BobBill

Front Page: Big Problem Big Solution and Fail

Recommended Posts

Its a gimmick...

the problem is in the third world...it must be addressed in those countries.

 

IMG_8103.JPG

  • Like 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a start. 
It's a partial solution for a bigger problem. 
It's an attempt to establish best practice. 
It's leading by example. 
Then the discussion can begin in the developing world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawaii is so third world.  I was alarmed to learn that microplastics are ending up in filter-feeding shellfish - even  farmed  oysters and mussels - because it's so prevalent in the water everywhere.  Cosmetic companies are no longer allowed to use them (tiny microbeads) in makeup because they get washed down the drain and through the sewage treatment plants and spewed into the ocean.  If we can make old plastic valuable as a raw material it would be a good thing.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PaulK said:

Hawaii is so third world. 

Slug 's brain dead .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean my lifetime Cliffy is in danger of being snatched from my greasy little fingers?

I’d better start looking for a new avatar!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Its a gimmick...

the problem is in the third world...it must be addressed in those countries.

 

IMG_8103.JPG

Slugger. +1. Fake news...I get it...! New image for flotsam!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 5:17 AM, slug zitski said:

Its a gimmick...

the problem is in the third world...it must be addressed in those countries.

 

 

third world problem is  insufficient waste collection, so it gets tossed anywhere...   issue is 1st world, at least in usa, as everyone wants their food and products in nice clean packaging...    i've been to markets in SEasia  where rarely any food was packaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet look at the brainless fools who bitch about not getting a plastic straw in their drink.

Do you think there's any hope for the human race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

third world problem is  insufficient waste collection, so it gets tossed anywhere...   issue is 1st world, at least in usa, as everyone wants their food and products in nice clean packaging...    i've been to markets in SEasia  where rarely any food was packaged.

Dont make things up ....

Everything you know is wrong

read it.

 https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-13/5-countries-dump-more-plastic-oceans-rest-world-combined

IMG_8144.PNG

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 6:17 AM, slug zitski said:

Its a gimmick...

the problem is in the third world...it must be addressed in those countries.

 

IMG_8103.JPG

My brother was in the far east 20 years ago. He was astounded at what he saw and came back all worked up about it with all sorts of ideas. But it takes a lot of work to get the solutions into place---the most obvious being to change the litter culture!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast Yacht, +1.

Read tea leaves!

We already jetsam, but do not know it...yet!

Please!

You wanna be Pence, talk to god, or deal with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, the Pacific is BIG. It's well over two miles deep where they're planing on putting up pilings for their collector. Maybe it's just the way it is presented in the video but their "simple" solution doens't seem to be anywhere near the scale it'd need to be to make a significant difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn't been that long ago that NY and NJ sent barges of garbage to dump in the Atlantic.  Just for those who want to throw plastic stones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weightless said:

I dunno, the Pacific is BIG. It's well over two miles deep where they're planing on putting up pilings for their collector. Maybe it's just the way it is presented in the video but their "simple" solution doens't seem to be anywhere near the scale it'd need to be to make a significant difference.

Well the cool thing about it is that it is taking advantage of the natural movement and concentration. So over time it coud bery well be highly effectlvb

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fastyacht said:
2 hours ago, weightless said:

doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale it'd need to be to make a significant difference.

Well the cool thing about it is that it is taking advantage of the natural movement and concentration. So over time it coud bery well be highly effectlvb

No doubt it would collect a lot of trash. I've collected trash just sailing through that mess. Unfortunately, there is a lot of trash out there and a lot of trash is being added to it all the time.

~~My feeling~~ is that the volume of the existing detritus plus the rate of new junk is vastly greater than something of the proposed scale could do much about in percentage terms. There are already many, many miles of trash collecting beaches in the Pacific. They don't make a dent in the problem. The video says "top" engineers have been working on this project for years. So, I presume they've done the numbers and my BS detector is just overactive. Moving a few cubic miles of plastic from the middle of the Pacific to someplace, separating it, melting it and extruding it into something valuable seems wildly problematic in many ways to me. I suppose that's just a failure of imagination on my part. It wouldn't be the first. Still, for the moment, I'm not buying it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps getting the trash off the beaches and stopping further flow is more effective?
Problem is that there is a culture of throwing that shit in the water--not so much directly, but indirectly. It will take something that does not exist, to stop it: political will.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is poverty

put a value on the plastic  sea garbage.  

