EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: xrunner on March 08, 2015, 07:37:38 pm
-
Time magazine article - series of pictures and descriptions -
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162_1822148,00.html (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162_1822148,00.html)
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2009/e_waste/e_waste_09.jpg)
-
This is were the new parts on eBay come from :)
-
Terrible, let the US and Europe discard their own junk in a safe way.
-
This is precisely why I do NOT give my electronics to be "recycled" - they simply get sold to some folks in China and end up polluting their land and poisoning their people.
And if you ever wonder where those "fake" chips come from, look at those pictures.
They are also some videos of those villages that make a living off those electronic junks and it pains me to think that some "environmental friendly" people are making a fabulous living off killing those poor people by dumping our electronics waste on them.
The same for India.
-
Terrible, let the US and Europe discard their own junk in a safe way.
No doubt that is the correct and sane thing to do. Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
-
Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
That's where a well run government could have played an important role: a $20 surcharge for that rechargeable battery in your phone, a $50 disposal tax on that LCD monitor, a $120K surcharge on that nice Tesla of yours, ...
In-action / non-transaction should be just as taxable as action / transaction, :)
-
No doubt that is the correct and sane thing to do. Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
Maybe it should be built into the purchase price. Like car tires.
-
Maybe it should be built into the purchase price. Like car tires.
Absolutely. I would propose something like a 200% surcharge on corporate jet purchases, or a $100K per flight charge for each use of a corporate jet.
After all, rich guys like Al Gore should have no problem paying that surcharge. It is just criminally unfair that they get to pollute so much by flying corporate jet and like guys like me have to get by by flying commercial.
I call that "carbon inequality". I hope someone writes a book on that unjust.
-
This is precisely why I do NOT give my electronics to be "recycled" - they simply get sold to some folks in China and end up polluting their land and poisoning their people.
The same is true for manufacturing which is done in a place where no one cares about the environment.
-
Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
That's where a well run government could have played an important role: a $20 surcharge for that rechargeable battery in your phone, a $50 disposal tax on that LCD monitor, a $120K surcharge on that nice Tesla of yours, ...
In-action / non-transaction should be just as taxable as action / transaction, :)
Good idea. Even if it was only something like 1$ on hard drives, that 1$ could be paid back to the recycler at end of life in addition to the raw material recycling income (aluminum for example). With some simple analysis, we should be able to turn recycling into a valid, profitable industry and recycle at the same time.
-
The Chinese want to buy our surplus electronics and make some money out of it. Good for them.
-
Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
That's where a well run government could have played an important role: a $20 surcharge for that rechargeable battery in your phone, a $50 disposal tax on that LCD monitor, a $120K surcharge on that nice Tesla of yours, ...
In-action / non-transaction should be just as taxable as action / transaction, :)
so according to you
15% surcharge for phone battery
25% surcharge on the screen
100% surcharge on the car
you need to make an appointment with a proctologist. cause you're talking out of your ass.
-
Time magazine article - series of pictures and descriptions -
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162_1822148,00.html (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1870162_1822148,00.html)
Nice link. Thanks. Note it is from an article from January 2009. (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html)
Over 6 years old but still - a glimpse of what will become more and more common in the future IMHO. As mining, refining, and transporting raw materials becomes ever more expensive, salvage will become the main, and eventually only, source of some of the electronics parts we take for granted.
-
Over 6 years old but still - a glimpse of what will become more and more common in the future IMHO. As mining, refining, and transporting raw materials becomes ever more expensive, salvage will become the main, and eventually only, source of some of the electronics parts we take for granted.
Anyone can Google more of these types of pics, and you can see the awful environmental damage and small children working and playing in the electronics waste. It's going to catch up to them and they are going to pay a very high price for what is happening. I truly don't have a solution.
-
This is precisely why I do NOT give my electronics to be "recycled" - they simply get sold to some folks in China and end up polluting their land and poisoning their people.
And if you ever wonder where those "fake" chips come from, look at those pictures.
They are also some videos of those villages that make a living off those electronic junks and it pains me to think that some "environmental friendly" people are making a fabulous living off killing those poor people by dumping our electronics waste on them.
The same for India.
Don't forget the other end of the chain... where we can happily exploit the poor and vulnerable. In the end, the consumer does not give a stuff about the poor, and don't give a damn if his own neighbour lost his job because the local manufacturer has closed down. Nothing personal, but in the end it is all about what is in it for us.
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed. We should adopt a culture of recycling by repairing or refurbishing products rather than throwing rubbish out and buying new.
-
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed. We should adopt a culture of recycling by repairing or refurbishing products rather than throwing rubbish out and buying new.
I absolutely agree. But the problem is not only one of consumer mindset but an economic reality. Our economic system, as currently constructed, would (will) collapse if (when) we stop creating new stuff from virgin raw materials.
-
When everyone knows up front what the true cost is then they can better evaluate value. You might get less disposable product like electric fans for $12 that get used one Summer and thrown out.
More utopia taxes. It's like a broken record.
-
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed. We should adopt a culture of recycling by repairing or refurbishing products rather than throwing rubbish out and buying new.
I absolutely agree. But the problem is not only one of consumer mindset but an economic reality. Our economic system, as currently constructed, would (will) collapse if (when) we stop creating new stuff from virgin raw materials.
Had a chat with the dock supervisor at the county solid waste unit last week. He told me that there is no market for glass bottles, barely a market for soft plastic containers (milk, water, soda, etc), no market for heavier plastic (TV shells, etc), a minimal market for cardboard, no market for waste consumer electronics. Basically the county has to pay someone to haul most of this stuff away.
There should be more concern here for the entire recycling process. Something that begins with product design, materials selection, etc. I think Apple is doing that, perhaps a few other companies. The majority of what is sold on Black Friday, doubtful.
-
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed.
Agreed. That's why it needs to be done by the government: if $600 /iPhone isn't sufficient to deter excessive consumption of iPhones, how about $6K apiece?
I bet you that if a TV cost $60K each, or a 2n2222 cost $60 each, it will truly make some reason behavior changes.
Not to mention all the taxes that the government could then waste, oh, I mean, invest into the welfare programs for the poor, jobs for the teachers unions, green subsidies for the rich, .....
I can almost see an environmentalist utopia.
-
Economics like engineering is all about striking a balance amongst the conflicting constraints.
This 'balance' is often based on a very subjective set of values, political agendas, exaggerated problems and cronyism and with little regards to personal liberty. Basically use the government power to take from citizen A to give to citizen B.
-
I agree that we should force that village to make a living some other way. They should have no say in how they make the trade between starvation and a potentially lower risk of cancer. Those of us here in the first world know so much better than they what is good for them.
Now, how to implement. Just make it illegal to ship over national borders. Of course then it would have to be processed somewhere locally. Perhaps taxes or other social pressure can reduce the quantities, but there will always be some waste. And that means that someone would have to live next to the plant. Most places I have been that is totally unacceptable, regardless of quantity or level of discharge. Or what the material is. I have run into some RFQ which demanded that the equipment does not include dangerous metals such as copper.
Clearly the solution is to require only wood and other vegetable matter be used in our homes and businesses. Not even stone tools because the archeologists have demonstrated that stone tool waste takes millions of years to return to the environment.
;)
-
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed. We should adopt a culture of recycling by repairing or refurbishing products rather than throwing rubbish out and buying new.
I absolutely agree. But the problem is not only one of consumer mindset but an economic reality. Our economic system, as currently constructed, would (will) collapse if (when) we stop creating new stuff from virgin raw materials.
Oddly enough, I really enjoy fixing something that is clapped out rather than buying new.
Examples...
1. Fixed up a reject door that was going to be thrown out by the owner, repaired it and painted it so it looked like brand new. Satisfaction =10/10.
2. Rebuilt an old Holden HQ car ground up. Satisfaction = 8/10.
3. Renovated an ugly 1960's louvre pantry door with frosted windows and varnish. Satisfaction = 10/10.
I enjoy fixing old and broken stuff and it is better for the planet.
If you think Microsoft is altruistic, consider their attitude when a charity in Melbourne wanted to restore old computers for the poor. They wanted to get a special low cost license for Windows, but Microsoft told them they had to pay full price. The charity closed and all the junk would have gone to landfill or China. Another example, IBM crushed 10,000 butterfly laptops (each retailed for about $8,000 at the time) in the late 90's, rather than giving them to the poor.
-
I enjoy fixing rather than buying new as well.
The politicos will twist the issue to fit their agenda, but at its heart its an apolitical issue.
