K
KarenNC
Guest
Nope, Orthodox Catholic won’t necessarily do it either (though I’m not sure they would be entirely pleased to be classed as "some form of Protestant
)stgeorge-melkite.org/2007-AC-01.html
- Status
)stgeorge-melkite.org/2007-AC-01.html
E
Ender
Guest
I read the Catholic News article and I’m happy to adopt the pope’s concern that we shouldn’t degrade the environment. That, happily, is easy for me to do as I don’t believe that my life style has any meaningful effect on the environment.
I like DocQuark’s unapologetic presentation of his position … probably because it doesn’t seem much different than mine. What annoys me most about this entire subject is the implication that the morality of one’s life style is somehow proportional to one’s carbon footprint. If you are happy with a small house, good for you; I am pleased that you are happy. I am happy with a large house; why do you care?
Ender
S
Sheeniac
Guest
Yes, that bothers me too. While I have adopted some new ways, I don’t consider myself better or worse than the next person, regardless of their stance.
I don’t put my fruit or veggies in plastic bags at the grocery store (except asparagus). Why? Because it strikes me as utterly wasteful. All paper bags from the store get used to for my paper recycling, and all plastic bags get used for cat and dog waste removal.
I could go on and on, but a lot of what I do is economically smart for me in addition to being ‘green’. For instance, I prefer to wear only Ralph Lauren jeans. However, they are pretty pricey. So I buy gently worn ones on ebay. This helps another person recycle their jeans.
But I don’t claim anything as a point of moral superiority, which posts on threads like this can suggest…
K
KarenNC
Guest
Everyone’s lifestyle has an effect on the environment. There is no person or thing alive which lives in a vacuum.
There are many words I could use to describe DocQuark’s choice of ways to present his position. “Unapologetic” is very far down the list.
Sorry, any implication of “moral superiority” on the list in terms of actions is, as far as I can see, in the eye of the beholder. A question was asked. Straightforward answers were given. Period. If another person’s answers evoke feelings of conflict or that you are being chided in some way, then you may want to examine whether your own actions are as truly in line with your principles as you think they are.
I am not sure why you would even choose to read or reply to a thread with a title like this one if it is not something that you feel concerns or affects you. In my experience, those who are truly living in harmony with their principles rarely feel the need to vociferously denigrate others for choosing to live in harmony with theirs.
Quite frankly, I don’t care.
I do the things I do not based on your opinion or to curry favor with you or anyone else. I do them because they are in line with my religious principles and make sense in the way that I want to live my life. I am responsible for my own actions, not yours.
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t mind your disagreeing with me but I would expect that your objection would at least be directed to what I’ve actually said. I didn’t say my lifestyle had no effect on the environment. I said it had no meaningful effect and, that being the case, I don’t see any benefit in behaving as if it did.
Ender
K
KarenNC
Guest
We have some local folks who also believe that their lifestyles have no meaningful effect on the environment. We are in an extended “exceptional” drought, which is the worst category of drought. The communities have mandatory strict water restrictions in place as all the lake and reservoir levels are down multiple feet up and down our water supply, at 30% capacity when they should be at 70% at this time of year or better and forecasts for a drier than normal winter.
The mandatory water conservation measures (including no outside watering at all, and expectations of limiting indoor use) can be enforced for those using city water, but at this point cannot be enforced on those using well-water. Most folks on wells are aware that their well taps into the same groundwater that everyone else’s well taps into and that the water supply is intimately interconnected.
There are a few who are still after months of these conditions determinedly running their sprinklers on their grass on a daily basis for hours, including watering the street, because they seem to believe their well has a super secret unlimited supply of water to which no one else has access. Our local agricultural agent had an article in the paper today about wells, including quoting the man who has two wells on his property and is very carefully using one for household use and only the other for watering his lawn. He has absolutely no understanding of the fact that both draw from the same aquifer and will go dry at about the same time (as likely will those of his close neighbors whose wells are at a similar depth).
I sincerely hope that when their well runs dry, they (and their neighbors, whose wells tapping into the same area are also likely to suffer) will be comforted to know that their lifestyle choices to water their lawn while their neighbors are catching the water while the shower warms up and using it to flush their toilets had no meaningful effect on the environment.
