity?

- and we won't have to pay taxes for this until AFTER it's all implemented? Is that the way it works?
etc.etc.
Massive change - especially when it comes to consumer behaviour - is a huge process.
What is this load of nonsense? I can't take you seriously when you make such asinine statements (if you think recycling would magically kick in over night when the price point becomes competitive, you're being ridiculous). Answer my question - why are you justified in spending my hard earned tax dollars. It has become very clear to me you have no good answer.
slide_Rules
#29
Jun9-10, 10:49 PM
P: 20
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Some states don't even have landfill space, they have to pay to ship it to another state.

This thread is pointless, you're obviously trolling.
We have interstate commerce. We have vast open areas in many states. Landfill space IS cheap.

If you think I'm trolling, you're a mentor. Kill this thread.
It's economically inefficient to sort trash manually. That's the point of this thread.
Many (maybe even most) people don't sort their trash - because it's economically inefficient.
DaveC426913
#30
Jun9-10, 10:59 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
What is this load of nonsense? I can't take you seriously when you make such asinine statements (if you think recycling would magically kick in over night when the price point becomes competitive, you're being ridiculous).
It was you claiming that it should not happen in phases. It is you who seems to feel that it should just kick in when it becomes cost-effective. Of course it's ridiculous. That's my point about your apparent logic.

Cyrus, you're no fool. You should not be so badly misinterpreting this. Read the train of posts again if you must.


Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
Answer my question - why are you justified in spending my hard earned tax dollars. It has become very clear to me you have no good answer.
I am answering your question.

Some of what we do is cost-effective. Some recycling is now becoming profitable. But not all. We do it, even the less profitable parts, because we must change our behaviour, even if not all of it nets us a profit right now.

Now stop being so melodramatic. You might not like my answers, but pretending as if I'm speaking gibberish is just theatrical.
Cyrus
#31
Jun9-10, 11:04 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
It was you claiming that it should not happen in phases. It is you who seems to feel that it should just kick in when it becomes cost-effective.
Yes, we should put money into recycling when it is cost competitive. However, your statements about how we would need to "figure out how to use recycling bins" (really Dave, you don't know how to use a recycling bin? Hint: it doesn't have an on/off button or even any levers. Gimme a break). Or, you say "the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?" Yes, dave, that's exactly how you get them around here. The recycling people can deliver them to your door....

"the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas road maps deployed?"

Seriously? I'm pretty sure he can borrow the trash mans road maps. This is nonsense.

Cyrus, you're no fool. You should not be so badly misinterpreting this. Read the train of posts again if you must.
I did read them.

I am answering your question.
No, you're not. Your waiving your hands in the air, giving me excuses and analogies. Give me a solid reason why you should spend money on this.

Some of what we do is cost-effective. Some recycling is now becoming profitable. But not all. We do it, even the less profitable parts, because we must change our behaviour, even if not all of it nets us a profit right now.
Seems like recycling is a poor investment then, doesn't it? PS: don't tell me how to change my behavior without any sound reasoning, while wasting my money.

Now stop being so melodramatic. You might not like my answers, but pretending as if I'm speaking gibberish is just theatrical.
I wouldn't even recycle them, they are trash ... Just kidding.

Were going to have a running tally of your list of reasons to post you make.

-----------------------------
Dave's posts: 1
Reasons for recycling provided: 0
TheStatutoryApe
#32
Jun9-10, 11:05 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,550
Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
I've done that - but not anymore. I live in a 600 sq. ft. apartment with my significant other. It's inconvenient and space inefficient for me to have a 2nd 'trash' can.

Then there's the time to rinse things - or they can smell or attract bugs - 10 or 20 minutes per week.
Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
It's economically inefficient to sort trash manually.
A couple square feet of your kitchen space and about ten minutes of your time a week is really a horrible burden on your personal economy of life eh?

My old roomie never kept his recyclables separate. From what I could tell he was just lazy. The two receptacles were right there but his economy of brain power prevented him from paying any attention.
edward
#33
Jun9-10, 11:08 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 875
Quote Quote by slide_Rules View Post
We have interstate commerce. We have vast open areas in many states. Landfill space IS cheap.

If you think I'm trolling, you're a mentor. Kill this thread.
It's economically inefficient to sort trash manually. That's the point of this thread.
Many (maybe even most) people don't sort their trash - because it's economically inefficient.
Many cities are running out of landfill space. It may be cheap in Kansas but it certainly isn't cheap near urban areas. The whole east coast is running out of space.

Economically inefficient? Every recycled item saves a natural resource, whether it is the aluminum can, the plastics made from refined crude oil, or the trees used in paper and cardboard.

I think what you meant to say that it is economically inefficient for you. This translates into: I am a bit lazy.
Cyrus
#34
Jun9-10, 11:09 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by edward View Post
Many cities are running out of landfill space. It may be cheap in Kansas but it certainly isn't cheap near urban areas. The whole east coast is running out of space.
Source?

Economically inefficient? Every recycled item saves a natural resource, whether it is the aluminum can, the plastics made from refined crude oil, or the trees used in paper and cardboard.
So what? It also takes resources to recycle them.
DaveC426913
#35
Jun9-10, 11:11 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Cyrus View Post
Yes, we should put money into recycling when it is cost competitive. However, your statements about how we would need to "figure out how to use recycling bins" (really Dave, you don't know how to use a recycling bin? Hint: it doesn't have an on/off button or even any levers. Gimme a break). Or, you say "the blue and green bin-faeries will have visited us, leaving bins on our properties?" Yes, dave, that's exactly how you get them around here. The recycling people can deliver them to your door....

"the trucks will spring from their factories, full of gas road maps deployed?"

Seriously? I'm pretty sure he can borrow the trash mans road maps. This is nonsense.
...and all of this happens at 12:01 on day 1. Don't forget that. You don't think phases are inevitable.



I don't know what to say but I guess I have a more realistic idea about what is involved in making a change of this scale than you. If I were to take you at face value, I'd think you figure programmes of this scale just sort of ... happen ... literally overnight.

OK. I guess that's the point of our disagreement.
Cyrus
#36
Jun9-10, 11:12 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
...and all of this happens at 12:01 on day 1. Don't forget that. You don't think phases are inevitable.



I don't know what to say but I guess I have a more realistic idea about what is involved in making a change of this scale than you. If I were to take you at face value, I'd think you figure programes of this scale just sort of ... happen ... literally overnight.

OK. I guess that's the point of our disagreement.
Ummmmmmmm, you can phase it it at 12:01, and it doesn't have to be a sudden ramp up. That is to say, you can ramp up if you wanted to, but there is no reason why it can't be gradual as well. In fact, gradual phasing it in when it is cost effective means it pays for itself quicker. It's not like you HAVE to ramp it up THE MOMENT it becomes cost effective.

-----------------------------
Dave's posts: 2
Reasons for recycling provided: 0


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Recycle Radioactive Material? Nuclear Engineering 81
PF PHOTO CONTEST - Recycle 7 June Photography 17
Recycle Bin Computers 5
Recycle ? General Discussion 5