Cost Externalizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing)
Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
No easy solutions, unfortunately. Human nature is short term self interest.
Oversimplified and idealistic but a nice summary nonetheless:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_7i6T_H78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_7i6T_H78#ws)
-
...Tragedy_of_the_commons
Tragedy indeed. They take my money and make it common.
-
Funny how some things never change. I grew up poor, went to dump fixed and sold electronics to get on. Now in Canada you can't get into a dump period. It did for me lead to a life in electronics. Would I let my nephew (10 years old) go into a dump and do what I did, no.
Waste has always had value. First pickers are in little danger, last pickers is another story. Unfortunately people tearing down pcbs are in real danger (last pickers). Stop it in one place and I'd bet it gets farmed out to another country. Even if you do the right thing in your own country how do you stop it elsewhere?
It's a very complicated issue.
-
Our government would rather give billions to junk science research than support a local recyceling industry. We subsidize corn which uses energy and creates waste, but won't fund something that has a direct inviromental impact. Let's fine companies who run short of carbon credits but let's help companies who import cheap junk that fails fast and fills up the landfill or worse, just gets burned in China.
-
I enjoy fixing rather than buying new as well.
The politicos will twist the issue to fit their agenda, but at its heart its an apolitical issue.
Cost Externalizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing)
Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)
No easy solutions, unfortunately. Human nature is short term self interest.
Oversimplified and idealistic but a nice summary nonetheless:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_7i6T_H78 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_7i6T_H78#ws)
Making lead out to be the evil character again, its use in such vast quantities not outweighing its low level of toxicity or lack of mobility in the environment compared to other industrial pollutants. Reducing lead use is a good thing but we should be equally focused on the similarly common pollutants of Mercury, Cadmium, Chromium, Arsenic, etc
-
Maybe it should be built into the purchase price. Like car tires.
We already have that here in the netherlands. A few % extra with electronics and other recycables to pay for it.
Another true sad story, in the 70's we moved all our toxic waste esp. Ddt and carcogenic stuff like that (from the EU) to Poland to be disposed. Paid for it ofcourse.
They just stored it in large storage units but did not dispose of it, result when Poland became member of the EU they found these vast amounts of toxic waste and had to pay again billions to dispise of it properly. Lesson for the future: China is going to charge us one day again for cleaning the mess up.
-
Maybe it should be built into the purchase price. Like car tires.
We already have that here in the netherlands. A few % extra with electronics and other recycables to pay for it.
Another true sad story, in the 70's we moved all our toxic waste esp. Ddt and carcogenic stuff like that (from the EU) to Poland to be disposed. Paid for it ofcourse.
They just stored it in large storage units but did not dispose of it, result when Poland became member of the EU they found these vast amounts of toxic waste and had to pay again billions to dispise of it properly. Lesson for the future: China is going to charge us one day again for cleaning the mess up.
Either that of they will compress it and make a new big seller, "Toxic Teddy Bears". Gets rid of the waste and makes extra cash. As a side benefit reduces human population growth by making everyone sterile (you also glow in the dark making it easier to read at night).
-
The toxic pollution in third world countries like China is a by product of greed.
Agreed. That's why it needs to be done by the government: if $600 /iPhone isn't sufficient to deter excessive consumption of iPhones, how about $6K apiece?
I bet you that if a TV cost $60K each, or a 2n2222 cost $60 each, it will truly make some reason behavior changes.
Not to mention all the taxes that the government could then waste, oh, I mean, invest into the welfare programs for the poor, jobs for the teachers unions, green subsidies for the rich, .....
I can almost see an environmentalist utopia.
There are those environmentally aware and responsible, then there are tree hugging do-gooder greenies - vermin which has infested our governments at all levels. You remove a tree around on your own land around here will be fined $5,000 for each offence - such is the extent the greeny religion has spread. We even have a political party here called the Greens - a band interfering do-gooders telling everyone else how to live their lives.
I poison non fruit bearing trees or cut them down and I enjoy killing them.
Greenies should hang their heads in shame... http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-storms-the-patch-mourns-boy-killed-in-wild-weather-20150301-13rtcn.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/melbourne-storms-the-patch-mourns-boy-killed-in-wild-weather-20150301-13rtcn.html)
-
This is precisely why I do NOT give my electronics to be "recycled" - they simply get sold to some folks in China and end up polluting their land and poisoning their people.
And if you ever wonder where those "fake" chips come from, look at those pictures.
They are also some videos of those villages that make a living off those electronic junks and it pains me to think that some "environmental friendly" people are making a fabulous living off killing those poor people by dumping our electronics waste on them.
The same for India.
And many other "under developed" ones as well.
Danny,
Had anyone enough time it would be interesting to trace / find where:
Nuclear waste goes to.
Certain industrial process are implemented i. e. massive sandblasting, production of certain types of steel, vessels breaking...and the list goes on.
-
Stop it in one place and I'd bet it gets farmed out to another country. Even if you do the right thing in your own country how do you stop it elsewhere?
You have to stop in your own country first. There is no other choice.
-
No doubt that is the correct and sane thing to do. Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
Maybe it should be built into the purchase price. Like car tires.
We used to have this bullshit tax in the Netherlands. It did exactly what you don't want, the collected money was actually often used to ship trash to China. It was about 30 cents per kilo, what are you going to do with that in a western country? Even someone on minimum wage can only blink his eye twice at a product and it's already not economically viable anymore to tear a product down properly.
-
We even have a political party here called the Greens - a band interfering do-gooders telling everyone else how to live their lives.
Beware, the proprietor is a staunch supporter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uUXKBr9Q#t=43s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uUXKBr9Q#t=43s)
:)
-
Try to get the average consumer to pay for proper disposal is another matter.
That's where a well run government could have played an important role: a $20 surcharge for that rechargeable battery in your phone, a $50 disposal tax on that LCD monitor, a $120K surcharge on that nice Tesla of yours, ...
In-action / non-transaction should be just as taxable as action / transaction, :)
Good idea. Even if it was only something like 1$ on hard drives, that 1$ could be paid back to the recycler at end of life in addition to the raw material recycling income (aluminum for example). With some simple analysis, we should be able to turn recycling into a valid, profitable industry and recycle at the same time.
Actually, we got something like this here in Germany. Any vendor/importer of consumer electronics needs to be member of the official e-waste disposal system. He has to file the amount/size/weight of the consumer electronics sold and will be billed for the disposal. The vendor simply adds the disposal costs to the product's price, i.e. the customer buys the product inclusive disposal and brings the old or broken device to a municipal collection point. The system seems to work well, but it's quite unfair to very small vendors. There are several companies specialized in e-waste recycling. They do the same those poor Chinese do, just in an industrial way (locally!) and they are quite profitable. I doubt that the complete e-waste is processed by them, surely some villains ship parts of it overseas.
-
There are several companies specialized in e-waste recycling. They do the same those poor Chinese do, just in an industrial way (locally!) and they are quite profitable. I doubt that the complete e-waste is processed by them, surely some villains ship parts of it overseas.
There's a massive (at least 10 acres) recyclers near to me that deal with e-waste, they seem to just take scrap in and pump raw materials out. I've talked a lot to people who work there and through what I can work out I don't think anyone would get a license to just ship stuff off to China, India, etc so the ones doing so must quite literally be villains lol.
Had anyone enough time it would be interesting to trace / find where:
Nuclear waste goes to.
In Britain (and I'd be pretty certain that like everything our standards are a bit lax compared to the rest of the developed world) it gets firstly dealt with in labs at the plant itself who basically filter it into 4 categories. The dangerously radioactive stuff that can't be reused goes into long term storage (i.e. hidden in abandoned mines). Then there's the stuff that can be reused as nuclear fuel, that's generally dealt with by the plant. Then there are radioactive but useful for industry/medicine byproducts, the most famous use for them is smoke detectors and sometimes plants will purposely run inefficiently to produce them. Then there's none radioactive stuff useful for industry, depleted uranium is probably the most useful and not just for bullets. <---That last one is probably the most dangerous to people and the environment believe it or not.
-
Wow :(
-
It's incomprehensible how the human species can waste their living environments.
Is it overpopulation?
Do we feel guilty yet? For ordering those cheap pcb's in China?
-
I absolutely agree. But the problem is not only one of consumer mindset but an economic reality. Our economic system, as currently constructed, would (will) collapse if (when) we stop creating new stuff from virgin raw materials.