If your principles lead you to chose to believe and behave as if your actions and choices have no meaningful effect, I can’t stop you. I will certainly agree that your choices have no meaningful effect on whether or not I continue to live in accordance with my principles.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
I am keeping my 1998 standard transmission Ford running, and getting 32-34 mpg, rather than buying a new hybrid that would consume a large amount of additional energy in manufacturing.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The water issue is an interesting one.
In two major cases where I live, the bureaucrats defeated proposals to increase water supply by collecting rain water.
In one case about 50 years ago, a local water company (in the eastern part of the state) did all the homework and bought the land and requested permission to build an additional reservoir. The bureaucrats turned them down. I got involved when a water crisis hit decades later and we learned that the water company’s estimates 50 years earlier had been exactly accurate. It was our bureaucracy that messed us up.
More recently, another water authority proposed another project in the western part of the state. Again they did all the homework and acquired the land, but were turned down. Then a decade later, all of a sudden, another severe water shortage.
So, we can be somewhat cynical when we are “SUDDENLY” confronted with a water shortage. Our bureaucrats, highly paid with secure government and foundation jobs, by the way, are doing us in. And demanding we praise them for being critical and confrontational when the people who were given the responsibility for doing the work attempt to actually do the work.
The bureaucrats’ response is that we should all give up some water and that we should all suffer evenly.
I am tired of people saying we should suffer, when the fact is that there is plenty of water available; all we need to do is to tap it responsibly.
I proposed in writing that we develop ground water recharge in our local area (the region has a huge number of streams and rivers which flow to the ocean, not that far away). The response I got was that I was crazy. The fact is that the state has an official policy of ground water recharge. That is that we collect rain water and allow it to percolate through hundreds of feet of natural rock which will filter it and then allow the water to recharge the local aquifers from which it is pumped.
There are areas that abolished septic systems and installed multi-hundred million dollar sewerage collection and treatment systems. And then fully treated sewerage is DUMPED into the ocean directly.
All of a sudden, they noticed that the aquifers are dropping.
Why? Because the water from the septic systems was no longer available AND instead of using the treated sewerage water to recharge the aquifers, they are dumping it into the ocean.
So, we need to get away from the politically correct water usage and waste water treatment policies and realize that our bureaucrats are causing our problems. AND then blaming us for the messes that they caused.
If your area has floods, then it has water available. The only requirement is to figure out ways to catch it and to store it. There are no new and novel ways of doing that. Just the hard work of doing the calculations.
Our bureaucrats have dumbed down our people so they can’t do the math anymore. They used to be able to.
But our bureaucrats have worked very hard to prevent us from utilizing the water that is already provided for us.
There is no virtue in suffering (or making other people suffer) when there is no valid reason for suffering, other than just for suffering itself.
It’s like walking around with a pebble in your shoe and then bragging about it.
If you want to suffer, then you MUST suffer in silence.
If other people don’t want to get a blood blister and then get an infected foot, we don’t have the authority to make THEM suffer.
So, if water suppy is a problem, there is no shortage of water resources. It’s there; just develop it.
In two major cases where I live, the bureaucrats defeated proposals to increase water supply by collecting rain water.
In one case about 50 years ago, a local water company (in the eastern part of the state) did all the homework and bought the land and requested permission to build an additional reservoir. The bureaucrats turned them down. I got involved when a water crisis hit decades later and we learned that the water company’s estimates 50 years earlier had been exactly accurate. It was our bureaucracy that messed us up.
More recently, another water authority proposed another project in the western part of the state. Again they did all the homework and acquired the land, but were turned down. Then a decade later, all of a sudden, another severe water shortage.
So, we can be somewhat cynical when we are “SUDDENLY” confronted with a water shortage. Our bureaucrats, highly paid with secure government and foundation jobs, by the way, are doing us in. And demanding we praise them for being critical and confrontational when the people who were given the responsibility for doing the work attempt to actually do the work.
The bureaucrats’ response is that we should all give up some water and that we should all suffer evenly.
I am tired of people saying we should suffer, when the fact is that there is plenty of water available; all we need to do is to tap it responsibly.
