Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/16/13 11:32 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

:Example when the plastic breaks down it provides various resources to life in the area like coral.

Holy shit I want you to cite this rofl..

In other words it would be a lot more practical to hire these people for something that is not a wast of time and resources.

Reducing employment in any fashion is highly unAmerican. And recycling is a waste of resource, you are fucking out of your mind.

I don't know where you got that idea about land fills from. Look the ones you saw probably weren't finished. I have seen other land fills then just this one and they do the same process of filling it with layers of clay, then dirt on the top, followed by vegetation and you don't have to just take my word for it. There federal guide lines and regulations on this.

That isn't how a landfill is constructed, but nice try.

At 1/16/13 11:32 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: OK first off the Pacific gyre has nothing to do with land fills or recycling. Its caused by lazy individuals throwing trash in the ocean. Instead of the garbage can. Which your never going to stop with recycling. Also your with holding a lot of info about the Pacific grye. You fail to mention how the trash does not just come from the United States. You also fail to mention that although there are bad things about the Pacific gyre there are also good things about it. Example when the plastic breaks down it provides various resources to life in the area like coral.

-Recycling is a globally accepted practice in numerous countries (especially developed countries) so the obvious shouldn't need be pointed out that the Pacific gyre is affected by other countries.
-Recycling has an additional benefit of getting people more interested in climate change, and environmentalism and in turn results in less people littering.
-I don't know if you realize but the pacific gyre (the trash circle) is towards the surface of the ocean, and that ocean is very deep. Not much coral gets any level of benefit all the way down in the Mariana trench. Side that, the disadvantages to such garbage greatly out weighs any possible benefits.

I don't know how you got that idea from the jobs part. There argument with the jobs was that it made no more sense hiring these people to recycle then it did to hire then to cut a law with toe nail calipers. In other words it would be a lot more practical to hire these people for something that is not a wast of time and resources.

Different places have different ways of dealing with various problems. Some do it better than others. For example in some places those jobs are replaced by a single machine that removes metal with a magnet, heavy glass with a shifting grid, plastic bits with brushes and so on. Some cities use hybrid and electric trucks for garbage and recycling pickup.

I don't know where you got that idea about land fills from. Look the ones you saw probably weren't finished. I have seen other land fills then just this one and they do the same process of filling it with layers of clay, then dirt on the top, followed by vegetation and you don't have to just take my word for it. There federal guide lines and regulations on this.

I've been to a dump a few times and it stinks. The air right above it bends light slightly as tons of gases escape. It's questionable if clay layers are even used, would that be enough?

Lets move forward to discredit this episode of a show that hasn't been around for quite some time now. Penn and Teller played a little game with a couple home owners (possibly actors) with numerous pickup bins. Here in my city its one bin for garbage, one for recycling. Nothing more, nothing less. There was also a point in the episode where they made it seem as if recycling was absolute law and you had to do it, in which is a false as no place in the US or Canada forces you to recycle as far as I am aware to-date.

Recycling done right has no problems.

To Carmarohusky

I fail to see your point with the land and the trees. This is not a proposal that I made up. They are currently doing it. So in other words they they ARE finding the land to grow trees because they ARE growing trees and doing this. The point was not that the resource for glass was a renewable resource. The point was that there is so much of the stuff that worrying about us running out of it is like worrying about us mining all the resources in the Universe. As I said it is a joke to even bring that up.

Garbage dumps, you seem to fail to realize that that stuff breaks down over time. Where do you think that methane that they suck out comes from in the video. It comes from degrading trash. Oh right YOU didn't watch the video. You really should. They explain all this stuff.

You said "Let's also not forget rare earth metals that drive our electronics." Please list of which ones your thinking of specifically?

You said "If we run out of iron today, what will we switch to? Aluminum? Not strong enough. Lead? Not versatile or light enough. Titanium? Yes, that's much cheaper than recycling... NOT." Once again your being a closed minded twit. Your only thinking of ways and resources that we have now and you fail to see other ways of getting these resources. With the iron we are not running out of it any time soon. The estimates that we will run out soon are based on the idea that we will find absolutely no more. But of course we DO keep finding these resources and there is no sine that we are finding less over time.