Had a chat with the dock supervisor at the county solid waste unit last week. He told me that there is no market for glass bottles, barely a market for soft plastic containers (milk, water, soda, etc), no market for heavier plastic (TV shells, etc), a minimal market for cardboard, no market for waste consumer electronics. Basically the county has to pay someone to haul most of this stuff away.
Some say that free market of recyclers will solve recycling issue. I call this nonsense, free market is not suited to recycle stuff by design (because there is no incentive to recycle materials with no demand without government action).
Few examples to illustrate he point. Recently I tried to recycle or refill (if possible) few toner cartridges. Toner shops said they only deal with non-refilled cartridges and cartridges that are in demand (so most old cartridges goes to waste and are not reused).
Another example. NY Times paper few years ago write about electronics recycling business and problems with it. One problem was a cascaded resell of recycling services/trash (so papers looks good but recycling is not done), other was recycling of parts that are no longer in demand (like CRTs). When CRTs monitors were popular, cycle went like this: materials for glass + lead + manufacturing -> CRTs -> CRTs recycling for raw materials -> manufacturing... Now CRTs are not popular, there is no demand and all this stuff is going to dumps. Free market has no real solution to this problem, it will only increase it.
We are pretty much screwed when only plastic bags are said to cause massive issues in environment. Solutions would be to use less stuff (with massive economic consequences), include costs of environment into product cost or similar.
-
We are pretty much screwed when only plastic bags are said to cause massive issues in environment. Solutions would be to use less stuff (with massive economic consequences), include costs of environment into product cost or similar.
I really do wonder if there is a large untapped market here. Once you disassemble a piece of consumer electronics, the constituent parts may be more recyclable than the assembled unit is. For example, in another thread I mentioned the Epson printer someone handed me at the rubbish truck a while back. My disassembly of that yielded 2 circuit cards, a power cord, a considerable amount of plastic shell, plus various ribbon cables, a few pieces of stamped formed metal, servos and gears. The plastic shell might be recyclable if it were chopped into smaller pieces/pellets, and bulk packed with others of the same plastic type. The same theory goes for glass containers (clear, brown, green, etc). If you collate like material, then reduce it to a manageable granule size, there may be someone out there quite happy to buy it from you. The trick is disassembly, and sorting, which is not terribly high skilled labor. The material chopper should be relatively straight forward.
-
it's not just electronics.
google 'fake eggs' and 'gutter oil' ...
and there was a recent article on olive oil ... most of it isn't even olive oil at all...
lead laced toys,
melamine enriched milk
poisoned dog food
and glycol laced toothpaste ...
we're screwed.
-
We live longer than ever.
-
We live longer than ever.
Must be the melamine milk.
-
I really do wonder if there is a large untapped market here.
That's precisely how it works today: those pcbs are identified, desoldered and resulting parts resorted and in many cases remanufactured to be sold as "new" parts.
-
What angers me the most here is the unfairness. Here you have poor parents and kids laboring in toxic environment, really mortgaging their lives so that someone can pay a lower price for their Leaf, while the entirety of their environmental costs has been shifted to the people who can least afford to take them.
Yet, no one is championing for the poor Chinese or Indian's rights to equality.
-
There is where I really hope a special and hefty tax is levied on those pcbs, electronics and especially batteries. I really don't mind paying $6K for an iPhone, or $20K for a new laptop if it means someone somewhere doesn't get sick from the electronic waste.
-
What angers me the most here is the unfairness. Here you have poor parents and kids laboring in toxic environment, really mortgaging their lives so that someone can pay a lower price for their Leaf, while the entirety of their environmental costs has been shifted to the people who can least afford to take them.
Yet, no one is championing for the poor Chinese or Indian's rights to equality.
That is the issue for me. I also know that if China and India are fixed another location will end up being nailed.
-
There is where I really hope a special and hefty tax is levied on those pcbs, electronics and especially batteries. I really don't mind paying $6K for an iPhone, or $20K for a new laptop if it means someone somewhere doesn't get sick from the electronic waste.
While we're at it can we tax the life-cycle environmental cost of ICE cars too? Including typical fuel usage, production cost, environmental pollution (local and global), etc.
-
What angers me the most here is the unfairness. Here you have poor parents and kids laboring in toxic environment, really mortgaging their lives so that someone can pay a lower price for their Leaf, while the entirety of their environmental costs has been shifted to the people who can least afford to take them.
Yet, no one is championing for the poor Chinese or Indian's rights to equality.
That should be the role of the chinese and Indian government. Esp. the chinese, they produce the stuff so it is in a sense good thinking that they should properly dispose of it also again. A lot of european countries do this already themselves but if and I say if the chinese government allows the import of the recycle electronic garbage for disposal they take upon themselves the duty to do this in a people friendly and eco friendly way. The real problem is the people responsible for this looking the other way while accepting a envelope with green.
-
But the good news is this will start to escalate and laws will be made. Don't forget that only 50 years ago in Europe and the US very dangerous chemical waste was also just dumped in lakes and the sea. I think it is fair to say that China in this case is at least 50 years behind europe and the us and they will solve it and take measures or they have to pay big time for the pollution in the future.
-
That should be the role of the chinese and Indian government.
Agreed. End of the day, it is their job to protect themselves. However, I do feel a moral obligation, on my part, to help, or at least not contribute to their suffering.
I think it is fair to say that China in this case is at least 50 years behind europe and the us
Agreed. They will find a solution of their own choosing. We have no business imposing our solutions to them, however good intentioned.
-
However, I do feel a moral obligation, on my part, to help, or at least not contribute to their suffering.
Me too. And even if i didn't care about those people, there is a good reason to care about a better waste management. One way or another this stuff comes back to us.
It is no coincidence that cheap chinese plastic is oft contaminated by heavy metals.
Another ist example is steel which is checked on import for radioactive co-60 contamination, because some idiots dump their medical devices into the scrap metal pile without removing radiation sources.
-
But paying $1k for an apple product instead of $600 does not change the problem, it will only result in Apple having another couple of billion $ more on their bank.
If for instance Apple would care they would not have put their production at a company as Foxxconn although the workclimate has improved the last years they knew what was going on there.
So actually the system is rotten, how do we change the system? :-//
-
So actually the system is rotten, how do we change the system? :-//
You would have to change the people first, which might be impossible. As long as our goal is to be rich it won't change. The funny thing is that only a few become rich and it doesn't mean that they are happy too.
-
Communist countries like The People's Hypocrisy of China and democratic countries like the USA and India all share one thing in common... obscene greed, wealth and power in the hands of a few. It is predicted by Oxfam that next year 1% of the world's population will own 99% of the world's wealth for the first time in recorded history. No civilisation can justify that level of injustice. Unfortunately when the people have no power, they cannot fight the powerful.
Many governments treat some of the poor worse than E-waste. I don't know how you can fight greed and corruption on a global scale, short of exposing the wealth of the ruling elite.
-
It is a little hard to understand the myopia here. Anybody who participates on this forum is wealthy beyond the dreams of most people in history. You sleep warm at night. You are seldom uncomfortably warm or cold due to your ability to condition your climate. You eat well, seldom if ever wanting for food. You have fabulous magical toys that allow you to communicate instantly around the world, and have the ability to travel and see the person you are communicating with in a few days. Your life expected life span exceeds all but a privileged few in history, and that lifespan is less likely to be marred by sickness than in any prior era. By almost any measure of wealth things could hardly be better. Those things are actually also true for many of the people you are feeling sorry for. Ask the people in the waste village if they would rather be back in the midst of the "Great Leap Forward", or suffering in one of the periodic famines that were the rule during the pre-Mao period. Also I suspect that many of the participants in the forum have been self exposed to "horrific quantities" of many of the pollutants identified through their hobby activities. I know that I have had so much lead, mercury and cadmium exposure, just to name a few, that the popular press would have you believe that I should be dead and my children horribly deformed. Strangely, my health is good, and my children and grandchildren are both healthy and normal.
And then you blame greed for pollution, mostly greed in others.
There are really only two possible solutions to the "problems" identified. Income redistribution (making the 1% less wealthy so that the rest may have a bit more) is not one of them. Either a dramatic reduction in population, or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) are the only real solutions. No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
-
But paying $1k for an apple product instead of $600 does not change the problem,
If you assume the incremental revenue goes to Apple. We are talking about a surcharge collected by the government for purposes of properly disposing (meaning processing) the waste created by people abandoning their iPhones (or any other electronic toys).
-
Taxes, taxes, taxes, the magic solution for any pet cause. We should impose a heavy tax on anybody that propose new taxes. This will fix the situation.
