4 ms·

We really are but I'm not sure what to do about it (other than considering environmental policy when voting). We don't drive (me or my partner), We recycle, I

We really are but I'm not sure what to do about it (other than considering environmental policy when voting). We don't drive (me or my partner), We recycle, I mend everything I can (which outside of a clean room is most things, it's never been easier with youtube), neither of use go in for excessive consumption (My current desktop is from 2011, it's finally coming up on time to replace that). I even considered going vegetarian but with Crohn's that isn't really viable (I have to avoid high fibre and getting enough minerals/vitamins is a struggle). We don't eat wild caught fish (or much fish at all). I mean I'm not a tofu eating ecowarrior or anything but it just seems sensible not to piss in your own drinking water.

vfc1 8y ago
Since you have Chron's and are thinking of going vegetarian, have a look this video on plant-based diets and Chron's disease: Achieving Remission of Crohn's Disease - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE and Preventing Crohn’s Disease With Diet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s Note that for Chron patients, its recommended to stay way from nutritional yeast.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  Thanks for the links, though I've run across Dr. Greger before (given the amount of quackery that you find with any health related stuff online I always do research on the person who is stating an opinion even if they have Dr. in front of their name).
protonimitate 8y ago
I don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return. Short of a massive population decrease, a complete switch in energy consumption, or some sci-fi type of technological breakthrough, we are doomed to run this planet into extinction. At this point, most conservation efforts are more of a attempt to feel better as an individual then they are actually making a difference. That doesn't mean we should stop, or concede, with our efforts. It just means we need to be realistic with what we do over the next 50-100 years. Personally, I think the only way the human race will continue to thrive is to figure out how to survive without the Earth as a host. Whether we figure that out, or succumb to extinction, is really the ultimate test of our race. Were we designed to be a part of nature as it exists on Earth, or will we surpass it?
- lawrenceyan 8y ago
  You underestimate the depths human ingenuity.
  - xapata 8y ago
    On the other hand, you might be underestimating the depths of human myopia.
    - optimuspaul 8y ago
      I was going to say apathy.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- ant6n 8y ago
  All feasible measures should be implemented simultaneously. Colonizing space seems like the least likely solution.
- InclinedPlane 8y ago
  This is a defeatist and ahistorical attitude. We've brought species back from near extinction, we've brought entire biomes back from near destruction, we've made the air and water cleaner, we've saved the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc. We know how to do these things, it doesn't require magic or impossibly futuristic technology or excessive personal sacrifice. It's just work. All we have to do is do the work.
  - protonimitate 8y ago
    To be clear, I don't think sustainability efforts are a waste of time. I'm more curious about what our path as a species will lead to - will we continuously innovate to survive on the planet we were given, or will we move past it? Both? I don't think we're doomed.
  - oldcynic 8y ago
tzakrajs 8y ago
Adopting seems ecologically friendly for people of parenting age.
- genericone 8y ago
  I had a crazy thought about applying free-software principles to environmentalism. Is there a Richard Stallman type character known among those circles? What I mean is, are there any 'strict-adherence' type rules that are too far even for the lay-environmentalist? Something like: "A true environmentalist may not birth or father their own children, only adopt." RMS is famously known for refusing to own a cell phone until there's one that runs entirely on free software, what is at the same level of adherence for environmentalists?
  - ttoinou 8y ago
    You can read Ivan Illich about Conviviality, it's like free software but for the whole society
belorn 8y ago
I can recommend wild caught fish from overpopulated lakes (usually caused by eutrophication from nearby farming, including fish farms). Overpopulation and invasive species usually share a few common trait: Low commercial interest, caused by human actions, and not enough focus from environmental friendly policies. Here in Sweden it seems like most freshwater lakes suffer from overpopulation, and the commercial value of the fish is so little that the transportation cost to cat food factories makes it unprofitable to fish it. Making matters worse, overpopulation in lakes has a tendency to cause extinctions where some species crowds out others. There was/is some government initiative to fund fishing directly, but so far very few has taken up on the offer. It is however quite hard to find a seller for this. Some restaurants has made a bit of PR from saying that they are serving this kind of fish, but I have never seen a menu with it or seen those species in any store. Your best bet would be to buy it directly from those fishing in the lakes which could be problematic depending on where you live.
yason 8y ago
We really are but I'm not sure what to do about it What to do about it would be for humans to effectively stop taking more from nature than we can give back. The tricky part would be to orchestrate that. If you cut down your consumption but I won't it won't save the planet. If I cut down my consumption but you won't it won't save the planet. If you and I both did cut our consumption, the planet would begin to recover but then there would be someone else who starts taking what we chose not to take. And because that someone would later have more than we, you and I would ourselves risk dying in resource wars that would likely follow. This is basically what countries and continents do. To make any difference it would take one powerful party who could hoard resources: just leave them unconsumed except for the amount needed to prevent others from consuming them. At the same time, they would keep others poor, or at least limiting their standard of living by denying resources from everyone. Assuming there was one ruler who could control the majority of the planet's resources that would still be an extremely hard position to be. The other option is not to do anything and play along. When we out-consume and out-grow enough the population can't sustain itself and the headcount on this planet will shrink back to 50% or 30% of the current levels. Then the race begins again...

