Why I Don't Recycle: My Time is Better Spent

  • Thread starter slide_Rules
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of recycling and whether it is worth the time and effort. The speaker argues that aside from toxic items, they do not recycle because the environmental benefit is not worth the time spent sorting and classifying trash. They believe their time is better spent working and generating wealth. The conversation also mentions the possibility of future robotic sorters for trash and the idea that focusing on economic growth instead of manual recycling would be a better use of time. However, others argue that recycling is important for the future and should not be neglected. The conversation also includes some off-topic discussions about dead pets and the practicality of freezing them.
  • #1
slide_Rules
18
0
Outside of obviously toxic items like chemicals, electronics and batteries, I don't recycle my trash. I don't think the environmental benefit is worth the opportunity cost of my time (lost classifying and sorting trash). My time is better spent working, improving my skills, paying more taxes, and generating wealth.

Also, given that:
A) landfill space is inexpensive in North America AND
B) within 100 years we should have robotic sorters (with RFD chips in packaging?!?) to separate trash
- it makes no sense to separate trash manually now. Increasing economic growth by working harder so that we get to the point where trash can be sorted by robots would be a better use of everyone's time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

Major change doesn't happen overnight; it often doesn't even happen in a generation. But next generation will grow up with it as second nature; just like they are growing up knowing how to type and use a phone. They don't know a world without it.

We recycle for the future.
 
  • #3
slide_Rules said:
Outside of obviously toxic items like chemicals, electronics and batteries, I don't recycle my trash. I don't think the environmental benefit is worth the opportunity cost of my time (lost classifying and sorting trash). My time is better spent working, improving my skills, paying more taxes, and generating wealth.

Also, given that:
A) landfill space is inexpensive in North America AND
B) within 100 years we should have robotic sorters (with RFD chips in packaging?!?) to separate trash
- it makes no sense to separate trash manually now. Increasing economic growth by working harder so that we get to the point where trash can be sorted by robots would be a better use of everyone's time.

You're time is better spent paying more taxes? You're dead wrong on that. Also, recycling means throwing away plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and paper products. You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.
 
  • #4
DaveC426913 said:
We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

What? No.

Major change doesn't happen overnight; it often doesn't even happen in a generation. But next generation will grow up with it as second nature; just like they are growing up knowing how to type and use a phone. They don't know a world without it.

We recycle for the future.

For the future? This is nonsense.
 
  • #5
We don't recycle because it is cost effective; we recycle because it will be cost-effective and we need to learn how to get there from here.

I don't find virtue in doing manual labor that can (and should) be automated.
Trash recycling needs the same economies of scale that modern sewage systems have.
 
  • #6
Cyrus said:
What? No.



For the future? This is nonsense.

There are many detractors who point out that it is expensive and inefficient to recycle. If we simply went with what is or is not working right now, it would be not.
 
  • #7
DaveC426913 said:
We recycle for the future.

Once in a while, a person's post and signature are totally in synch. :smile:

Fortunately, my kids are grown and I don't have to worry about setting a good example for them. Plus, I can't believe the ex used the recycle crates to pack her stuff in when she left. I'm going to lose my deposit on those!

I guess I still have those pesky grandkids coming around asking me if I recycle. I'll handle it the same way as when the kids asked where I buried their bird, their gerbil, and their pet goldfish.

(Disgusting trivia: When my sister-in-law moved, her brother discovered a dead cat in her freezer. Evidently, the ground was frozen too hard when it died, so she stuck it in the freezer until the ground thawed. But, she moved in August!)
 
  • #8
slide_Rules said:

I don't find virtue in doing manual labor that can (and should) be automated.
Trash recycling needs the same economies of scale that modern sewage systems have.

I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?
 
  • #9
BobG said:
Once in a while, a person's post and signature are totally in synch. :smile:

Fortunately, my kids are grown and I don't have to worry about setting a good example for them. Plus, I can't believe the ex used the recycle crates to pack her stuff in when she left. I'm going to lose my deposit on those!

I guess I still have those pesky grandkids coming around asking me if I recycle. I'll handle it the same way as when the kids asked where I buried their bird, their gerbil, and their pet goldfish.

(Disgusting trivia: When my sister-in-law moved, her brother discovered a dead cat in her freezer. Evidently, the ground was frozen too hard when it died, so she stuck it in the freezer until the ground thawed. But, she moved in August!)

If it was too cold to bury the cat she could have just put it in the garage!
 
  • #10
Mu naught said:
If it was too cold to bury the cat she could have just put it in the garage!

At least the cat would have reminded her no later than June.
 
  • #11
Cyrus said:
You're time is better spent paying more taxes? You're dead wrong on that. Also, recycling means throwing away plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and paper products. You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.

Plastic, aluminum and paper are renewable. Landfill space is cheap. When the cost of these items rises to the point where it's profitable to remove them from the trash stream, it will be done.