-
Taxes, taxes, taxes, the magic solution for any pet cause. We should impose a heavy tax on anybody that propose new taxes. This will fix the situation.
Even though I'm probably in your eyes a crazy left winger I more than half agree with you there. I've been saying for over a decade that the stick approach doesn't work especially when there's no carrot...
Edit: To clarify take fuel duties and/or taxes as an incentive to use public transport. It doesn't work when buses are old, unreliable, and more expensive on a lot of journeys than a taxi as it is here. The "green" taxes have made running a diesel car cheaper than using public transport or a much cleaner petrol car.
-
What angers me the most here is the unfairness. Here you have poor parents and kids laboring in toxic environment, really mortgaging their lives so that someone can pay a lower price for their Leaf, while the entirety of their environmental costs has been shifted to the people who can least afford to take them.
Yet, no one is championing for the poor Chinese or Indian's rights to equality.
That is the issue for me. I also know that if China and India are fixed another location will end up being nailed.
Which is why the problem needs to be addressed at the location that is originating the no longer wanted consumer electronics. If the stuff being busted down in those pictures originated in China, there isn't much we can do about it. We have to clean up our own act before criticizing someone else (and watch out for unscrupulous recyclers who will claim to be responsible, but then send it on to China/India anyway).
-
...
There are really only two possible solutions to the "problems" identified. Income redistribution (making the 1% less wealthy so that the rest may have a bit more) is not one of them. Either a dramatic reduction in population, or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) are the only real solutions. No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
The world had much less population around the time of the French Revolution when the rich hogged it all but the poor could not feed their kids. Something had to give... in this case it was heads. Another French style Revolution might happen eventually and it will be on a much bigger scale.
One way to reduce population is to stop breeding, but it has adverse side effects such as in Japan with its aging population.
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
-
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
First they came for the Koalas....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html)
-
*** offensive post removed ***
-
... or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) ...
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
-
No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
That is because the politicians and the whole corrupt lobbyists organizations are afraid they will loose the elections.
But why and how can a politician loose a fair and democratic election if 99% of the country citizens will gain from its plans and only 1% will loose?
There is your problem, the 1% define the outcome of the political system, the same as in Russia btw.
-
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
That's your personal choice. Others may have different choices and priorities. That's the beauty of personal liberty.
-
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
That's your personal choice. Others may have different choices and priorities. That's the beauty of personal liberty.
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
-
Yes personal liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't compromise someone else's.
Wealth redistribution would help to solve this to some degree but it would require a reduction in living standards for a lot of people. Rich people are more likely to buy this kind of junk.
If you think Microsoft is altruistic, consider their attitude when a charity in Melbourne wanted to restore old computers for the poor. They wanted to get a special low cost license for Windows, but Microsoft told them they had to pay full price. The charity closed and all the junk would have gone to landfill or China. Another example, IBM crushed 10,000 butterfly laptops (each retailed for about $8,000 at the time) in the late 90's, rather than giving them to the poor.
That's the charity's own stupid fault for not switching to free software.
-
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
If society throws gadgets into your property call the police.
-
Yes personal liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't compromise someone else's.
Your liberty stops where that of another person starts ;)
-
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
If society throws gadgets into your property call the police.
Except in China the police will laugh at you or worse, take the side of those who pay them (the importers of the junk) and throw you in jail.
Because we can't control laws, of lack of thereof, in other countries and stop them from harming others, we have to act.
-
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option.
Wow!
When the left talks about eliminating humanity, reducing carbon footprint, lowering energy consumption, taxing..., they are really talking about eliminating others people, reducing other people's carbon footprint, lowering other people's energy consumption, taxing others.... It is never about them sacrificing or even paying a fair share for their own causes.
There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
With scientists like that, who needs enemy?
Actually, many of the climate talks / treaties are about codifying the existing standards of life into the future. One example would be the allowable carbon emission: developing countries are only allowed 1/2.3 times the per capita carbon emissions of the developed countries.
Reminds me of the Animal Farm: every one is equal, except ..., :)
-
But why and how can a politician loose a fair and democratic election if 99% of the country citizens will gain from its plans and only 1% will loose?
Because a democracy, in the hands of incompetent voters, can be easily turned into a tyranny: a tyranny of the majority.
The founding fathers anticipated a lot of things but never that.
-
But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
A big difference here: China allowed such junk to be dumped there - they either purchased such junk or get paid to have them dumped there.
If you agreed to have gadgets thrown into your tomatoe patch, your liberty isn't violated at all.
-
But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
A big difference here: China allowed such junk to be dumped there - they either purchased such junk or get paid to have them dumped there.
If you agreed to have gadgets thrown into your tomatoe patch, your liberty isn't violated at all.
No China's government allowed such junk to be dumped there, not the people and it has a negative effect on the population.
I very much doubt any member of the Chinese communist party would be happy if it happened on their doorstep.
Like it or not, the people who discarded the junk in the first place are ultimately responsible and their governments are also responsible for allowing it.
-
dannyf, the problem with your libertarian view of environmental politics is that fails to account for negative externalities, ie when the problem doesn't stay within your "tomato patch". When you and million others drive around in gas guzzlers, the CO2 is absorbed into the atmosphere and causes a problem in a different location, at a later point. (Unless perhaps you reject the evidence for anthropogenic climate change.)
Likewise, I bet a lot of the people in that village never asked for, approved of, or even are well educated enough to make an informed decision about, it becoming a dumping ground for electronics. Now, as a result, the village is lacking clean air and ready access to clean drinking water. I bet that the "tyrannical majority" in that village would have said no to it, if they understood that heavy metals and other toxins would eventually penetrate the soil and end up in the ground water.
-
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
Not any scientists that anyone except Alex Jones takes seriously, I'm sure.
-
But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
A big difference here: China allowed such junk to be dumped there - they either purchased such junk or get paid to have them dumped there.
Isn't this a nice solution? You get rid of your e-junk and someone else has to deal with it. It's not your problem anymore. They even get some bucks for it or make some by recycling. So you don't care how the e-junk is processed. The problem with this kind of thinking is that we are living on the same planet. Nature is global! It also encourages the the "buy cheap, throw away if broken or old and buy a new one" system. This helps to maintain the broken economic systems but it doesn't help with keeping our planet habitable and dealing with limited ressouces. We should care a little bit more about what we do and how.
If you agreed to have gadgets thrown into your tomatoe patch, your liberty isn't violated at all.
You're right, in the legal sense.
-
Quote from:
With scientists like that, who needs enemy?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/)
-
Quote from: With scientists like that, who needs enemy?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/)
Well they only mention thought experiments from the 70's in that article on what to do if there wqas a major overpopulation crisis. Seeing as even now we're nowhere near getting overpopulated (resource distribution, not lack of resources is the problem) it's not even relevant.
-
Well they only mention thought experiments from the 70's in that article on what to do if there wqas a major overpopulation crisis. Seeing as even now we're nowhere near getting overpopulated (resource distribution, not lack of resources is the problem) it's not even relevant.
Exactly. But, 30-40 years later on Alex Jones:
They're going to KILL US ALL! The illuminati elites are doing this RIGHT NOW. bla bla bla FLUORIDE IN THE TAP WATER! bla bla bla MARTIAL LAW! bla bla bla
-
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
First they came for the Koalas....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html)
:-DD You made me laugh. "Today it's koalas. Tomorrow the world!"
Actually I am not saying wiping out 3/4 of the worlds's population is a good idea, but it is an option. Or maybe crop dusting whole populations with a chemical that turns them off sex for life :o. In any case, you want dentists to survive first and foremost :-/O. Without dentists we are stuffed, no matter how expensive they are. Followed by electrical engineers :-BROKE. Last on the list is politicians >:D and serial killers O0, not necessarily in that order.
The only humane solution I see is management of our populations and the resources. As a race, we are not doing very well. Uncontrolled consumerism is one major problem, where whole economies and companies are reliant on never ending growth in a world where resources are limited.
-
There is always the option of going off-world. Recently I watched a documentary that claimed you can walk around on Titan (a moon of Saturn) with a very thick coat and an oxygen mask. That sounds easier than staying on the Moon or Mars.
-
There is always the option of going off-world. Recently I watched a documentary that claimed you can walk around on Titan (a moon of Saturn) with a very thick coat and an oxygen mask. That sounds easier than staying on the Moon or Mars.
Yup that is one way: suicide or do we have already an oxygen factory on Titan?
-
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
If society throws gadgets into your property call the police.