In th Philippines a daily wage is 5 dollars. Pay Filipinos 10 dollars a day to pick it up .

1 million spent on garbage gizmos  could purchase 100,000 man days of garbage fishing  .

locals make money.

Garbage is removed from the sea.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Hasn't been that long ago that NY and NJ sent barges of garbage to dump in the Atlantic.  Just for those who want to throw plastic stones

Exactemont...truth is simple. Its the bullroar that is complicated...caretakers would rarely have to make a correction, seems to me! 

A couse, we can always wait until the piles of flotsam are deep enough to set in the pilings...also a course, we won't be around then to get that far, will we...and there will be more than one plastic rig buried in the flotsam, won't there?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a start, at least, and the naysayers should get stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, slug zitski said:

The problem is poverty

put a value on the plastic  sea garbage.  

In th Philippines a daily wage is 5 dollars. Pay Filipinos 10 dollars a day to pick it up .

1 million spent on garbage gizmos  could purchase 100,000 man days of garbage fishing  .

locals make money.

Garbage is removed from the sea.

 

 

Do notice that poverty is a man-made condition.
There are people who want it to be so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 4:17 AM, slug zitski said:

Its a gimmick...

the problem is in the third world...it must be addressed in those countries.

 

IMG_8103.JPG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bull shit Slug, it is everyone's problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Perhaps getting the trash off the beaches and stopping further flow is more effective?
Problem is that there is a culture of throwing that shit in the water--not so much directly, but indirectly. It will take something that does not exist, to stop it: political will.

Your observation may be right-on, but not so sure it is so universal. Some of us are plain dim, some are plain lazy, some try hard and miss the cue...etc, and the problem is proportional to accelerrating population numbers...nature seems to have its way of implementing "diminishing returns" or limits...me thinks. e.g. economic growth as similar limits and when the curve's apex is reached, we be "screwed" and that applies universally, IMHO, always...as we should be aware...

Example might be (to wit) plastic...

 

Sailors, like thee and me perhaps point fingers but never bat an eye when a hull sinks or is cut up for landfiller...you get my drift...not disagreein, just offering wiggles. I remember a can (of beer) slipped overboard one time, spent nearly half hour to retrieve and crew thought I was nuts...I didn't and still do not! But, I know that is me as well as I know there are those who could not care less...too many O them dodgers...and they ruin all for others.

It is good topic and applies to a lot of what we dodgers do daily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BobBill said:

as nuts...I didn't and still do not! But, I know that is me as well as I know there are those who could not care less...too many O them dodgers...and they ruin all for others.

It is good topic and applies to a lot of what we dodgers do daily.

I'm starting to feel guilty about losing fly fishing tippet. It is plastic. In the not so old days, it was sheep gut. I have gut violin strings. Maybe I should recycle used ones as tippet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobBill said:

It is good topic and applies to a lot of what we dodgers do daily.

This.

I fly half way around the world for a visit. The flights and driving likely cause more warming than several Fijian villages do in a year. But, you know, the planes fly anyway, I'd probably drive the car someplace anyway and I really want to see that person. I suspect many of us feel a bit guilty about damage our choices or the happenstances of our place in the world cause. It's tempting to buy a little indulgence (in the Catholic sense) and maybe signal a bit of virtuousness by supporting one of the many miracle cures on offer (solar roads anyone?).  It may even be good value for money. A good night's rest is worth a lot. Still, if you're into the scheme for the cure to the big problem rather than just the good feeling then I suggest looking at it as an engineering problem. Can it work, is it likely to work, does it make efficient use of resources, what are the risks and costs?  I'm getting no, no, no and a lot of dead sea animals for using a massive net to collect enough plastic from the Pacific to clean it in five years. That's not an analysis. It's a guess. But, I'd want good answers to those questions before I'd support that scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the problem is everywhere,the solution is to do everything.  Not to nitpick individual efforts, but to make additional efforts on your own.

The problem is poverty, the problem is the convenience culture, the problem is education, the problem is greed, the problem is denial....

The solution is to do everything.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fastyacht said:

I'm starting to feel guilty about losing fly fishing tippet. It is plastic. In the not so old days, it was sheep gut. I have gut violin strings. Maybe I should recycle used ones as tippet!

