Stuff

Whitlock · September 26, 2008, 10:36:54 AM

Chew on this

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

glenn kangiser · September 26, 2008, 08:48:58 PM

Careful, Whitlock. Your computer screen will suck you into it. Welcome to the Matrix.

Whitlock is a good friend with a CP style rustic cabin near me.

I had to run the link in Internet Explorer to get it to work. Many interesting thoughts there, but I came away with one main thought.

Earth first.......

We'll mine the rest of the planets later. What was your take on it? hmm

...and one more thing....... I think she is right about protecting breast feeding.

September 26, 2008, 09:28:22 PM

I think it's easier to download it. Then watch it. Mine's underway.

MountainDon · September 26, 2008, 10:05:56 PM

Near the beginning she states the governments job is to take care of us....

Wrong.

Whitlock · September 26, 2008, 10:22:43 PM

Quote from: MountainDon on September 26, 2008, 10:05:56 PM
Near the beginning she states the governments job is to take care of us....

Wrong.

Then what is the job of our goverment? The goverment is by the people for the people (or it is suppose to be that way

So if that is the case woulden't the goverments job be to take care of it's self or it's people?

September 26, 2008, 11:26:39 PM

Depends on your definition or expectation of "take care of us."

Perhaps I should expand on my previous statement. When I hear someone make a statement like that I interpret that as a statement demanding that the government provide cradle to grave services for all of life's needs, socialism if you will. Perhaps I judge too harshly.

To me, the government role in our lives should be minimized and the rights of the individual maximized. Government should be small and limited; government should preserve individual freedom, free markets and private property rights. The government should provide defense from exterior and interior enemies. The people would be free to pursue (their own definition of) happiness, and provide for themselves through free trade.

In our modern society we must accept the need for basic rules, traffic safety for example, basic safety, fire and police services.

She also throws around a lot of figures without much of an attempt to show where they came from. I know that's a lot to be asked for in only 20 minutes.

OMMV

Whitlock · September 27, 2008, 12:03:56 AM

The little video is basiclly on garbge that we bye that we think we need but could most likely live without.
The fail factor on products is a joke why does the consumer let it happen?I coulden't believe it when I saw my frist disposable camera

What the F is that about)
I gess I'm old fashion just about everything I own is older than me and still running and if it brakes I can fix it.

Take care,Whitlock

MountainDon · September 27, 2008, 12:23:09 AM

Disposable cameras are great for canoe trips and stuff like that where you wouldn't want to take your more expensive camera.

And the carcass of the camera was recycled by responsible photofinishers... at least it was years ago when film was more common that digital.

I like having the choice of a wide array of "stuff". I don't buy it all. I like to have the choice. I too have a lot of stuff that is old and some that is newer. For the most part I don't like getting something new when I still have a serviceable old one. So, I'm not the atypical consumer, but not a screaming' green either. We recycle more "stuff" than we put in the trash can.

Re the video: and the claim that we have less than 4% of our original forests left; I'm not sure about that. As measured from what date? And is there a reason to believe that the old larger amount was really better or necessary? One thing I am certain of is that we here in the USA have more forest acreage now than we had 100 years ago. That's progress. Where would our food be grown if we had all those tress around that she says are missing?

MountainDon · September 27, 2008, 12:35:35 AM

Another thing popped into my mind.... her remark about the "real costs" (I may have the phreaseoly wrong) of an item. She was using a $4.99 Radio Shack radio as an example. She named off various costs that weren't covered by the $4.99. Health care was one of those. Right off that comment shouts "socialism" to me... the government is expected to take care of me.

Anyhow, enough for tonight... off to the mountains!!

PS great to meet you Whitlock. take care.

September 27, 2008, 12:41:03 AM

Re the video: and the claim that we have less than 4% of our original forests left; I'm not sure about that. As measured from what date? And is there a reason to believe that the old larger amount was really better or necessary? One thing I am certain of is that we here in the USA have more forest acreage now than we had 100 years ago. That's progress. Where would our food be grown if we had all those tress around that she says are missing?

[/quote]

That has to be B.S. 4% is way off base. Maybe old growth forest? Trees are one of the best renewable resorses we have

and the 70 cans of trash for every one we put in the land fill at frist I though she was off base on this one too but then I took a product and started braking it down in my head and she might be right

I'm not green by any means and the video was. I just don't like the way are population has become. Buy it, use it , throw it away. What are we teaching are kids?

glenn kangiser · September 27, 2008, 01:02:27 AM

Quote from: MountainDon on September 27, 2008, 12:23:09 AM
Disposable cameras are great for canoe trips and stuff like that where you wouldn't want to take your more expensive camera. And the carcass of the camera was recycled by responsible photofinishers... at least it was years ago when film was more common that digital.

I like having the choice of a wide array of "stuff". I don't buy it all. I like to have the choice. I too have a lot of stuff that is old and some that is newer. For the most part I don't like getting something new when I still have a serviceable old one. So, I'm not the atypical consumer, but not a screaming' green either. We recycle more "stuff" than we put in the trash can.

Re the video: and the claim that we have less than 4% of our original forests left; I'm not sure about that. As measured from what date? And is there a reason to believe that the old larger amount was really better or necessary? One thing I am certain of is that we here in the USA have more forest acreage now than we had 100 years ago. That's progress. Where would our food be grown if we had all those tress around that she says are missing?

Like, dude, My computer types all wrong -misses letters etc. and I didn't check it for some reason until Sassy started making fun of me.

RE the trees-- The reason we had the fire here is that we have more trees and brush here than there has been in 150 years -- right now. The native Americans used to burn the brush off and the miners used all the wood about 150 years ago, but now it is out of control in a lot of places.

When flying over Oregon I noted that reforestation was being done on all of the clear cuts and there were likely more trees there now, than there were in the old days. Most were already large trees. Maybe not old growth, but we are not good at recycling old people either, so new trees are fine with me.