That won't help if my neighbor is allowed to throw stuff over the fence by the law that is maintained on his side of the fence. I.e. China creates massive amounts of air pollution and I can't do anything about it in my neighboring country.
-
I can't do anything about it in my neighboring country.
If you don't live, you will never experience that massive amount of pollution.
That's the easiest way to avoid pollution of any kind by anyone.
-
Well they only mention thought experiments from the 70's in that article on what to do if there wqas a major overpopulation crisis. Seeing as even now we're nowhere near getting overpopulated (resource distribution, not lack of resources is the problem) it's not even relevant.
If the definition of not being overpopulated is that each living human being gets 1700 calories of nutritionally balanced food each day, each has two square meters of living space that is not allowed to get more than 10 deg C from nominal 25 C and sufficient medical care to assure six plus decades of life we are probably 10 to 20 billion people short of being overpopulated. I think many, particularly animal rights activists, would come up with a far different definition. I personally think a world population of about 1-2 billion would be ideal. It is large enough to allow economies of scale, and to allow population statistics to generate a significant number of exceptionally brilliant people, but small enough that maintaining a suitably small global impact does not require significant impact on human activity. Unfortunately I see no likelihood of achieving that kind of population level through any fair or painless process. We seem to be doomed to fulfill the Club of Rome simulations that show particularly grim results when attempts are made to control emissions products.
-
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
First they came for the Koalas....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11448637/Close-to-700-koalas-killed-by-authorities-in-Australia-because-of-overpopulation.html)
:-DD You made me laugh. "Today it's koalas. Tomorrow the world!"
Actually I am not saying wiping out 3/4 of the worlds's population is a good idea, but it is an option. Or maybe crop dusting whole populations with a chemical that turns them off sex for life :o. In any case, you want dentists to survive first and foremost :-/O. Without dentists we are stuffed, no matter how expensive they are. Followed by electrical engineers :-BROKE. Last on the list is politicians >:D and serial killers O0, not necessarily in that order.
The only humane solution I see is management of our populations and the resources. As a race, we are not doing very well. Uncontrolled consumerism is one major problem, where whole economies and companies are reliant on never ending growth in a world where resources are limited.
Where do telephone sanitizers fit?
-
I personally think a world population of about 1-2 billion would be ideal. It is large enough to allow economies of scale, and to allow population statistics to generate a significant number of exceptionally brilliant people, but small enough that maintaining a suitably small global impact does not require significant impact on human activity. Unfortunately I see no likelihood of achieving that kind of population level through any fair or painless process.
Well said and I agree.
We seem to be doomed to fulfill the Club of Roman simulations that show particularly grim results when attempts are made to control emissions products.
Yes, the Limits to Growth (http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf) modelling is proving to be very accurate.
-
Unfortunately I see no likelihood of achieving that kind of population level through any fair or painless process.
Depending on what you mean by "fair". Posts earlier in this thread would suggest some extreme interpretations of "fair".
We seem to be doomed to fulfill the Club of Rome simulations that show particularly grim results when attempts are made to control emissions products.
Not for the reasons that they argued for, however.
-
it is the businessmen who exploit the workers the most.
You can easily avoid that exploitation by the businessmen by living in a few places, like North Korea where everyone is equal, .....
-
Quote from:
With scientists like that, who needs enemy?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/)
I am kind of sympathetic to him - not because I agree with him but because I tend to be sympathetic to stupidity.
That kind of thinking (doomsday scenario, population control, imminent and widespread panic for resource shortages, etc.) was the academic fetish in the 1970 and 1980s even, much like global cooling from the same era or global warming now.
He was not unique in thinking those measures are needed or even justified for the survival of humanity - his peers thought of that and he needed to think that way for his 15-minute of fame, money (=funding) and power, exactly the same things that got today's climate scientists discredited.
-
but because I tend to be sympathetic to stupidity.
Is that why you are often so keen on defending both buyers and sellers of borderline scam audiophool products?
You can easily avoid that exploitation by the businessmen by living in a few places, like North Korea where everyone is equal, .....
It's always anarchocapitalism or full-on communism, with nothing in-between, isn't it? What about a mostly free market, with sensible regulation?
-
That won't help if my neighbor is allowed to throw stuff over the fence by the law that is maintained on his side of the fence. I.e. China creates massive amounts of air pollution and I can't do anything about it in my neighboring country.
Not just your Country.
China might be responsible for our horrible winters, says NASA (http://www.theloop.ca/china-might-be-responsible-for-our-horrible-winters-according-to-nasa/)
I wonder whether it also affects the winters in Europe. In the NL the winters have been particulary crappy as well. No snow and no ice at all.
This sight would freak my wife out though:
(http://www.theloop.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Awesome-door-loves-snow-Imgur.jpg)
From: http://www.theloop.ca/these-are-the-most-epic-snowfall-images-youll-ever-see/ (http://www.theloop.ca/these-are-the-most-epic-snowfall-images-youll-ever-see/)
-
Where do telephone sanitizers fit?
Phone sanitisers... a level above women's gossip magazine editors maybe.
Killing off 75% of the world's population indiscriminately is not all bad. Six billion get culled (die early) and two billion get to survive. I am not saying it is good thing as it violates the sanctity of life to all except the tree hugging greenies who think a stupid tree is worth more than public safety. It is very possible that a virus (engineered by man or otherwise) will do the job one day whether we like it or not.
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html)
The 50's film called When World's Collide and The Day the Earth Stood Still had some powerful messages for the human race. But one my favourite films of all time, Fail-Safe (1964) with Henry Fonda and Walter Mattau is a ripper... similar to Dr. Strangelove.
-
it is the businessmen who exploit the workers the most.
You can easily avoid that exploitation by the businessmen by living in a few places, like North Korea where everyone is equally poor, except for the politically elite.
Corrected.
-
Unfortunately I see no likelihood of achieving that kind of population level through any fair or painless process.
Depending on what you mean by "fair". Posts earlier in this thread would suggest some extreme interpretations of "fair".
We seem to be doomed to fulfill the Club of Rome simulations that show particularly grim results when attempts are made to control emissions products.
Not for the reasons that they argued for, however.
While the details differ, in concept the results are identical. Reduction in "emissions", be that emission lead waste, CO2 or whatever other negative factor you choose makes population growth possible. It also allows technology growth, health care development etc. which allows more thorough utilization of resources. Without dampers on population growth in place (China's one child policy for example), it just makes the crash harder when it comes. There is some small hope that the usual reduction in population growth that comes with increase wealth will be sufficient to result in a stable, sustainable level, but those who play with these sorts of simulations find that it takes extraordinary fine tuning of the variables to come up with this happy answer. Just as the people trying to do ecologies in a box have found it to extraordinarily difficult. The only successes that I am aware of are in a few extremely simple systems. Algae and shrimp, or simpler.
-
...we are probably 10 to 20 billion people short of being overpopulated.
I wouldn't agree with current tech. I'd say we could maybe get away with doubling the population without having to turn every bit of undeveloped land over to agriculture. We could get up to about 11 billion with no need to increase food production. But it also looks like population growth is starting to level out globally like it has in the "developed world."
I think many, particularly animal rights activists, would come up with a far different definition.
I don't care about lying pseudoscience wielding monsters estimates that were just pulled out of their arses. They want to reduce the population to 2 billion let them line up first. Fucking bunch of hypocrite, "oh I'm second in command of of PETA and against animal products except for my insulin, those animals are dying to save me so I can save other animals," bullshiters.
EDIT: Funny how "animal rights activists" don't give a shit about a certain quite amazing primate, and don't advocate for equal responsibilities as well as rights for other animals.
-
... Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
Gas chambers have a few practical advantage over viruses. It's easier to target the inferiors and undesired and to recycle the remains into soap, lamp shades and soylent green, all within one automated factory run by party members that are loyal to the cause.
-
It is absolutely repugnant, and downright evil if you ask me, to suggest it is OK to murder people to achieve for some common good and to protect the environment. That's just pure evil.
let them line up first
I am all for making personal sacrifices to save the environment. However, the thing with those environmentalists campaigning for their causes is that it is all about others sacrificing for their causes and never about them making the same sacrifices. That just pisses me off to no end.
-
Reduction in "emissions", ... also allows technology growth, health care development etc. which allows more thorough utilization of resources.
It is not difficult to think of a scenario where resources directed towards emission reductions could have been directed towards people, or technology, or healthcare, etc.
The challenge is for the society to make that trade off, where / where and how such redirection / allocation of resources should take place.
-
We are overpopulated. Big problem, no answers. No one has ever come up with a solution that does not violate human rights.