I always felt so, even as ignorant kid fishing perch on rocks of Lake Mich shore in Chi. just figured was not good for fish, but then later as adult iin MN, made sure I retrieved every inch...some of my line had 10+ foot leaders...knotted whatever it was...I dig...mucho!

Once lost a "powerline" in the lake and found it 40 days later, when wqter warmed, on bottom in the spot, with all the stuff attached, crazy luck...but then maybe I am anal...good anal?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea 

https://www.ecowatch.com/science-based-solutions-reject-boyan-slats-approach-to-rid-the-ocean-o-1882094873.html

http://www.deepseanews.com/2014/07/the-ocean-cleanup-part-2-technical-review-of-the-feasibility-study/

"Originally, we had decided not to engage with this project again, since being a naysayer is neither fun nor professionally rewarding [1]. However, we have decided to team up to conduct a serious technical review of the feasibility study for the following reasons:

  • We believe that the popular momentum behind the Ocean Cleanup could lead to real change provided it is channeled into a workable solution.
  • We believe that scientists have a duty to communicate to the public on topics that the public wants to know about. Our education and research has been largely funded by federal and state taxpayers, and we believe that brings a responsibility to use it.
  • We believe in the peer review process, both before publication and post-publication. Science is built on criticism. While peer review is by no means perfect, we have both found that a robust peer review process has greatly improved our own science. Since crowdfunding sidesteps the formal grant review process and makes funding requests public, it is appropriate that the review be public as well.
  • We have received many requests for a critical evaluation of this study. So far as we know, no other scientists have conducted a review of the full Ocean Cleanup feasibility study.
  • As Mr. Slat has indicated in this post, our previous comments on this project are indeed outdated. He has also indicated that he is open to serious critiques of the feasibility study.

The reader may notice that this post has a much more serious tone than our past critique, or our usual blog posts. This is because we wish to convey that we are critiquing the Ocean Cleanup feasibility cleanup project in a formal, impersonal manner – the same way that we conduct reviews in the standard scientific peer-review process.

SUMMARY

We think that the Ocean Cleanup genuinely wants to help the ocean, and we commend them for taking our past critiques seriously. Some parts of the feasibility study are thoughtfully and carefully done, such as Chapter 3.3, Boom Capture Efficiency. However, other sections of the feasibility study are incomplete and/or inaccurate, and there is a lack of cohesion between sections. In addition, some of the conclusions presented in the executive summary are not backed up by the conclusions in the individual sections.

The feasibility study still has major technical issues that must be addressed before such as large-scale project is truly functional. The most fundamental problem is that there is an overarching use of average rather than extreme current speeds to estimate operational limits in the design process. This is a faulty assumption on which to base engineering specifications, one which propagates through many of the modeling studies used to assess both the technical and economic feasibility of this project. Another fundamental problem that has not been adequately considered is biofouling – the inevitable growth of marine life on the structure – which will change the hydrodynamics and may add considerable load to the structure. As currently designed, the moored array is under-engineered and likely to fail.

In addition, many of our original comments have not been fully addressed. While the feasibility study includes chapters on boom design, environmental impacts, bycatch, and high seas law, they are largely reviews and do not provide a framework for how the Ocean Cleanup will address these fundamental issues.

We recognize the substantial work that has gone into producing this feasibility study, and commend the Ocean Cleanup for their methodical response to past critiques. However, it is our opinion that information contained in this report has not proven that the Ocean Cleanup as currently described is feasible.

We provide detailed technical critiques of fundamental aspects of the project below. Because the full feasibility study is 528 pages long and spans many fields, this review is not comprehensive. We have focused on two main issue areas – the design of the structure, and the environmental and legal context in which the structure would be deployed. Our major criticisms are:

Further explanations are given below.

The pilot study of plastic pollution upon which the array design is based was inadequate to obtain a depth profile of ocean plastic.