If fact if you listen to what these environmentalists were saying during the 80's then we should have run out of steel by now. Resources are constantly being found in fact California has recently found a shit load of oil and you fail to see how we can do things different like drilling deeper mines. There are all sorts of new ways that we are finding these resources. So enough of this we are going to run out of resources end of the world bull shit.

You said "I'm saying that we need to recycle now to ensure that when it does come to that point we have not gone beyond the point of no return" Trust me it wont just happen like that. We will switch long before that time comes which I don't think will be any time soon. Oh and before you say well it will happen some day. I just want to point out that will take like a thousand years and by then we will have colonized other worlds and be harvesting resources from them. Once again enough of this we are going to run out of resources end of the world bull shit.

To CaveStoryGrounds

You know the resources I was talking about doesn't just stay in the Pacific gyre and besides. But lets say for the sake of argument that your right and i'm wrong. I still fail to see your point with this. The Pacific gyre has nothing to do with recycling or with land fills. In fact as far as I can see it has nothing to do with this topic. So whats your point with the Pacific gyre?

At 1/16/13 12:56 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Carmarohusky

I fail to see your point with the land and the trees. This is not a proposal that I made up. They are currently doing it. So in other words they they ARE finding the land to grow trees because they ARE growing trees and doing this. The point was not that the resource for glass was a renewable resource. The point was that there is so much of the stuff that worrying about us running out of it is like worrying about us mining all the resources in the Universe. As I said it is a joke to even bring that up.

Garbage dumps, you seem to fail to realize that that stuff breaks down over time. Where do you think that methane that they suck out comes from in the video. It comes from degrading trash. Oh right YOU didn't watch the video. You really should. They explain all this stuff.

Yes it degrades, but you point out a problem. It degrades into things like methane THAT DO NOT HELP THE GROWTH OF PLANTS OR LIFE. Also, there are other nasty hazardous chemicals that go into the landfill. Do you think that people like who so detest recycling are going to separate their hazardous chemicals from their trash?! Not likely. They'll just throw away their paint thinners and oil based paints and their bleach products and their poisons away with their regular trash. So, how exactly does that render landfill land good for growing plants?

Oh, and how long does it take plastic to break down?

You said "Let's also not forget rare earth metals that drive our electronics." Please list of which ones your thinking of specifically?

Nickel Cadmium, of which we are already getting stuck by the Chinese who have a virtual monopoly on the resource.

You said "If we run out of iron today, what will we switch to? Aluminum? Not strong enough. Lead? Not versatile or light enough. Titanium? Yes, that's much cheaper than recycling... NOT." Once again your being a closed minded twit.

Seeing as it only took us 5 years of production to run out of our high yield iron flows (and we didnt realize it until far later) we can run out of things like iron well before we really realize it's low or gone.

Your only thinking of ways and resources that we have now and you fail to see other ways of getting these resources. With the iron we are not running out of it any time soon. The estimates that we will run out soon are based on the idea that we will find absolutely no more. But of course we DO keep finding these resources and there is no sine that we are finding less over time.

So you also like the idea of being beholden to countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China? What happens if they have all the resources we need?

I just want to point out that will take like a thousand years and by then we will have colonized other worlds and be harvesting resources from them.

Because that's a WHOLE LOT CHEAPER than recycling.

Please stop with this "everything is free forever" bullshit. I have already shown you how iron became a heap more expensive for the US to mine because of overuse. Oh, and those deep drilling wells are a heap more expensive to mine. Let;s also not forget the blacklash that can happen which can take a new form of extraction and put a major limp in it, see fracking. It's this "everything in front of us will ALWAYS be better so we don't have to act with even the slightest bit of responsibility" shit that ends up getting us into so many damn problems. Recycling isn't SO expensive that it removes the benefits of conservation of resources, land, and resource security.

At 1/16/13 12:30 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: no place in the US or Canada forces you to recycle as far as I am aware to-date.

That is untrue. In Seattle the weight ratio of recycling to garbage has to be over a pecific amount (like 20%) or you will be fined.