I proposed in writing that we develop ground water recharge in our local area (the region has a huge number of streams and rivers which flow to the ocean, not that far away). The response I got was that I was crazy. The fact is that the state has an official policy of ground water recharge. That is that we collect rain water and allow it to percolate through hundreds of feet of natural rock which will filter it and then allow the water to recharge the local aquifers from which it is pumped.
There are areas that abolished septic systems and installed multi-hundred million dollar sewerage collection and treatment systems. And then fully treated sewerage is DUMPED into the ocean directly.
All of a sudden, they noticed that the aquifers are dropping.
Why? Because the water from the septic systems was no longer available AND instead of using the treated sewerage water to recharge the aquifers, they are dumping it into the ocean.
So, we need to get away from the politically correct water usage and waste water treatment policies and realize that our bureaucrats are causing our problems. AND then blaming us for the messes that they caused.
If your area has floods, then it has water available. The only requirement is to figure out ways to catch it and to store it. There are no new and novel ways of doing that. Just the hard work of doing the calculations.
Our bureaucrats have dumbed down our people so they can’t do the math anymore. They used to be able to.
But our bureaucrats have worked very hard to prevent us from utilizing the water that is already provided for us.
There is no virtue in suffering (or making other people suffer) when there is no valid reason for suffering, other than just for suffering itself.
It’s like walking around with a pebble in your shoe and then bragging about it.
If you want to suffer, then you MUST suffer in silence.
If other people don’t want to get a blood blister and then get an infected foot, we don’t have the authority to make THEM suffer.
So, if water suppy is a problem, there is no shortage of water resources. It’s there; just develop it.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The water issue is an interesting one.
In two major cases where I live, the bureaucrats defeated proposals to increase water supply by collecting rain water.
In one case about 50 years ago, a local water company (in the eastern part of the state) did all the homework and bought the land and requested permission to build an additional reservoir. The bureaucrats turned them down. I got involved when a water crisis hit decades later and we learned that the water company’s estimates 50 years earlier had been exactly accurate. It was our bureaucracy that messed us up.
More recently, another water authority proposed another project in the western part of the state. Again they did all the homework and acquired the land, but were turned down. Then a decade later, “ALL OF A SUDDEN”, another severe water shortage developed. Well, it wasn’t “all of a sudden” … every one knew there would be a shortage, but the bureaucrats shot us down. “We had no idea”, goes out the cry. Well, they did know, but the “not invented here” crowd and the professional protesters had their way.
So, we can be somewhat cynical when we are “SUDDENLY” confronted with a water shortage. Our bureaucrats, highly paid with secure government and foundation jobs, by the way, are doing us in. And demanding we praise them for being critical and confrontational when the people who were given the responsibility for doing the work attempt to actually do the work.
The bureaucrats’ response is that we should all give up some water and that we should all suffer evenly.
I am tired of people saying we should suffer, when the fact is that there is plenty of water available; all we need to do is to tap it responsibly.
I proposed in writing that we develop ground water recharge in our local area (the region has a huge number of streams and rivers which flow to the ocean, not that far away). The response I got was that I was crazy. The fact is that the state has an official policy of ground water recharge. That is that we collect rain water and allow it to percolate through hundreds of feet of natural rock which will filter it and then allow the water to recharge the local aquifers from which it is pumped.
There are areas that abolished septic systems and installed multi-hundred million dollar sewerage collection and treatment systems. And then fully treated sewerage is DUMPED into the ocean directly.
All of a sudden, they noticed that the aquifers are dropping.
Why? Because the water from the septic systems was no longer available AND instead of using the treated sewerage water to recharge the aquifers, they are dumping it into the ocean.
So, we need to get away from the politically correct water usage and waste water treatment policies and realize that our bureaucrats are causing our problems. AND then blaming us for the messes that they caused.
If your area has floods, then it has water available. The only requirement is to figure out ways to catch it and to store it. There are no new and novel ways of doing that. Just the hard work of doing the calculations.
Our bureaucrats have dumbed down our people so they can’t do the math anymore. They used to be able to.
But our bureaucrats have worked very hard to prevent us from utilizing the water that is already provided for us by God through His rains.