  • The preliminary testing and analysis of a prototype boom is incomplete and does not “validate the capture and concentration potential of a floating barrier with a skirt depth of 3 m” (p. 29).
  • The modeling studies severely underestimate potential loads and tensions on the moored array and boom. Therefore, they are insufficient to properly design a mooring concept and estimate potential costs.
  • No workable solution for biofouling is suggested.
  • Since the authors had access to ORCAFLEX, a professional software package to design offshore marine structures, a full-scale mooring array could have been modeled to estimate loads and tensions on the moored array, but was not.
  • Structural deformation of the array and loss of functionality by ocean currents are not addressed.
  • The final boom presented in Section 3.6 is significantly different from the designs modeled in Section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. Collection efficiency calculations are likely inaccurate in light of the radical redesign.
  • It is unlikely that it will take only one ship to assemble and deploy what could potentially be the largest offshore structure ever designed as estimated in the feasibility study.
  • There are several very difficult design hurdles for the processing plant that need to be overcome.
  • Many of the taxa discussed in Chapter 6 (Environmental Impacts) do not actually inhabit the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. No serious attempt is made to assess effects on the taxa most likely to be impacted.
  • The legal chapter is inadequate, especially when dealing with potential bycatch of highly migratory species, which the chapter itself deems “highly likely.”
  • Inconsistent numbers/statements are used between sections.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

What is front page??

Not sure either, but the truth about this Go-Fund-Me project gone wrong should be put there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go fund me, is what it is...and part of the bull...caveat emptor all.

I dig all the environ concern, but change does not happen if we keep doing the same things...

Look, another fargin wacko (a 19 year old wacko) killed a bunch of kids in a school.

Pols are already sending out bullroar about guns and laws and whatever.

The problem may have tangents related in ways to the topic but the problem is (always) us...change us, change the problem...

But, unless/until we admit a problem's raison d'etat, all the pipes and laws and nets etc are bullroar and do squat but waste resources...and the one commodity we cannot retrieve...time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It makes sense that Slat's idea has become popular. Vague but persuasive sales pitches that promise to solve problems without us having to change our behavior? They're always popular. But here's what's got those scientists in a cranky mood: Slat's idea almost certainly won't make enough of a dent in the ocean plastic pollution to be worth the effort, it will almost certainly injure wildlife already struggling from an ocean with too much of our stuff in it, and the rigs may end up becoming more shredded pieces of plastic in an ocean already literally awash in plastic. 

One of the most disheartening things about the response to those scientific second thoughts is a common public response along the lines of "at least Slat is doing something about the problem, unlike these scientists who can't do anything but tear down his good idea instead of helping." That's being said about people who have, in some cases, been sounding the alarm about plastic pollution since before Slat was born. Some groups critical of Slat's idea, such as the organization 5 Gyres (about whom more in a moment), have been working feverishly to come up with workable solutions to the ocean plastics problem. Many of the critics have lauded Slat's enthusiasm, merely suggesting that it be tempered by a bit of real-world thinking. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dig! To me, it is all so simple, though simple is hard to explain often...the compications, to me, come after we miss doing the simple stuff...we all do simple and make the other guy look good, we no get Darwin Award!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BobBill said:

Go fund me, is what it is...and part of the bull...caveat emptor all.

Yep, if you're watching TEDx you'll be wanting your skeptics glasses. Honestly Vice and HBO going hook, line and sinker for this without even bothering to google it says a lot about the current state of journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know,. It seems wide open. But, in all instances...seems caveat...might be the wise decesion. Paranoia; skeptisism...might be wise tendency, especially today. I was raised in a faitly honest world but not the case now, it seems to me... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobBill said:

I was raised in a faitly honest world but not the case now, it seems to me... 

I think this is more a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". They'd have to not believe in their idea for it to be dishonest. The whole thing feels more like naive exuberance than get rich quick to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the issues with emerging (3rd word) economies is that they look at the economic powerhouses of the last century--primarily the USA.

The USA built its wealth by indiscriminately stripping plentiful natural resources and discarding its waste wherever it damned pleased. Pretty much zero regulation. Take or steal whatever you want and dump whatever you don't want... wherever. It's a lot easier to grow an economy when resources are cheap and plentiful and there are no repercussions for the manufacturing process.

When 3rd world economies get harangued about environmental issues, they pretty much say, "Fuck you! We're going to grow the same way you did!" And they have a point as far as aggressiveness and thoughtless growth go.

Environmental sensitivity is a luxury of the rich. Environmental regulation is perceived as repression of the poor. And in a way it is. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 9:43 PM, Somebody Else said:

Environmental sensitivity is a luxury of the rich. 