In China, the one child policy had very some bad side effects, like abortions of babies just because of they were females. Look at the ratio and male to females in China and do the maths - the results are horrifying.
-
We are overpopulated. Big problem, no answers. No one has ever come up with a solution that does not violate human rights.
In China, the one child policy had very some bad side effects, like abortions of babies just because of they were females. Look at the ratio and male to females in China and do the maths - the results are horrifying.
Big problem, several answers. We just don't like the answers. One thing is clear, though. China's approach has been much kinder and gentler than nature's ways of fixing population imbalances.
-
In my home state of Colorado there is a long standing joke about the difference between an environmentalist and a developer. The difference? The environmentalist already has his vacation cabin.
-
We are overpopulated. Big problem, no answers. No one has ever come up with a solution that does not violate human rights.
In China, the one child policy had very some bad side effects, like abortions of babies just because of they were females. Look at the ratio and male to females in China and do the maths - the results are horrifying.
Big problem, several answers. We just don't like the answers. One thing is clear, though. China's approach has been much kinder and gentler than nature's ways of fixing population imbalances.
Interesting to hear China's one child policy described as "kinder and gentler". I suppose the Nazi's approach was more brutal.
QUICK!!!! Somebody go get Godwin!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)
I don't think humans have every approached the brutality with which nature acts.
-
All theoretical blabla till it touches YOUR life.
Example: I can not think of any reason why we should keep a 3 months to early born babies alive in an incubator till it has enough strength to survive, where it is already proven they will have severe problems later in life due to detachment, undeveloped other parts of the body, many weaknesses etc. etc.
BUT if it is your child will you again think like that ? :-//
We have a bible in our family from the 18th century and on the first pages all births and deaths of the family are registered. From the average 8 children born more than 4 would die before age 4. The result is that only the strong survive. Nowadays every baby survives but the human race has never been so weak with all kinds of allergies and other illments. Still if it is your baby laying in that incubator it is a total different story than theoretically blabla. Same goes for surgery, do we really need to operate on 80 years and older humans or do we accept that we some day have to die and that some age is good enough? Still nice theoretically blabla till it is you at age 85 that is lying in that hospitalbed, will you stick to your story?
So why bringing this up, with all the previous pages SF virus bullshit talk, it is very clear to me that whoever is stupid enough to decide something like that should never act alone.
It should be at least an unanimous 50 person decision of 50 persons that do have relatives and family and the first persons to go should be those 50 people with all their relatives if they decide to do something stupid like that.
Lets see if that decision is ever going to be made, I don't think so. ;)
-
All theoretical blabla till it touches YOUR life.
Example: I can not think of any reason why we should keep a 3 months to early born babies alive in an incubator till it has enough strength to survive, where it is already proven they will have severe problems later in life due to detachment, undeveloped other parts of the body, many weaknesses etc. etc.
BUT if it is your child will you again think like that ? :-//
We have a bible in our family from the 18th century and on the first pages all births and deaths of the family are registered. From the average 8 children born more than 4 would die before age 4. The result is that only the strong survive. Nowadays every baby survives but the human race has never been so weak with all kinds of allergies and other illments. Still if it is your baby laying in that incubator it is a total different story than theoretically blabla. Same goes for surgery, do we really need to operate on 80 years and older humans or do we accept that we some day have to die and that some age is good enough? Still nice theoretically blabla till it is you at age 85 that is lying in that hospitalbed, will you stick to your story?
So why bringing this up, with all the previous pages SF virus bullshit talk, it is very clear to me that whoever is stupid enough to decide something like that should never act alone.
It should be at least an unanimous 50 person decision of 50 persons that do have relatives and family and the first persons to go should be those 50 people with all their relatives if they decide to do something stupid like that.
Lets see if that decision is ever going to be made, I don't think so. ;)
The difference is nowadays people use contraception which offsets that.
If a child dies, then it's upsetting but the couple will try again and once they have enough children start using contraception again.
I doubt allowing the premature to survive has anything to do with allergies. It's more likely to be linked to the immune system not being exposed to beneficial bacteria due to improved hygiene and sanitation.
You're right that allowing the weaker to survive will reduce the strength of the human race but a couple of generations is far too soon for that to happen to a significant degree. However, in the long term, mortality rates will increase again to offset those improvements and the really weak will always have a lower chance or reproducing.
Only humans are capable of being cruel. Nature doesn't have the ability to reason so is amoral. What goes on in China and North Korea is barbaric because it's caused by humans, who are capable of rationalising the impact of their actions on others. Ebola is not barbaric, even though it's killed thousands of people because it's just a dumb virus.
-
BUT if it is your child will you again think like that ?
Very difficult question, even if it is not personal. Bio-ethicists for example have questioned the value of modern medicine for the advancement of humanity for precisely the reasons you cited.
I think a rationale person can make good arguments on either side but valid objections can be raised to arguments on either side.
-
The South Australian Government is considering making a nuclear waste dump in their backyard because they want money. Today they triggered the debate. This is in a state where the British dropped atomic bombs and sent radioactive fallout across much of Australia. The Poms paid some millions of pounds to clean up their mess, but none of that money went to help the hundreds of Australian troops who were used as guinea pigs. The hypocrisy and stupidity of the South Australian government beggars belief. There should be no debate by dickhead politicians... the answer should be a big NO, NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
However, ironically Australia mines uranium mostly from South Australia and ships it abroad, to the blessing of mining shareholders and the state and federal governments. In fact Australian uranium was in each of the reactors in Fukushima. You won't hear any politicians mentioning that and it does not make the general media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga)
The pollution from E-Waste and N-Waste... it seems they are not important if there is money to be made by politicians or the greedy elite.
-
The South Australian Government is considering making a nuclear waste dump in their backyard because they want money. Today they triggered the debate. This is in a state where the British dropped atomic bombs and sent radioactive fallout across much of Australia. The Poms paid some millions of pounds to clean up their mess, but none of that money went to help the hundreds of Australian troops who were used as guinea pigs.
To be fair our government used our soldiers as guinea pigs too, and on more occasions. Nothing went to them either. And it wouldn't surprise me if those in command of your forces were more than aware and just as happy to use their troops for the information. I don't believe claims that that late on no one was aware of the risks, especially given both countries major involvement in the Manhattan project even with the Yanks deciding the manpower and money we put into it wasn't worth sharing the research they agreed to...
-
The South Australian Government is considering making a nuclear waste dump in their backyard because they want money. Today they triggered the debate. This is in a state where the British dropped atomic bombs and sent radioactive fallout across much of Australia. The Poms paid some millions of pounds to clean up their mess, but none of that money went to help the hundreds of Australian troops who were used as guinea pigs.
To be fair our government used our soldiers as guinea pigs too, and on more occasions. Nothing went to them either. And it wouldn't surprise me if those in command of your forces were more than aware and just as happy to use their troops for the information. I don't believe claims that that late on no one was aware of the risks, especially given both countries major involvement in the Manhattan project even with the Yanks deciding the manpower and money we put into it wasn't worth sharing the research they agreed to...
The Menzies government were lap dogs for the British government. Whatever the Mother Country wanted, it was granted. Roberts Menzies was a bit of a fool... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibGwqMM6uU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ibGwqMM6uU)
I believe the British government did compensate its own troops who were exposed. And you are right, these governments knew what they were doing. The Australian government is waiting for the servicemen to die to avoid having to pay serious compensation not only to those who were affected, but their children and grandchildren too who may have genetic defects. It would open a pandora's box, not only to the servicemen and the Aborigines, but to the people of Brisbane and Adelaide as well. In Brisbane there was even black rain on one occasion. Where do you draw the line?
-
I believe the British government did compensate its own troops who were exposed.
I wish I could say that was true, but unfortunately we can't take the high ground on this one. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10611985/Forgotten-victims-of-Britains-nuclear-tests-on-Christmas-Island.html)
Stuff like that makes me really understand why people don't trust science claims from governments, but unfortunately that added with a massive amount of scientific illiteracy even amongst bright, technical minded people leads to ludicrous conspiracy theories about whole branches of science.
-
We are overpopulated. Big problem, no answers. No one has ever come up with a solution that does not violate human rights.
In China, the one child policy had very some bad side effects, like abortions of babies just because of they were females. Look at the ratio and male to females in China and do the maths - the results are horrifying.
Improving quality of life seems to slow the birth rate significantly. In most western countries the rate of natural increase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_natural_increase) is about 0, some countries even show negative numbers.