There is no virtue in suffering (or making other people suffer) when there is no valid reason for suffering, other than just for suffering itself.
It’s like walking around with a pebble in your shoe and then bragging about it. And then telling everyone to walk around with a pebble in their shoe.
If you want to suffer, then you MUST suffer in silence.
If other people don’t want to get a blood blister and then get an infected foot, we don’t have the authority to make THEM suffer.
So, if water suppy is a problem, there is no shortage of water resources. It’s there; just develop it.
[don’t get me started]
In two major cases where I live, the bureaucrats defeated proposals to increase water supply by collecting rain water.
In one case about 50 years ago, a local water company (in the eastern part of the state) did all the homework and bought the land and requested permission to build an additional reservoir. The bureaucrats turned them down. I got involved when a water crisis hit decades later and we learned that the water company’s estimates 50 years earlier had been exactly accurate. It was our bureaucracy that messed us up.
More recently, another water authority proposed another project in the western part of the state. Again they did all the homework and acquired the land, but were turned down. Then a decade later, “ALL OF A SUDDEN”, another severe water shortage developed. Well, it wasn’t “all of a sudden” … every one knew there would be a shortage, but the bureaucrats shot us down. “We had no idea”, goes out the cry. Well, they did know, but the “not invented here” crowd and the professional protesters had their way.
So, we can be somewhat cynical when we are “SUDDENLY” confronted with a water shortage. Our bureaucrats, highly paid with secure government and foundation jobs, by the way, are doing us in. And demanding we praise them for being critical and confrontational when the people who were given the responsibility for doing the work attempt to actually do the work.
The bureaucrats’ response is that we should all give up some water and that we should all suffer evenly.
I am tired of people saying we should suffer, when the fact is that there is plenty of water available; all we need to do is to tap it responsibly.
I proposed in writing that we develop ground water recharge in our local area (the region has a huge number of streams and rivers which flow to the ocean, not that far away). The response I got was that I was crazy. The fact is that the state has an official policy of ground water recharge. That is that we collect rain water and allow it to percolate through hundreds of feet of natural rock which will filter it and then allow the water to recharge the local aquifers from which it is pumped.
There are areas that abolished septic systems and installed multi-hundred million dollar sewerage collection and treatment systems. And then fully treated sewerage is DUMPED into the ocean directly.
All of a sudden, they noticed that the aquifers are dropping.
Why? Because the water from the septic systems was no longer available AND instead of using the treated sewerage water to recharge the aquifers, they are dumping it into the ocean.
So, we need to get away from the politically correct water usage and waste water treatment policies and realize that our bureaucrats are causing our problems. AND then blaming us for the messes that they caused.
If your area has floods, then it has water available. The only requirement is to figure out ways to catch it and to store it. There are no new and novel ways of doing that. Just the hard work of doing the calculations.
Our bureaucrats have dumbed down our people so they can’t do the math anymore. They used to be able to.
But our bureaucrats have worked very hard to prevent us from utilizing the water that is already provided for us by God through His rains.
There is no virtue in suffering (or making other people suffer) when there is no valid reason for suffering, other than just for suffering itself.
It’s like walking around with a pebble in your shoe and then bragging about it. And then telling everyone to walk around with a pebble in their shoe.
If you want to suffer, then you MUST suffer in silence.
If other people don’t want to get a blood blister and then get an infected foot, we don’t have the authority to make THEM suffer.
So, if water suppy is a problem, there is no shortage of water resources. It’s there; just develop it.
[don’t get me started]
E
Ender
Guest
You’ve changed the focus of the debate; we’re all well aware that local actions have local effects. My point is that, in the great scheme of things, whether I grow my own vegetables, buy from the local organic farm, or from the nearest mega-mart is irrelevant. I make that choice based on quality and convenience to myself and that decision has zero affect on anyone else’s quality of life. I am not advocating that we should ignore waste or live profligately, only that the environmental impact of most personal decisions is trifling.
