China's Electronic Waste Village

[nitro2k01]

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.

[nitro2k01]

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.

[madires]

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.

[Noize]

Quote from:

With scientists like that, who needs enemy?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/16/obamas-mad-science-adviser/

[Mechanical Menace]

Quote from:

With scientists like that, who needs enemy?

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.

[nitro2k01]

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

[VK3DRB]

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

  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  . In any case, you want dentists to survive first and foremost . Without dentists we are stuffed, no matter how expensive they are. Followed by electrical engineers . Last on the list is politicians 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.

[nctnico]

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.

[Kjelt]

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?

[rollatorwieltje]

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.

[dannyf]

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.

[CatalinaWOW]

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.

[pickle9000]

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

  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  . In any case, you want dentists to survive first and foremost . Without dentists we are stuffed, no matter how expensive they are. Followed by electrical engineers . Last on the list is politicians 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?

[mtdoc]

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 modelling is proving to be very accurate.

[dannyf]

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.

[dannyf]

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, .....

[dannyf]

Quote from:
With scientists like that, who needs enemy?



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.

[nitro2k01]

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?

[nctnico]

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

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:

From: http://www.theloop.ca/these-are-the-most-epic-snowfall-images-youll-ever-see/

[VK3DRB]

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

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[CatalinaWOW]

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.

[Mechanical Menace]

...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.

[zapta]

... 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.

[dannyf]

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.