My time to put items (properly, according to my local G) in a bin is expensive. Therefore, the benefit is near zero to me. I guess economic literacy isn't very common.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Cyrus said:
You don't sort through it after you throw it away, you throw it away in the recycling bin from the start so that you don't have to sort it out later. I guess common sense isn't very common.
Exactly: for me it is as simple as having two trash cans in my kitchen!
 
  • #13
Cyrus said:
You're time
It's "your".
You're argument is invalid.
 
  • #14
DaveC426913 said:
I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?

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.

Fusion research is a valid scientific endeavor for governments - although I think fission will rule for another century or two.
Automated trash sorting research is also a valid endeavor for governments.
 
  • #15
slide_Rules said:
Plastic, aluminum and paper are renewable. Landfill space is cheap. When the cost of these items rises to the point where it's profitable to remove them from the trash stream, it will be done.

My time to put items (properly, according to my local G) in a bin is expensive. Therefore, the benefit is near zero to me. I guess economic literacy isn't very common.
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.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
I think it should be automated too. But it isn't.

If you were living a couple of centuries ago, would you be sitting in your own filth, claiming that you'll wait until we build sewers?

Do you also believe that we shouldn't put any effort into fusion generators until after they become cost-effective?

I don't think fusion power plants should be built until after they produce more power than they take in. Likewise, I don't think recycling should be mandatory until it's more cost efficient than throwing garbage out.

You're conflating doing research with a finished product. Fusion is in the research stage, recycling is in the "out in the marketplace" stage, so to speak. You're quick to point out other peoples logical fallacies, so I'm sure you knew that when you made your post.
 
  • #17
humanino said:
It's "your".
You're argument is invalid.

:rofl: Zing!
 
  • #18
DaveC426913 said:
There are many detractors who point out that it is expensive and inefficient to recycle. If we simply went with what is or is not working right now, it would be not.

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.
 
  • #19
slide_Rules said:
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?


slide_Rules said:
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.

slide_Rules said:
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?
 
  • #20
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #23
Cyrus said:
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)?
 
  • #24
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #25
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #26
Cyrus said:
<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.

Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #27
slide_Rules said:
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.
 
  • #28
DaveC426913 said:
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.
 
  • #29
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #30
Cyrus said:
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.


Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
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. :rolleyes:

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 :wink:... 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
 
  • #32
slide_Rules said:
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.
slide_Rules said:
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.
 
  • #33
slide_Rules said:
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.
 
  • #34
edward said:
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.
 
  • #35
Cyrus said:
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. :rolleyes:
...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.
 
<h2>Why should I bother recycling?</h2><p>Recycling helps reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills, which can harm the environment. By recycling, you are also conserving natural resources and reducing pollution.</p><h2>Isn't recycling a waste of time?</h2><p>While recycling may take a little extra effort, it ultimately saves time and resources in the long run. By recycling, you are reducing the need for raw materials to be extracted, processed, and manufactured, which can be time-consuming and harmful to the environment.</p><h2>Can't I just throw everything in the trash?</h2><p>While you may think that throwing everything in the trash is the easiest option, it's important to consider the long-term effects of this behavior. By not recycling, you are contributing to the growing problem of overflowing landfills and pollution. Recycling helps to mitigate these issues.</p><h2>Doesn't recycling cost money?</h2><p>Recycling can actually save money in the long run. By reducing the amount of waste in landfills, cities and towns can save money on waste management and disposal. Additionally, many recycling programs offer incentives and rewards for participating, making it a cost-effective option.</p><h2>Doesn't recycling require a lot of sorting and separating?</h2><p>While some recycling programs may require sorting and separating, many have single-stream recycling where all recyclables can be placed in one bin. Additionally, the time spent sorting and separating is minimal compared to the long-term benefits of recycling.</p>

Why should I bother recycling?

Recycling helps reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills, which can harm the environment. By recycling, you are also conserving natural resources and reducing pollution.

Isn't recycling a waste of time?

While recycling may take a little extra effort, it ultimately saves time and resources in the long run. By recycling, you are reducing the need for raw materials to be extracted, processed, and manufactured, which can be time-consuming and harmful to the environment.

Can't I just throw everything in the trash?

While you may think that throwing everything in the trash is the easiest option, it's important to consider the long-term effects of this behavior. By not recycling, you are contributing to the growing problem of overflowing landfills and pollution. Recycling helps to mitigate these issues.

Doesn't recycling cost money?

Recycling can actually save money in the long run. By reducing the amount of waste in landfills, cities and towns can save money on waste management and disposal. Additionally, many recycling programs offer incentives and rewards for participating, making it a cost-effective option.

Doesn't recycling require a lot of sorting and separating?

While some recycling programs may require sorting and separating, many have single-stream recycling where all recyclables can be placed in one bin. Additionally, the time spent sorting and separating is minimal compared to the long-term benefits of recycling.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top