-
That won't help if my neighbor is allowed to throw stuff over the fence by the law that is maintained on his side of the fence. I.e. China creates massive amounts of air pollution and I can't do anything about it in my neighboring country.
Not just your Country.
China might be responsible for our horrible winters, says NASA (http://www.theloop.ca/china-might-be-responsible-for-our-horrible-winters-according-to-nasa/)
I wonder whether it also affects the winters in Europe. In the NL the winters have been particulary crappy as well. No snow and no ice at all.
This sight would freak my wife out though:
(http://www.theloop.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Awesome-door-loves-snow-Imgur.jpg)
From: http://www.theloop.ca/these-are-the-most-epic-snowfall-images-youll-ever-see/ (http://www.theloop.ca/these-are-the-most-epic-snowfall-images-youll-ever-see/)
My wife is a military brat. Her adoptive father was Coast Guard. When they were stationed at a light house in Maine, she remembers her father going out the 2nd floor window to shovel the snow away from the front door and create a walkway to the light house.
All theoretical blabla till it touches YOUR life.
Example: I can not think of any reason why we should keep a 3 months to early born babies alive in an incubator till it has enough strength to survive, where it is already proven they will have severe problems later in life due to detachment, undeveloped other parts of the body, many weaknesses etc. etc.
BUT if it is your child will you again think like that ? :-//
We have a bible in our family from the 18th century and on the first pages all births and deaths of the family are registered. From the average 8 children born more than 4 would die before age 4. The result is that only the strong survive. Nowadays every baby survives but the human race has never been so weak with all kinds of allergies and other illments. Still if it is your baby laying in that incubator it is a total different story than theoretically blabla. Same goes for surgery, do we really need to operate on 80 years and older humans or do we accept that we some day have to die and that some age is good enough? Still nice theoretically blabla till it is you at age 85 that is lying in that hospitalbed, will you stick to your story?
So why bringing this up, with all the previous pages SF virus bullshit talk, it is very clear to me that whoever is stupid enough to decide something like that should never act alone.
It should be at least an unanimous 50 person decision of 50 persons that do have relatives and family and the first persons to go should be those 50 people with all their relatives if they decide to do something stupid like that.
Lets see if that decision is ever going to be made, I don't think so. ;)
I was one of those incubator babies-6 weeks worth. I was born 1.5 months premature, a "blue baby" with RH disease in the 1950's. I was told that I had to have a complete blood transfusion at birth and I have a serious scar on my right elbow to show for it. Certainly, my parents didn't think about just letting me die. The only health issues are some cirrhosis of the liver-my own stupidity and obesity-again, my own stupidity. Outside of those 2 things-healthy as a horse as they say. My grandparents on my mother's side had 20 children, half of them made it to adulthood.
-
...
I'm not judging here just commenting to keep a balance. I do half get where you're coming from that those without the resources shouldn't have children they can't provide for. But there is a good argument for the position that the low level of education is the cause, not the symptom...
-
You need $$$ to be educated.
Most (good, up to spec) Chinese primary and middle schools are so corrupted that they will not accept a kid if the parents don't "donate" enough money to the school.
I "donated" at least 10k USD (past number, 3-4x more now) only for primary and middle school education.
Consider the average GDP in my hometown is only 11.5K USD/year, and real estate is more expensive than most part of the USA, you can have a figure how much it cost to survive, let along raising 2 kids.
The only reason I can have US education is that my grandparents are entrepreneurs, so they left behind some heritage. I can not imagine how a poor rural parent feel when they saw the GRE score sheet of their kid. Their kid has done everything to the best, just they can not afford the tuition.
I agree with you that people shouldn't have children if they can't afford them.
No one's bashing you personally because you're from China.
I don't think simply banning people from having more children is the correct way of dealing with this problem.
Don't take criticism of the Chinese government from foreigners personally.
You can say what you like about the UK government and it wouldn't upset me.
-
the one child policy granted the entire family resources to the only kid, so he/she can have better development
It is a tough question and obviously both sides have a point.
Personally, I think China took the right decision for population control, then and now.
However, I would not go so far to say that such a decision would be the right decision if / when applied to a different country or at a different point in time.
The important thing is to let the people decide.
-
You need $$$ to be educated.
...
The only reason I can have US education is that my grandparents are entrepreneurs, so they left behind some heritage. I can not imagine how a poor rural parent feel when they saw the GRE score sheet of their kid. Their kid has done everything to the best, just they can not afford the tuition.
And that was what I was saying the problem is. You can't really blame those with no chance of gaining even "standard" education for making mistakes it's pretty much proven is generally the result of a lack of education...
Sorry you sort of sounded like you were "blaming" the kids/parents you feel sorry for to begin with
EDIT: And by "making mistakes it's pretty much proven is generally the result of a lack of education" I meant using contraception or using it properly as a big example.
-
-To all westerners-
I would argue that the democracy practiced in most western countries are actually a form of tyranny (of the majority). It is more about legalized robbery. Todays Greece would be a great example of that.
The history of china is very interesting. For the large part of human history, china absolutely dominated. If someone were to judge humanity by its property some 1000s of years ago, they would have concluded that feudalism is the proven way to liberty, ;).
Over the last 30 year, the capitalist Chinese government has lifted more people out of poverty and created wealth than anyone.
It will be interesting to see where china goes from here.
-
Vote early vote often. Can't remember who said it, but they also voted the cemetery and the preschool. The prisoners also vote, though those boxes often come to the counting stations with the votes inside neatly stacked.
-
To all westerners, you can bash me, but I don't give human right a shit. Poor and uneducated parents shouldn't gave multiple kids, because they can not give their kids the best. By granting the parents rights to freely give birth, it deprives the rights of development of the poor kids.
I'm not going to bash you but thank you for your insight on how things work in China.
A century ago it was still the same in Europe. People had many kids so they could rely on the children supporting them at old age. Also infant mortality was high. If I look at my family tree I can see that my grandfather had several siblings which didn't make it beyond 5 or 6 years. If you have 8 kids one of them probably makes something out of his/her life and can support the parents. Kids where regarded a pension fund back then. Still a big family makes it easier to pull resources together and help each other. If you have 5 or 6 siblings it is easier to take turns for taking care of a family member.
-
Perhaps the Chinese government should encourage parents to have more girls rather than boys?
Having too many men and not enough women can cause more problems with crime and disorder.
Maybe give women money for every daughter they produce?
-To all westerners-
I would argue that the democracy practiced in most western countries are actually a form of tyranny (of the majority). It is more about legalized robbery. Todays Greece would be a great example of that.
I think you have that wrong. I don’t know about your Country but here voter turn out has steadily been declining, typically it’s at around 50% of eligible voters. That means in order for a majority government you need 51% of the eligible voters which translates to 25.5% of the adult population. When you factor in people selecting the best of a bad lot its more like maybe 10% of the population actually agree with the government’s policy.
Given how bloated the governments have become, particularly in western democracies essentially its people voting to keep their government jobs. This is particularly true of the current Ontario liberal government using tax dollars to buy votes by hiring more civil servants. Essentially this amounts to high paid welfare.
So really it’s not tyranny of the majority its tyranny of the minority. I myself haven’t voted in years, I can’t stand any of the parties they are all a bunch of crooked incompetent asses. I’ve said as much to them when they canvas door to door.
There's no such thing as a perfect democracy. There are only different shades of authoritarianism from the absolute dictatorships such as North Korea to almost liberal Sweden.
Generally more wealth leads to more liberal governments but it isn't always the case with Singapore and the oil rich states of the middle east being very authoritarian.
China has become less authoritarian as it's become richer.
-
Perhaps the Chinese government should encourage parents to have more girls rather than boys?
Perhaps we should tax people that promote sexism?
-
-To all westerners-
I would argue that the democracy practiced in most western countries are actually a form of tyranny (of the majority). It is more about legalized robbery. Todays Greece would be a great example of that.
We got here to a tipping point where half of the adults do not pay income tax so they don't care about the others paying more.
And then we have the tyranny of the non elected bureaucracy which keeps growing and controls our lives with rules and regulations that include additional taxes ('fees') and fines.
The cause root is that our schools are controlled by monopolistic public union members that live of taxes money and naturally teach our kids collectivism rather than personal liberty.
-
Perhaps the Chinese government should encourage parents to have more girls rather than boys?
For city people its quite the fashion now to want girls. I think country people still want boys.
-
-To all westerners-
I would argue that the democracy practiced in most western countries are actually a form of tyranny (of the majority). It is more about legalized robbery. Todays Greece would be a great example of that.
