3 ms·

One Man’s Trash ... (check out the slide show too)

27 points by robg 17y ago

stuntgoat 17y ago
"he was disturbed by the irony of landfills choked with building materials and yet a lack of affordable housing." Similarly, grocery stores and restaurants throw tons of food away.
- colbyolson 17y ago
  I would to see a restaurant do something about that. Much like the man in the article, find thrown goods, dust them off, and put them back into use. Or food.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Supermarkets here in Australia used to give their day-old bakery goods etc. (which are heavily discounted at the end of the day) to homeless people etc. Until they were sued for offering food that was unsaleable (and therefore probably not ideal healthiness) to people.
    - pageman 17y ago
      they can still give it away ... as pillows for the homeless :)
- lupin_sansei 17y ago
  I'll get voted down for this as it's taboo to ask, but what is this obsession with keeping things out of landfills? It's a myth that there's a shortage of space for landfills. According to the guest on Penn and Teller you need something like 30 square miles to store 10 thousand years of trash for the US at the current rate - sounds like a lot but work out how much space there is in the US. And it's also a myth that toxic chemicals leech into groundwater. They don't put landfills near groundwater sources, and they put many feet of clay down to stop things leaking through.
  - jedc 17y ago
    I'm personally not obsessed with keeping things out of landfills, but it definitely appeals to my sense of efficiency. Sure, you can throw out everything you personally don't need, but isn't it more efficient to recycle? Why waste anything, whether that's materials, time, or effort?
    - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
      Shift of viewpoint, what we currently think of "landfill" has the potential to be the "mine" of the future. Valuable minerals and materials will be extracted from rotted down landfill, "refurbished" or refined, then re-used as raw materials. Effectively recycling, but having gone through an extra phase. It will happen when current sources of raw materials are less economical than raiding the landfill.
      - lupin_sansei 17y ago
        Exactly! It's storing up plastic (which you can get petroleum from) and metals etc if/for when it's too valuable to leave sitting there. If you're interested Mike Munger an Economist talks about these ideas here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/munger_on_recyc.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/munger_on_recyc.htm...
    - jeremyw 17y ago
      It would help if they didn't use the word salvaged (i.e. rescued -- like a baby seal.) It's reuse, people.
jeremyw 17y ago
This guy is chock full of invention. Bravo.
JacobAldridge 17y ago
I feel the lack of scalability is what ultimately dooms these worthwhile concepts - while the subject has a passion for it and the skill to make it a reality, transferring that to other people is both difficult and costly. My grandad could come and fix any maintenance issues around my house for free, but it's hardly a solution to low cost housing. Edit: Good on him for doing it though.
- likpok 17y ago
  Right. You can train a person to put 2x4's together to frame a house fairly easily (it's not hard). Teaching someone to collate nonstandard bits into a structurally sound building would be much harder. The base problem therefore is that while yes he's reusing goods, the houses are only cheap because he values his time so little.
  - JacobAldridge 17y ago
    "The houses are only cheap because he values his time so little" I love it when somebody grabs the point I was trying to make, and says it ten times better.
    - Retric 17y ago
      He is makeing a living doing this. The housing is cheep to create, because the materials and land are donated pluss he is not trying to fit a generic mold. At the same time I think he is selling them for less than they are worth.
  - gloob 17y ago
    the houses are only cheap because he values his time so little. An alternative way to put it is that the houses are only expensive if he places negligible value on the enjoyment he gets from doing this. Your criticism could be applied to most of my favourite activities, in any case. I don't really see much of a market for a flagrantly-inefficient Scheme-to-32-bit-x86-assembly compiler, but I'm bloody well doing it anyway, because I just like it.
olliesaunders 17y ago
I wish there was a video about this. Stills don't do it justice.

27 points by robg 17y ago

"he was disturbed by the irony of landfills choked with building materials and yet a lack of affordable housing." Similarly, grocery stores and restaurants throw tons of food away.

colbyolson 17y ago
I would to see a restaurant do something about that. Much like the man in the article, find thrown goods, dust them off, and put them back into use. Or food.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Supermarkets here in Australia used to give their day-old bakery goods etc. (which are heavily discounted at the end of the day) to homeless people etc. Until they were sued for offering food that was unsaleable (and therefore probably not ideal healthiness) to people.
  - pageman 17y ago
    they can still give it away ... as pillows for the homeless :)
lupin_sansei 17y ago
I'll get voted down for this as it's taboo to ask, but what is this obsession with keeping things out of landfills? It's a myth that there's a shortage of space for landfills. According to the guest on Penn and Teller you need something like 30 square miles to store 10 thousand years of trash for the US at the current rate - sounds like a lot but work out how much space there is in the US. And it's also a myth that toxic chemicals leech into groundwater. They don't put landfills near groundwater sources, and they put many feet of clay down to stop things leaking through.
- jedc 17y ago
  I'm personally not obsessed with keeping things out of landfills, but it definitely appeals to my sense of efficiency. Sure, you can throw out everything you personally don't need, but isn't it more efficient to recycle? Why waste anything, whether that's materials, time, or effort?
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    Shift of viewpoint, what we currently think of "landfill" has the potential to be the "mine" of the future. Valuable minerals and materials will be extracted from rotted down landfill, "refurbished" or refined, then re-used as raw materials. Effectively recycling, but having gone through an extra phase. It will happen when current sources of raw materials are less economical than raiding the landfill.
    - lupin_sansei 17y ago
      Exactly! It's storing up plastic (which you can get petroleum from) and metals etc if/for when it's too valuable to leave sitting there. If you're interested Mike Munger an Economist talks about these ideas here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/munger_on_recyc.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/07/munger_on_recyc.htm...
  - jeremyw 17y ago
    It would help if they didn't use the word salvaged (i.e. rescued -- like a baby seal.) It's reuse, people.

jeremyw 17y ago

This guy is chock full of invention. Bravo.

JacobAldridge 17y ago

I feel the lack of scalability is what ultimately dooms these worthwhile concepts - while the subject has a passion for it and the skill to make it a reality, transferring that to other people is both difficult and costly. My grandad could come and fix any maintenance issues around my house for free, but it's hardly a solution to low cost housing. Edit: Good on him for doing it though.

likpok 17y ago
Right. You can train a person to put 2x4's together to frame a house fairly easily (it's not hard). Teaching someone to collate nonstandard bits into a structurally sound building would be much harder. The base problem therefore is that while yes he's reusing goods, the houses are only cheap because he values his time so little.
- JacobAldridge 17y ago
  "The houses are only cheap because he values his time so little" I love it when somebody grabs the point I was trying to make, and says it ten times better.
  - Retric 17y ago
    He is makeing a living doing this. The housing is cheep to create, because the materials and land are donated pluss he is not trying to fit a generic mold. At the same time I think he is selling them for less than they are worth.
- gloob 17y ago
  the houses are only cheap because he values his time so little. An alternative way to put it is that the houses are only expensive if he places negligible value on the enjoyment he gets from doing this. Your criticism could be applied to most of my favourite activities, in any case. I don't really see much of a market for a flagrantly-inefficient Scheme-to-32-bit-x86-assembly compiler, but I'm bloody well doing it anyway, because I just like it.

olliesaunders 17y ago

I wish there was a video about this. Stills don't do it justice.