vfc1 8y ago

Since you have Chron's and are thinking of going vegetarian, have a look this video on plant-based diets and Chron's disease: Achieving Remission of Crohn's Disease - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE and Preventing Crohn’s Disease With Diet - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-JuRjSrJPo&t=5s Note that for Chron patients, its recommended to stay way from nutritional yeast.

noir_lord 8y ago
Thanks for the links, though I've run across Dr. Greger before (given the amount of quackery that you find with any health related stuff online I always do research on the person who is stating an opinion even if they have Dr. in front of their name).

protonimitate 8y ago

I don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return. Short of a massive population decrease, a complete switch in energy consumption, or some sci-fi type of technological breakthrough, we are doomed to run this planet into extinction. At this point, most conservation efforts are more of a attempt to feel better as an individual then they are actually making a difference. That doesn't mean we should stop, or concede, with our efforts. It just means we need to be realistic with what we do over the next 50-100 years. Personally, I think the only way the human race will continue to thrive is to figure out how to survive without the Earth as a host. Whether we figure that out, or succumb to extinction, is really the ultimate test of our race. Were we designed to be a part of nature as it exists on Earth, or will we surpass it?

lawrenceyan 8y ago
You underestimate the depths human ingenuity.
- xapata 8y ago
  On the other hand, you might be underestimating the depths of human myopia.
  - optimuspaul 8y ago
    I was going to say apathy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
ant6n 8y ago
All feasible measures should be implemented simultaneously. Colonizing space seems like the least likely solution.
InclinedPlane 8y ago
This is a defeatist and ahistorical attitude. We've brought species back from near extinction, we've brought entire biomes back from near destruction, we've made the air and water cleaner, we've saved the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc. We know how to do these things, it doesn't require magic or impossibly futuristic technology or excessive personal sacrifice. It's just work. All we have to do is do the work.
- protonimitate 8y ago
  To be clear, I don't think sustainability efforts are a waste of time. I'm more curious about what our path as a species will lead to - will we continuously innovate to survive on the planet we were given, or will we move past it? Both? I don't think we're doomed.
- oldcynic 8y ago

tzakrajs 8y ago

Adopting seems ecologically friendly for people of parenting age.

genericone 8y ago
I had a crazy thought about applying free-software principles to environmentalism. Is there a Richard Stallman type character known among those circles? What I mean is, are there any 'strict-adherence' type rules that are too far even for the lay-environmentalist? Something like: "A true environmentalist may not birth or father their own children, only adopt." RMS is famously known for refusing to own a cell phone until there's one that runs entirely on free software, what is at the same level of adherence for environmentalists?
- ttoinou 8y ago
  You can read Ivan Illich about Conviviality, it's like free software but for the whole society

belorn 8y ago

I can recommend wild caught fish from overpopulated lakes (usually caused by eutrophication from nearby farming, including fish farms). Overpopulation and invasive species usually share a few common trait: Low commercial interest, caused by human actions, and not enough focus from environmental friendly policies. Here in Sweden it seems like most freshwater lakes suffer from overpopulation, and the commercial value of the fish is so little that the transportation cost to cat food factories makes it unprofitable to fish it. Making matters worse, overpopulation in lakes has a tendency to cause extinctions where some species crowds out others. There was/is some government initiative to fund fishing directly, but so far very few has taken up on the offer. It is however quite hard to find a seller for this. Some restaurants has made a bit of PR from saying that they are serving this kind of fish, but I have never seen a menu with it or seen those species in any store. Your best bet would be to buy it directly from those fishing in the lakes which could be problematic depending on where you live.

yason 8y ago

We really are but I'm not sure what to do about it What to do about it would be for humans to effectively stop taking more from nature than we can give back. The tricky part would be to orchestrate that. If you cut down your consumption but I won't it won't save the planet. If I cut down my consumption but you won't it won't save the planet. If you and I both did cut our consumption, the planet would begin to recover but then there would be someone else who starts taking what we chose not to take. And because that someone would later have more than we, you and I would ourselves risk dying in resource wars that would likely follow. This is basically what countries and continents do. To make any difference it would take one powerful party who could hoard resources: just leave them unconsumed except for the amount needed to prevent others from consuming them. At the same time, they would keep others poor, or at least limiting their standard of living by denying resources from everyone. Assuming there was one ruler who could control the majority of the planet's resources that would still be an extremely hard position to be. The other option is not to do anything and play along. When we out-consume and out-grow enough the population can't sustain itself and the headcount on this planet will shrink back to 50% or 30% of the current levels. Then the race begins again...