Not really. It's an ever-increasing issue as far as opinion in China is concerned. Spend some time in Beijing and the reasons are obvious. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop shipping that shit to 3rd world countries and build more landfills. Stuff that plastic back in the ground where it came from. With some time and pressure it will return to petroleum and sentient bats can use it to pollute the earth in another million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently resin (raw/cured) will not or is not biodegradeable. "It is!"

I just leaned this bit from our composite engineering department. WSU offers degree in composite work...

Landfills and bodies of water just entomb this man-made flotsam.

At least most metal rusts and most wood rots.

Even the mammels we murder rot...before we drive to extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 3:10 PM, Left Shift said:

When the problem is everywhere,the solution is to do everything.  Not to nitpick individual efforts, but to make additional efforts on your own.

The problem is poverty, the problem is the convenience culture, the problem is education, the problem is greed, the problem is denial....

The solution is to do everything.

Next door to Marina Del Rey, Los Angeles, California. Ballona Creek after a bit of rain:

US_CA_45_3745_mont.jpg?format=1000w

Now, some glib idiots like to refer to Los Angeles as a Third World country, tho the city's GDP is 3x that of the Philippines and is larger than the entire US budget deficit. But you see those people in safety orange shirts gleaning plastic trash off the capture booms? Those are First World eyesore preventers. The lovely, raked white sand beaches we enjoy in the USA, on the French Riviera,  etc. are largely pristine not because of our better behavior, but because we are wealthy enuf to pay people to hide the consequences of our behavior. 

Anyone familiar with the history of the Thames, the East River, Venice, the Seine, the Cuyahoga, the Tiber need not look backwards very far (or look backwards at all) to find like abuses in Western nations. But today's plastics and styrofoams float and they endure, that is the difference.

We need better policies. We need better global waste management. We need better technology. All that! But above all, we need better human beings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2018 at 2:43 PM, Somebody Else said:

One of the issues with emerging (3rd word) economies is that they look at the economic powerhouses of the last century--primarily the USA.

The USA built its wealth by indiscriminately stripping plentiful natural resources and discarding its waste wherever it damned pleased. Pretty much zero regulation. Take or steal whatever you want and dump whatever you don't want... wherever. It's a lot easier to grow an economy when resources are cheap and plentiful and there are no repercussions for the manufacturing process.

When 3rd world economies get harangued about environmental issues, they pretty much say, "Fuck you! We're going to grow the same way you did!" And they have a point as far as aggressiveness and thoughtless growth go.

Environmental sensitivity is a luxury of the rich. Environmental regulation is perceived as repression of the poor. And in a way it is. 

 

In the  early 19th century, a squirrel could travel from Florida to Minnesota without setting paw on the ground. Just a thing to keep in mind when we clutch our Olmypian pearls over deforestation in the Amazon or Congo. The people in those places say, "We want what you have. This is how you got it."

It's our duty -- and our luxury -- to say, "Fair enuf. Now let's have an honest look at how our own consumerist habits are driving forest clearance, plastics production, CO2 emissions. And let's employ our knowledge & wealth & resources to help people short on those assets (people scrabbling to put food in their mouths from day to day) to get from there to here without repeating our own folly. Just maybe we can learn something about ourselves in the process." :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution

To pollution

Is population

Any discussion otherwise is ignorant denial

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 1:14 AM, slug zitski said:

The problem is poverty

put a value on the plastic  sea garbage.  

In th Philippines a daily wage is 5 dollars. Pay Filipinos 10 dollars a day to pick it up .

1 million spent on garbage gizmos  could purchase 100,000 man days of garbage fishing  .

locals make money.

Garbage is removed from the sea.

 

 

First good idea Sluggo has ever had. Someone mark this historic event. Even if he DID get the daily wage wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma said:

The solution

To pollution

Is population

Any discussion otherwise is ignorant denial

When someone brings up this point, I always invite them to do the noble thing and forswear reproducing entirely -- or if they truly believe their thesis, to hang themselves for the greater good. Their response is instructive!  "Well ... not ME, it's those something something Catholics India China mumble grumble."

So let's look at it this way: China and the US emit similar amounts of CO2. (Much of the CO2 & plastic waste produced by China comes from making cheap crap for developed countries like the US, so morally that portion belongs to us also but let's not muddle the point.)  That means the average American produces several times as much CO2 as the average Chinese person. Eight times as much as the average Indonesian.