We got here to a tipping point where half of the adults do not pay income tax so they don't care about the others paying more.
Technically a lie. They may not pay federal income tax but half of American adults do not get away with not paying any income tax, they still have the state ones.
And tbh most of the BIG businesses avoid any tax and get massive welfare payments too. Though that is not an American peculiarity at all.
And neither is big companies getting subsidies via the benefits that have to go to their full time employees because they pay so little...
-
Technically a lie. They may not pay federal income tax but half of American adults do not get away with not paying any income tax, they still have the state ones.
And tbh most of the BIG businesses avoid any tax and get massive welfare payments too. Though that is not an American peculiarity at all.
And neither is big companies getting subsidies via the benefits that have to go to their full time employees because they pay so little...
Here the state income tax is a small faction of the federal income tax and is derived from the federal tax forms.
When people call for raising taxes it's typically on other people. That's pure greed.
And tbh most of the BIG businesses avoid any tax and get massive welfare payments too. Though that is not an American peculiarity at all.
If corporations get subsidized that's bad.
And neither is big companies getting subsidies via the benefits that have to go to their full time employees because they pay so little...
The government gives the benefits to the employees, not the employer. If I agreed with my employer on X dollars but I want 2X it's my problem, not his.
-
The government gives the benefits to the employees, not the employer. If I agreed with my employer on X dollars but I want 2X it's my problem, not his.
At the end of the day McDonald's, Walmart, etc couldn't get away with employing people at those rates if their employees didn't have access to those in work benefits. So that's a case of the taxpayer subsidising the employer by topping up the employees earnings. That also removes a large part of competition and free market forces. I can chose to shop at CostCo instead of Walmart because of how they treat their staff, but the sales taxes are still in part paying Walmart employees so reducing Walmarts costs...
Same with supporting your local family run grocers etc on Main Street. You buy from them you're subsidising Walmart, when you may have gone to them purely to keep money out of Walmart's hands.
-
You buy from them you're subsidising Walmart
Darn it. Now I have to starve myself, :)
So you either don't subsidize anyone, or subsidize them all (which is the same as not subsidizing anyone).
BTW, why is everyone so hating walmart?
-
BTW, why is everyone so hating walmart?
It's not everyone, go to the their stores, they are full of shoppers that appreciate the reasonable prices.
-
So you either don't subsidize anyone, or subsidize them all (which is the same as not subsidizing anyone).
Nah, but some subsidies (including tax breaks) only hide problems, not fix them. Oil companies, bankers, retailers and the likes don't need convincing to carry on making ridiculous profits. Subsidies shouldn't go to those already on sure bets, they should go to those taking the risky steps towards the net big thing that will prop up the economy or that have a definite public benefit.
BTW, why is everyone so hating walmart?
Just a convenient example. Big name everyone recognises and most know the dirty tricks they get up to. If say the average worker can afford to top up Walmart's employees wages as is currently the case then the Walton's and shareholders can well afford it. Instead they expect taxpayers to pick up the slack while at the same time avoiding their own personal taxes. So you're paying for them to get richer 10% faster than they would paying their fair share...
It's not everyone, go to the their stores, they are full of shoppers that appreciate the reasonable prices.
Add all those hidden costs to the sticker price would you, and would they be so much cheaper? Discount retailers here like Aldi manage to pay their employees much more than ASDA-Walmart do and still have lower prices than ASDA without the hidden cost of tax credits for their employees.
If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage then you're not a viable business. If your employees are having to rely on the state to top up their earnings then that's big government keeping what should be a failed business afloat, by redistributing your wealth to the shareholders.
Where I’m going with this is if you start raising pay for low skill labour everything goes up everybodys dollar doesn’t go as far as it used to including the Walmart employees dollar.
You're already paying those higher wages for Walmart so they don't have to. Same effect on the overall economy.
A 10 dollar walmart special will now be 30 dollars.
Is the CostCo one 3 times the price already?
Again just using Walmart as an example.
-
Oil companies, bankers, retailers and the likes don't need convincing to carry on making ridiculous profits.
If you make a living working at those companies, or as an investor in those companies, you may come to appreciate the difficulties those guys have to endure to make those "ridiculous profits".
-
To give you some sense how much "ridiculous profits" walmart makes: they sell about 500bn usd in revenue, and make 16bn usd in net income. that's about 3% in margin.
As a poor laborer, you make more in term of the margin than wmt does.
-
To give you some sense how much "ridiculous profits" walmart makes: they sell about 500bn usd in revenue, and make 16bn usd in net income. that's about 3% in margin.
As a poor laborer, you make more in term of the margin than wmt does.
I very much doubt those figures, that will just be what they couldn't avoid declaring to the tax man. If they only make 16 billion a year worldwide how can they justify paying their CEO circa 200 million a year?
But lets assume that's true, they aren't a viable business so should be allowed to die. That's what the free market's about.
EDIT: Yeah I was right, that's the dividends paid out not their actual profits. And it only covers US earnings...
-
But lets assume that's true, they aren't a viable business so should be allowed to die. That's what the free market's about.
Every business is should be allowed to die but not forced to die. So far they are a successful business.
-
I very much doubt those figures, that will just be what they couldn't avoid declaring to the tax man.
WMT is a public company and its filings are available for everyone to see. You are essentially arguing that they are cooking their books and the all-too-smart government that is your solution to everyone's problems is too stupid to catch it.
If they only make 16 billion a year worldwide how can they justify paying their CEO circa 200 million a year?
Apples and banans.
But lets assume that's true,
Don't assume that's true. Do your investigations and make sure that you understand them before attempting to make another unfunded allegations that you cannot substantiate.
they aren't a viable business
They are a business that makes "ridiculous profits" yet they are not viable?
Can we at least ask that you make up your mind as to what you think WMT is?
EDIT: Yeah I was right, that's the dividends paid out not their actual profits. And it only covers US earnings...
You can help restore your credibility greatly if you speak only on things that you know of.
-
If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage then you're not a viable business. If your employees are having to rely on the state to top up their earnings then that's big government keeping what should be a failed business afloat, by redistributing your wealth to the shareholders.
Are we confusing between employers and parents? ;-)
Employer's obligation is to pay the agreed upon salary. If the government chooses to give a citizen money it's between the government and the citizen, not his employer.
-
But lets assume that's true, they aren't a viable business so should be allowed to die. That's what the free market's about.
Every business is should be allowed to die but not forced to die. So far they are a successful business.
I'm been presented the argument they've got to be propped up by the government (your government, my government, and probably every other country the operate in governments) because they aren't profitable enough to survive without. If that's the case they are on life support and the plug should be pulled. If it was it wouldn't surprise me if suddenly they can survive without the extraordinary intervention.
You can help restore your credibility greatly if you speak only on things that you know of.
I went by their 2014 data on their website. Dividends come from profits, they are not the entire stash and are not where most investors earn most of their money. They're a "reward" for not selling shares...
You could gain some credibility by explaining how you got the numbers wrong AND misunderstood the difference between profits and dividends.
I'm actually seriously surprised you're so anti capitalism and free market tbh.
Are we confusing between employers and parents? ;-)
Employer's obligation is to pay the agreed upon salary. If the government chooses to give a citizen money it's between the government and the citizen, not his employer.
Why should the government, so in the long run every body who actually pays taxes, be parent to Walmart and every other company that relies on benefits/welfare to keep going? Simple fact of the matter is if we weren't paying their staff for them they would have to offer higher pay. The only people who should be paying Walmart's employees wages are Walmart and their customers, not every tax payer.
-
as we go on to our future, money has become more important to certain interest groups than lives, lands, etc.
It has always been important and sometimes more important.
and unfortunately, nobody is going to stop that due to ... economic reasons? :-DD
And that's why you have all those people agitating for "equality" or "fairness" - just don't try to force them to tell you what they meant by "equality" or "fairness" because you may not like it.
... if land is really divided equally, all the rich men with their mansions will be up in arms !
You too.
Just ask yourself why should land be evenly divided among humans? Should we have equal amount of money in our bank accounts? ....
Should that equality be just among people in your family? people in your neighborhood? people in your province? people in your country or everyone in the world? The very fact that you are here would be a sure bet that you are far better off than someone dying of starvation in Africa, or Iraq, ...
Should we start equalizing you and your life with them?
All those "revolutionaries" care about isn't equality for the little guys like you. They care about taking what's not theirs and make it theirs. The little guys like you are nothing but pawns to facilitate that transfer of wealth.
If you are lucky, you may get some crumbs in the process but don't set up your expectation too high.