Ender
K
KarenNC
Guest
You’ve changed the focus of the debate; we’re all well aware that local actions have local effects. My point is that, in the great scheme of things, whether I grow my own vegetables, buy from the local organic farm, or from the nearest mega-mart is irrelevant. I make that choice based on quality and convenience to myself and that decision has zero affect on anyone else’s quality of life. I am not advocating that we should ignore waste or live profligately, only that the environmental impact of most personal decisions is trifling.QUOTE]
Everybody I know lives locally, not “in the great scheme of things”. “The great scheme of things” is not somehow separate from what is happening in all the local areas. It is the sum of all the parts.
If you were the only person in a large area or the only one making a choice, then no, probably that choice doesn’t impact anyone’s life immediately. That changes with population density.
If you lived on 500 acres, for instance, your personal choice to play heavy metal full volume with the windows open at 3 am won’t have any meaningful impact on anyone else’s ability to sleep (might bother some animals, though). Do that in a neighborhood
where the houses are on less than quarter acre lots or in an apartment building and suddenly your personal choices have a very meaningful impact on a lot of others around you.
If one person decides to put a banned pesticide or herbicide on their lawn that runs off into a local creek that feeds the local water supply, it probably doesn’t make that much difference. If 300,000 people decide to do so at the same time into the same water supply, you are going to see an impact on the quality of the water for all the half a million folks who use that water, whether they used the substance on their own lawns or not.
I don’t believe that anyone on this thread believes that whether or not they individually take their own bags to the grocery store this Friday is going to change the course of the moon or cause the sun to explode. What I see from most folks is the knowledge that every choice is part of the cumulative effect, nothing happens in a vacuum, and that it is probably better to make those choices (whatever they are) as mindfully as possible.
There is no one size fits all template that everyone should be doing to be “good” or “moral” in this. I make plenty of choices that are based on quality and convenience to myself and there are folks out there who would look at some of those choices and sneer. I’d also appear inconsistent to some folks. However, I do my best to know why I made those choices at any given time and to do so for a reason, not just let it happen.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
One thing we can do is to not accept officious explanations from bureaucrats when they attempt to justify their inaction.
There are modest ways of getting big effects.
No reason why we should accept forced limitations due to alleged shortages of resources such as water.
Not to get one’s name in the paper, but to act as a spur to officialdom.
Doesn’t matter whether it is the President or the Pope or the Chairman of the local water resources authority. Actions can be done that cost no more than 41 cents. Sometimes only a dime. No headlines.
Pray over it.
Personal economy (use it up, wear it out, make it do) is one thing. Saving money by making your car last is a good thing. But buying a car that is too small to serve its intended purpose is false economy.
Greenification is something totally different. Totally different issue. Greenification implies that the Earth is so fragile that we all need to tread very lightly … as a moral issue rather than as a scientific issue.
For example, a lot of recycling is a total waste of money and resources. In the last decade or so, a huge number of well managed garbage dumps have opened and are so cheap that incinerators built to generate electricity by burning garbage have turned out to be ineffective or uneconomic. It’s cheaper to dump the garbage then it is to burn it.
So, the greenification issue may in many instances be trendy but not efficacious.
There are modest ways of getting big effects.
No reason why we should accept forced limitations due to alleged shortages of resources such as water.
Not to get one’s name in the paper, but to act as a spur to officialdom.
Doesn’t matter whether it is the President or the Pope or the Chairman of the local water resources authority. Actions can be done that cost no more than 41 cents. Sometimes only a dime. No headlines.
Pray over it.
Personal economy (use it up, wear it out, make it do) is one thing. Saving money by making your car last is a good thing. But buying a car that is too small to serve its intended purpose is false economy.
Greenification is something totally different. Totally different issue. Greenification implies that the Earth is so fragile that we all need to tread very lightly … as a moral issue rather than as a scientific issue.
For example, a lot of recycling is a total waste of money and resources. In the last decade or so, a huge number of well managed garbage dumps have opened and are so cheap that incinerators built to generate electricity by burning garbage have turned out to be ineffective or uneconomic. It’s cheaper to dump the garbage then it is to burn it.
So, the greenification issue may in many instances be trendy but not efficacious.
P
Pug
Guest
Just a note. The water is probably not *fully *treated. I suspect it would cost twice as much as it does now to remove additional stuff if you wanted to place the water in the water table and not in the ocean. It would cost even more if you wanted to make it desirable as a source of directly drinkable water.