Start there.

(Here's a ranking of per capita CO2 emissions , highest to lowest. The correlation to national wealth & per capita GDP is much stronger than to number of noses. Tho then we have to ask how the Swiss, who are quite wealthy , produce one quarter the CO2 of Americans without apparent QofL sacrifice.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

When someone brings up this point, I always invite them to do the noble thing and forswear reproducing entirely 

From Google: "While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless."

I'm in that 57%. Are you?

Not really certain if it's true but I thought I saw somewhere that w/o immigration the population of the U.S. would be shrinking and that is why some folks want open borders, so that there will be new taxpayers to support our social ponzi schemes.

Of course having kids does not make you a bad person (not yet, anyway), but if we could get everybody, including everybody in China, Africa, India etc, to only have 1 child, we could drastically reduce the population, the pollution, and have corresponding impacts on hunger, health ,housing, employment, immigration and probably war etc as well.

Again, not certain, but I think China is making the most progress in this area. Now if we could only get them to stop cheating on the specs of manufactured goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Welcome to our world, called Earth

Where the greatest cause of death is birth!"

Jack Lucas, Winona, MN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw some horrific plastic pollution in Indonesia couple years back. Made the odd floating condom I see in Hawaii look great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parma said:

From Google: "While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless."

I'm in that 57%. Are you?

Not really certain if it's true but I thought I saw somewhere that w/o immigration the population of the U.S. would be shrinking and that is why some folks want open borders, so that there will be new taxpayers to support our social ponzi schemes.

Of course having kids does not make you a bad person (not yet, anyway), but if we could get everybody, including everybody in China, Africa, India etc, to only have 1 child, we could drastically reduce the population, the pollution, and have corresponding impacts on hunger, health ,housing, employment, immigration and probably war etc as well.

Again, not certain, but I think China is making the most progress in this area. Now if we could only get them to stop cheating on the specs of manufactured goods.

Too late, boyos...too late...and then there are the Darwin Award candidates still humping...Amazing I had a HS history teacher who wanted every family in the nation to contribute to buying a TV for families in India...TV instead of sex...people laughed at him...!!! Duh!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Parma said:

From Google: "While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless."

I'm in that 57%. Are you?

Not really certain if it's true but I thought I saw somewhere that w/o immigration the population of the U.S. would be shrinking and that is why some folks want open borders, so that there will be new taxpayers to support our social ponzi schemes.

Of course having kids does not make you a bad person (not yet, anyway), but if we could get everybody, including everybody in China, Africa, India etc, to only have 1 child, we could drastically reduce the population, the pollution, and have corresponding impacts on hunger, health ,housing, employment, immigration and probably war etc as well.

Again, not certain, but I think China is making the most progress in this area. Now if we could only get them to stop cheating on the specs of manufactured goods.

The problem is poverty is reproducing faster than the rest of us because they have nothing else but sex to live for.

I'm 61, my son is 27 and is about due for their first child. If you guys do not have kids and educate them properly, there will be no future for the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meat Wad +1. Hold parents to account...no more kicking can down the road...One parent or two, manners and respect are easily taught...and, if not taught, come back to haunt.

Believe it. Want a world of Trumps and unmannered gangbangers?

Fly with crows and get shot at...We are already to close for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2018 at 2:19 AM, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

third world problem is  insufficient waste collection, so it gets tossed anywhere...   issue is 1st world, at least in usa, as everyone wants their food and products in nice clean packaging...    i've been to markets in SEasia  where rarely any food was packaged. 

I live in SE Asia and while it's true that a lot of unpacked food is available, but they will almost always put every item you buy into a plastic bag and then put all of those bags into a bigger bag!  One of the first phrases I learned was 'My aow tung krap' - no bag please. 

Widespread use of plastic bags, combined with inadequate waste disposal means that East and SE Asia are putting huge amounts of plastic waste into the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 9:10 AM, Meat Wad said:

The problem is poverty is reproducing faster than the rest of us because they have nothing else but sex to live for.

I'm 61, my son is 27 and is about due for their first child. If you guys do not have kids and educate them properly, there will be no future for the human race.

There is no future. It’s just unclear when “no future” starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

There is no future. It’s just unclear when “no future” starts.

Wad is correct, Raz'd...and it has begun...! Ya cannot teach what ya don't know...ask any swab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now