Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 9 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Recycled ideas are great start
Published Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Recycled ideas are often the best kind.
Old or new, a good idea is a good idea.
And recycled ideas on recycling have people talking in Natchez and Adams County.
For the first time in years, our community has made a concerted effort to begin a county-wide recycling program.
We aren’t there yet, but people are talking.
Monday night the county recycling committee opted to take a different route from the previously planned one. The county and city won’t be seeking grant dollars for recycling bins or other programs, but will instead lead the private sector to handle things.
A few businessmen have expressed interest in opening a recycling facility, and said they will do so soon.
In turn, the recycling committee is going to focus its energies on educating the public on recycling.
Our community needs to know why we should recycle, what can be recycled and how we can do it.
The ideas on the table lately haven’t been necessarily new or innovative, but they have been ideas.
Our community must continue to talk about recycling. If one idea doesn’t work, try another.
But, let’s keep trash on the table, no matter what.
Comments
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to get a handle on this recycling talk before recycling catches on and destroys the earth and all life on it. Recycling reinforces the idea that consumerism is sustainable when it clearly is not; all recycling can possibly hope to do is delay resource depletion so that some future generation faces life on a barren earth reduced to darting from one abandoned recycling center to another in search of shelter. Aside from the fact that money made from recycling is itself reycled into consumerism, requiring more goods and even the manufacture of more money and killing of more trees, the carbon sequesterd in once-used trashed is released into the atmosphere causing even more global warming.
We need to realize that trash is not the problem, people are, especially consumerizing people. What are we going to do about this problem?
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For once Enkir, I have to totally disagree with you. Killing all the trees???? That is the SOLE reason to recycle paper. To save our forest. Paper products are made from trees. I thought everyone knew that simple fact.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Recycling causes the killing of more trees and I am as against that as you are destiny. Recycling causes the killing of more trees because it sustains consumerism and humanity. The longer humanity continues to use the longer this wanton tree killing will continue. Humans, apart from beavers, are the only tree killing species on the planet. Humans are the problem.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, beavers are part of the problem too, but a small part compared to humans since we have invaded their habitat.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well...since you put it that way...lets just get rid of the problem...US!
Oh, yeah, the pesky little beaver critters should be eradicated too...that'll save the trees.
You might want to come up with another method, I rather doubt many people will approve of their own premature demise.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They will if you don't hit them with the hard facts up front and you let them believe recycling is the problem Sam. First you educate them about recycling while you educate their children about sustainability. You show their kids pictures of polar bears on ice floes and pictures of starving kids standing in lines in Africa and India waiting to scoop a bucket of water from a muddy borehole. You explain to the kids that there are just too many people and that the American middle class is consuming most of the earth's resources, so the American middle class, the kid's parents, are really responsible for those thirsty and starving kids in Africa and India. You explain how selfish and ignorant the parents are, and how it is up to the young to change things for the better.
You teach the kids sex education, or abortion programming, whichever you prefer to call it, and explain that young ladies have a right to kill their children. You tell them responsible young people practice birth control etc, so that sooner or later abortion and sterilization become a fad. Young people start to see sterlization as sexy and eco friendly, a social responsibility that gives them status among their peers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...
Next you educate on how helpful euthanasia is to ending the misery of suffering people and lowering healthcare costs. You have classes in school called death education that help young minds face their fears about death- fears that become real when you show them horrible pictures of dozens and dozens of decaying bodies belonging to once starving people.
All it takes is education. With proper education we can solve the human problem, we only have to change the old idea that human life is somehow worth more than that of any other species. Once that is done, and the people realize that the greatest danger to planet earth is their very presence they might not be so averse to a pre-emptive nuclear strike or two aimed at thinning out the population, especially if the population being thinned is living in misery without enough food and water.
You can't just start with mercifully killing people though. You have to start small with something like recycling and slowly develop the underlying philosophy of sustainablitlity. Humans are not sustainable, period. The earth can support at most one half of a billion people.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 24, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Besides Sam, you don't eradicate US, you eradicate THEM, at first.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What about them pesky tree eatin' rodents? At some point during the eradication they would be become endangered species and we couldn't eradicate them anymore...hmm, does that hold true for humans?
This whole thing is just farcical if it weren't so serious. It's all nice and fuzzy to recycle, but at some point pragmatism and fiscal responsibility have to come into play. You're right to a degree, some of the eco-terrorists think that the only way to save the planet is to get rid of humans, at least that is the way they behave.
Oh, it's OK to wreck the the oil industry by not drilling for oil offshore because it might kill a fish...it's OK to wreck the lumber industry because it kills a tree and might disturb an owl...etc., etc...WHAT ABOUT THE HUMANS? They want to throw the baby out with the bathwater...I want to save the baby and recycle the bathwater.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 25, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...I'm beginning to see a real problem here...the Marines are moving to "green bullets"...these are leadless bullets (because lead is injurious to human health)...seems they are just as deadly in use as lead bullets but they're made from tungsten and nylon.
Nylon...cool, it's invented and manufactured here in the good ole USA.
But tungsten, is rare compared to lead and in 2000..."over 75% of this production came from China, while most of the remaining production is done in Austria, Bolivia, Portugal, and Russia, while United States produces none."
Hmm...I think I'd like to risk lead poisoning in those who deserve it (if they get shot it was meant to kill them anyway), and make sure we keep the babies away from gunnery ranges, instead of being obliged to China and Russia for ammunition sources...duh, whatever happened to common sense?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)