For example, perhaps caffeine is not fully removed. Thus, you might have to pay extra to remove it before putting it into the groundwater.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
The way ground water recharge works (and it is an established and well founded procedure) is that there are varying degrees of waste water treatment.
There is primary, secondary and tertiary treatment available depending on the particulars of the situation. In addition, further direct treatment is also available including special membranes, etc.
In any event, the treated effluent is NOT directly injected into the aquifers. It is considered to be non-potable water. And used for irrigation (as in golf courses, for example) or for special detention and retention ponds. The ponds have been planted to specfic types of vegetation that are known to extract the specific remaining impurities in the treated effluent.
The collected water is also treated by UV from the sun and may also have air (or even electrically-generated ozone) bubbled through it to oxidize any viruses or other impurities detected by various analyses. Some of the water evaporates and forms humidity in the air from which it also is extracted by various forms of vegetation.
As the water trickles down through the soil of the pond, it is subject to further treatment by soil bacteria (present in all soils) although specific bacteria have been bred to be innoculated as needed.
Finally, the waste water is polished as it passes down through various layers of rock, sand, clay, and other soil components.
Thus by the time it reaches the aquifer(s), it has been purified, having been subected to and operated on by many different processes.
The physics and biology of ground water recharge have been well studied, written up, and applied. They need to be applied more broadly and they will as more people learn about and study it.
In any event, it’s not some haphazard process, but is well documented and appropriate.
In fact, ground water recharge developed because scientists studied natural processes and found that existing well water has trickled down and been treated naturally. So they studied it and began to codify all the different ways that nature operates to purify ground water.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278896270194975
The above is a fascinating short editorial with the title “Bicyles and Bear Skins” … with the subtitle, “Global warming alarmists are so confident they’ve conditioned the masses that they’re now moving ahead with their ideas for mandatory lifestyle changes - their goal all along.”
We need to recognize that these are deliberately planned lifestyle-change campaigns.
Not virtue.
But rather, efforts to “control the masses”.
Check it out.
The above is a fascinating short editorial with the title “Bicyles and Bear Skins” … with the subtitle, “Global warming alarmists are so confident they’ve conditioned the masses that they’re now moving ahead with their ideas for mandatory lifestyle changes - their goal all along.”
We need to recognize that these are deliberately planned lifestyle-change campaigns.
Not virtue.
But rather, efforts to “control the masses”.
Check it out.
R
RWMorris
Guest
Some interesting posts on this thread so far.
But okay, I have to remind y’all that “simplify” was also in the question. And like it or not, the fact is that Jesus DID metaphorically slap a lot of rich people in the face for not caring about the poor.
So what do we do in OUR lifetimes to help the poor? What do we do to simplify (implicit in Jesus’ teaching, “Go out and sell all you have, and give to the poor”.)?
To simplify can also mean to “greenify”; but it’s not necessarily living environmentally responsible lives that I was getting at. It’s more a stewardship question.
How do you spend your resources?
Are you a good steward of what you have?
If you live profligately, how do you square that with your conscience and with Jesus’ words?
This is more of what I meant by the original question.
But okay, I have to remind y’all that “simplify” was also in the question. And like it or not, the fact is that Jesus DID metaphorically slap a lot of rich people in the face for not caring about the poor.
So what do we do in OUR lifetimes to help the poor? What do we do to simplify (implicit in Jesus’ teaching, “Go out and sell all you have, and give to the poor”.)?
To simplify can also mean to “greenify”; but it’s not necessarily living environmentally responsible lives that I was getting at. It’s more a stewardship question.
How do you spend your resources?
Are you a good steward of what you have?
If you live profligately, how do you square that with your conscience and with Jesus’ words?
This is more of what I meant by the original question.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Very different questions.
Yes, I attempt to make mindful, responsible decisions on the use of my resources within the context of my religious principles. This doesn’t mean that I feel I have to live in a box wearing rags to “prove” that I don’t think I am better than someone else or that I have to buy more than I need to “prove” to someone else that my choices are not done to simply make them feel guilty, but it does mean that I have to take responsibility for the fact that my actions affect others and my environment.