At 1/16/13 01:14 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: The Pacific gyre has nothing to do with recycling or with land fills. In fact as far as I can see it has nothing to do with this topic. So whats your point with the Pacific gyre?

Seriously? You're saying "let's all have a party and throw our shit away!" And then when someone says, "hey, throwing shit away can cause serious environmental problems" you immediately deflect them and say "that's not on topic." The gyre is extremely topical. It shows that trashing garbage (most of the gyre being highly recycleable garbage) can have seriously bad consequences, most of which could have been avoided through recycling.

Something I thought needed to be pointed out: the overwhelming majority of trees used to make paper are eucalyptus, which if I recall correctly do serious harm to the soil they're planted in. This makes the land they're grown on very unusable very quickly, resulting in companies planting more tracts of land with more eucalyptus trees that destroy more soil. It's actually a very unsustainable and environmentally damaging practice the way it's conducted today.

Carmarohysky I already said that they suck out the methane. Then they sell it. To help pay for costs. This is explained in the video. In the case of the land fill in the video they sell it to a near by power plant. So the methane does not just build up in the land fill.

Now this next thing is for every one the is for recycling. I was thinking of making a list and links of various sources that talk about the problems with recycling but then I realized that most (if any) of you would not even bother to look at it because it is heresy against your recycling doctrine. I also know that no matter what I say I will not convince any of you other wise. So instead I will ask a question and make a suggestion.

Since you love recycling so much why don't you and all your other Environmentalist Buddy's research a less expensive and more efficient way to recycle or at lest fund groups that are doing this research? If you do that then I will support you and I guaranty that if you find away to make recycling cheaper, more efficient and more practical the company's will recycle everything like they do with aluminum cans. That's the way you get the companies on board is to find a way they can make more profit by doing what you want. But as it is recycling is currently not very efficient, questionable on how much resources it really saves (don't forget that it takes resources to recycle) and in some ways it causes pollution mentioned by the video.

So like I said if you really think recycling is the way to go then find a better way to recycle.

At 1/16/13 01:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/16/13 01:14 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: The Pacific gyre has nothing to do with recycling or with land fills. In fact as far as I can see it has nothing to do with this topic. So whats your point with the Pacific gyre?

The gyre is extremely topical. It shows that trashing garbage (most of the gyre being highly recycleable garbage) can have seriously bad consequences, most of which could have been avoided through recycling.

Camarohusky there is a BIG difference between properly disposing trash by throwing it in the garbage and sending it to a land fill then there is with throwing trash in a river, lake, or ocean. People who are to lazy to throw there trash away in a garbage can are not going to make the effort to throw it in recycling can so like I said the Pacific gyre how nothing to do with recycling or with land fills. These people will litter with or with out recycling.

At 1/17/13 01:23 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: I was thinking of making a list and links of various sources that talk about the problems with recycling but then I realized that most (if any) of you would not even bother to look at it because it is heresy against your recycling doctrine.

Seriously? Are you five? Just don't post youtube sources and youtube is not a credible source in any sense of the word. The only other articles I don't read are opinion artiles posted as if they are fact.

So stop being a child and post a source.

But as it is recycling is currently not very efficient, questionable on how much resources it really saves (don't forget that it takes resources to recycle) and in some ways it causes pollution mentioned by the video.

So what if current recycling is not very efficient? It's still a better habit than throwing everything away.

You claim the oh so intelligent market will come in and change when the time is right, but really, when has the market EVER done that? With the dotcoms? With the real estate bubble? The market has a nasty habit of milking as much out of something as they can before they abandon it for something better. In the case of resources that something better may never come. We've run massive stocks dry, destroyed huge tracts of saleable land, and let towns die because we decided to keep on going until there was nothing left to pull.

So, I challenge you to actually answer a question: Why is attempting to do the right thing (and perhaps create an economy of scale) wrong?

To Carmarohusky

You said "So, I challenge you to actually answer a question: Why is attempting to do the right thing (and perhaps create an economy of scale) wrong?" OK three things. One you did not answer my question or tell me what you think about the idea to research a better way to recycle. I was referring to researching a better form of recycling one that is cheaper then the current form and is so cheap that it is cheaper to recycle then it is to make the product from base resources. Now lets look at it from the point of view from a business man/woman. If your making a product and then you learn a cheaper way to make the product then wouldn't you switch to the cheaper form and if you still don't believe that they would switch to the cheaper form and start recycling then here is an example of how they DID. Aluminium cans are now recycled by the company and they even pay people to bring them used cans that's why you see bums collecting them. They do this because it is cheaper to recycle aluminum cans. Three there is nothing wrong with wanting to help but this is not helping and in some ways its hurting. If you really want to help then help find a better way to recycle.

Now onto the video. As I said before this video did not originally come from youtube and I already explained what show and who it came from. Now let me get this straight are your saying that it can be the exact same video as long as its not on youtube. Well here is the exact same same video on a different website. There now you don't have any more lame excuses not to watch the video. Really I should not even had to post this because I already told you who made it so you can look up for your self to see if you think they are a credible source.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v7026747ZaXqbSpS?h1=Penn+%26+Telle r%3A+Bullshit!+-+Recycling

Until you respond to what you think about finding a better way to recycle I wont bother responding to you any more.

At 1/15/13 03:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So you're saying recycling has no use because it is expensive?

What about the environmental benefits? What about the resource benefits?

No substance on Earth is infinite. Many of the substances we use heavily are actually extremely rare.

So, sure, to the "proft now! Fuck the future!" Wall Street sort of crowd, yeah recycling is too expensive. But to the industries that want to stick around long term recycling is hugely important. It may be expensive to recover used resources, ut it's a hell of a lot cheaper to recycle now than it will be to dig up the landfills to recycle later.

On top of that, very few recyclable substances can be used without an infusion of new material. So what happens to those when there is no new material left?

Think of recycling as akin to maintaining your house. Sure it's cheap to not repaint and reprime every 10 years, and cheaper to not replace the gutters, and cheaper to not re-roof every 10 or so years. But they're not cheaper than having to reinstall the entire siding, repair the entire drainage system, fix a massive roof leak, permanent structural replacement for part of the house, or worse, having to abandon the house and go elsewhere.

In short, the view that recycling is too expensive to have any worht whatsoever is extremely short-sighted and 100% foolish. Now, that does not mean that we all wouldn't love a cheaper way to recycle, we definitely would. But making recycling economic and the question as to whether recycling is still a good investment are two different issues.

Deficit: When a country spends more than they can produce.

Know what's foolish? Going into a financial deficit over an issue that probably doesn't even exist. Even if it does exist, why not just let the free market handle itself? Government regulations won't solve a deficit (then again, government is known to create more issues).

However, if you feel you should give up your independent liberty to serve "the greater good", then feel free to put yourself in chains and go to the all-knowing government. They'll be more than happy to take you.

At 1/17/13 11:57 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: Until you respond to what you think about finding a better way to recycle I wont bother responding to you any more.

And until you respoind with actual examples of the economy stopping a dangerous habit before it went too far, you will have nothing to say either.

Penn and Teller are magicians, not sources. I've seen their show and while they make good logical points, they rarely back it up. While logic should dictate things, pure logic often runs counter to reality.

Don't you have any study, or at least something written so I can actually look at it? (Listening must not be your strong suit.)

At 1/17/13 03:31 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Deficit: When a country spends more than they can produce.

Recycing isn't Federal. Try again.

Know what's foolish? Going into a financial deficit over an issue that probably doesn't even exist. Even if it does exist, why not just let the free market handle itself?

Why not let the free market handle it itself? Because the free market has only the interests of the free market at hand, not of the actual economy. How many time in the past 20 years has the economy and the nation been screwed because the free market was looking out for its own interests? Let's just say we're not in the biggest economic downturn in 80 years because the free market was prudent or even anything less than completely reckless.

However, if you feel you should give up your independent liberty to serve "the greater good", then feel free to put yourself in chains and go to the all-knowing government. They'll be more than happy to take you.

And if you wish to leech and be selfish, please leave. I'm tired of supporting you. We live in a community where there are communal needs and comunal benefits. The benefit of national resource security is HUGE. We can see this with oil. Why are you so willing to sell out to China and Iran knowing how bad OPEC likes to fuck us on oil?