Take eating meat, for example. In order for me to eat meat, another living thing must die. Some people respond to that by calling for everyone to become vegetarian or vegan. However, in order for me to eat vegetables or fruit another living thing must also die or at least have its reproductive cycle broken. Life requires death in order to survive. If one wants to be vegetarian, I have no issue with that, but I like meat and my body functions best on animal protein. I am also not willing to go out and kill my own meat—I have neither the time, desire nor skill to do so. So I try to make mindful decisions about the way the meat that I buy is raised and slaughtered and try to support the most humane means possible within what I can afford. I give thanks for that life which is nurturing mine.
po18guy
Well-known member
Several questions of morality arise here-some unexpected.
I return as much organic refuse as practcable to nature. I am an avid recycler.
Hybrid cars are a complex subject: they are heavily subsidized by your neighbors, either directly through taxation, or indirectly via an increase in the price of other products they purchase from the manufacturer of that hybrid. The purchase price of a hybrid in no way reflects the actual cost of production. When they produce hybrids or electrics, manufacturers are bartering for “energy credits” with the state or federal government (to maintain Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE standards). The sale of each hybrid car allows the sale of a complementary energy inefficient vehicle, per current federal law. This means that the purchase of your hydrid allows a 4X4 truck to be sold, with the environmental results considered legally a wash. Also, your neighbors must expend more life energy and resources (producing more pollution in the process) to earn the income to pay the taxes or price increase required to subsidize someone else’s hybrid, or electric car. That neighbor also has less cash to spend on their own family, or to donate to charity. At this point of development, I see hybrid and electric cars as an economic net loss. Development will change that. The concept of hybrids is pure. The morailty related to the conditions of their production, subsidization and sale remains for questioning.
I live outside of where I work, for safety reasons, but within about 10 miles of non-congested, country roads.
Our house is fairly good sized, but with the children growing and grown, it will change to a smaller house, just as it grew from a smaller house. It is myopic to view life in static terms, since life is dynamic. This is reflected in life’s practices: they also come and go according to our beliefs, comfort levels, incomes, family needs, etc.
We likely do not realize it, but our civilization is the most energy efficient and potentially least polluting in history. When you travel to the third world, notice the washing done in streams and rivers. Notice the blue tinge of the water from the phosphate-laden soaps they use (long ago banned here). Notice that no fishing is done in the streams and rivers because there are no fish there. Plenty of fishing here in lakes, rivers and streans.
See the haze that lies over entire third-world countries-from burning refuse in the open and wood for heat, cooking and warmth. Notice that the forests are not being replaced (as we do here). Choke on the Diesel fumes spewed from the poorly maintained buses (not allowed in pollution controlled countries such as ours). There is much work to be done in the rest of the world, but we have become the example here.
Gardening is a good way to maintain some level of self-sufficiency. However, producing one’s own food reduces the income of some other producer of that same food, or eventually, could put them out of work. No man, woman or child is an island. Everything we do affects something, or someone else. God created this so that we would learn to choose wisely out of our love for Him, His creation, and our neighbor.
Christ’s peace be always with you.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Keep in mind that Jesus cautioned us that if we fast, we should do so without telling anyone what we are doing.
If we give to the poor, don’t let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.
And the question as posed implies that simplification is the same as “green-ifying”.
Not so. Not so.
Putting a earth/sod roof on your house may not be such a hot idea.
If we give to the poor, don’t let the right hand know what the left hand is doing.
And the question as posed implies that simplification is the same as “green-ifying”.
Not so. Not so.
Putting a earth/sod roof on your house may not be such a hot idea.
R
Rachele_Ann
Guest
Think small stuff. I drink tap water and read once to reduce water consumption it is best to keep a pitcher of tap water in the fridge. By doing this you eliminate running the water until it is cold. I’ve done it for several years now.
The other thing I do is cook. In making all my meals I have much less waste and I avoid heavily processed “convenience” foods.
I also obsessively save glass jars from jams and pickles etc. and use those to store leftover food in.
The other thing I do is cook. In making all my meals I have much less waste and I avoid heavily processed “convenience” foods.
I also obsessively save glass jars from jams and pickles etc. and use those to store leftover food in.
- Status