Comments for Sustainability History Project

Comment on Some reasons why many people seem only to think “environment” when they hear “sustainability” by Electronics recycling and sustainability | designforlives

Electronics recycling and sustainability | designforlives — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 07:04:19 +0000

[...] is a poisonous characteristic of haphazard attempts at being sustainable. People and organizations tend to focus on the environmental pillar of sustainability, with notions of the other less known pillars. In addition to this misconception, many systems of [...]

Comment on On water & sustainability by Christopher Milton

Christopher Milton — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:06:29 +0000

Wow! This documentary sounds amazing! I really enjoy watching documentaries on a variety of subjects and I am surprised I have have not heard about this documentary until not.
Water right and water related issues are going to be one of the major issues that our generation is going to have to deal with. Currently, on the horn of Africa, the lack of water there is causing major problems for so many people. The statistic I recently read was 24 thousand children under five have died due to the drought in Somalia and other countries. The problem that have arisen due to the lack of water are incredible. We treat water as if it is an endless resource. There is no way we can continue to use water in such wasteful ways!

Comment on Electronics recycling and sustainability by Jan Steinbock

Jan Steinbock — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:09:01 +0000

I’ve just purchased an iPad and wondered if Apple’s claims that the device is better for the environment are really going to make much of a difference. Here is the text from their website. (http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad/select?mco=MjE0OTI0MDI, August 10, 2011)

iPad embodies Apple’s continuing environmental progress. It is designed with the following features to reduce environmental impact:

* Arsenic-free display glass
* BFR-free
* Mercury-free LED-backlit display
* PVC-free
* Recyclable aluminum and glass enclosure

All of these changes sound great and should be a step in the right direction. Apple is not claiming that the iPad is a sustainable product, not even for one of the pillars of sustainablility.
Based on your post it appears that my best course of action is to take good care of my new iPad and hope it lasts for years and years. Perhaps by the time I am done using it there will be better recycling/reuse programs in place. Since I am not keen on having the latest and greatest gadgets this strategy might just work. My current laptop was purchased in February 2002 and my phone is over three years old. Yes, I am one of those people who drive those “useful life” averages up.

I am curious to know, based on the research you all did for your essays, how much damage will Apple’s changes prevent?

Comment on Sustainability as it relates to local food systems, food bank gardens, permaculture, and light pollution by Sam Medina

Sam Medina — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:30:37 +0000

With regards to light pollution, which societies and economies are the most vulnerable? I would expect the more hunter-gatherer societies due to the fact they have more direct contact with the environment to sustain their day to day lifestyles…. Is this the correct way of thinking? Do industrialized societies have a net benefit or loss when it comes to light polluting? What are the criteria to decide these?

Comment on Food isn’t the only thing that matters by Christopher Milton

Christopher Milton — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:06:05 +0000

First off, I want to give credit where credit is due and give praise for a nicely written post. I feel you did a job covering most of the angles of sustainability. One thing Id like to add, lately I have seen many documentaries that all seem to argue the same things, eat nuts, eat berries and life will be better. They often make the claim that this is a more natural way of living because this is the way of our ancestors. While this seems nice to attribute our current eating habits to those of our distant relatives, this comparison is entirely inaccurate. Although it has been long accepted that early humans and hominids where hunters and gatherers, many people forget just how important hunting was for these individuals. Within the archeological data, there is plenty of evidence to support that most of the nutrients these early individuals were receiving was from animal proteins. According to the expensive tissue hypothesis, the animal proteins were a vital aspect of human evolution because they allow organs, such as the brain, which requires more protein, the ability to increase in mass. Since modern humans are characterized by cranial capacity, animal proteins were pivotal in the creation of the human mind. Expensive tissues would have been unable to thrive without the rich animal protein diets of early modern humans; therefore, with this data, one must ask, is it more natural/sustainable to eat only nuts and berries?

Comment on History, historians, climate change by Christopher Milton

Christopher Milton — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:09:43 +0000

With all due respect to Daniel Gray, it seems that his arguments are against the Rescue!History project are entirely built on a foundation of nonsensical rhetoric that denies the existence of proven facts. First, nuclear proliferation was a true threat, and did almost come to fruition; furthermore, although it is not heavily publicized now, clean drinking water is a problem throughout most parts of the world — fresh water makes up on 2.5 percent of the water on Earth and most of that is encapsulated within the ice sheets of the polar caps. While he has the right to voice his arguments against short-term solutions, I feel that without short-term solutions, the long-term solutions will increase to a point where sustainability will become unachievable. Although scare mongering is not the right approach entirely, we cannot expect people to make the right decision entirely on their own accord. People, Homo sapiens sapiens, are just another form of animal with entirely predictable characteristics; therefore, it can be said with certain degree of accuracy, that in order for one group of individuals to get a larger group of individuals to perform some task (for example, recycle), their must be some incentive in order of the smaller group to convince the larger group to recycle (bottle return). While this is a very straightforward way to convince some to recycle, other methods to convince someone to recycle might be to tell them that if they don’t the world is going to come to an end tomorrow. While this would not work for something mundane like a bottle — humans have developed a high enough process of cognitive though for this to be plan to be thwarted — it does seem to work on a larger scale, a societal scale. What scare mongering does to and individual within a society is more in-depth than he gives it credit for. This level of coaxing has long-term psychological effects on the small-scale (the individual) and the large-scale (the society); however, this form of psychological pressure is vital for a societal shift in the sub-conscious understanding of a given topic. Once engrained within the human mind, action can occur because it is understood by the individual to be a perceived threat to themselves, instead of merely an issue for society as a whole. We as individuals might think that we are uncontrolled by these pressure, and certain individuals like Daniel Gray might chose to fight them in an attempt to avoid this form of mass-psyche; however, this form of deliberate fear mongering is important for change and is unavoidable within society. Fear mongering must be understood as the beginning steps within the process of long-term change.

Comment on Some reasons why many people seem only to think “environment” when they hear “sustainability” by Electronics recycling and sustainability « Sustainability History Project

Electronics recycling and sustainability « Sustainability History Project — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:24:52 +0000

Comment on “Sustainability”: Conservative or Liberal? by jvhillegas

jvhillegas — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 05:13:59 +0000

Jan, yeah, it is fascinating to me as well. There are some conservatives who are vehemently opposed to “sustainability,” but some of the current leading lights of the conservative movement simply ignore the concept. I have no idea what that is all about!

Comment on “Sustainability”: Conservative or Liberal? by Jan Steinbock

Jan Steinbock — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:34:48 +0000

Wow, you are right. Sarah Palin doesn’t have a web site. Interesting.
I’ve been searching the web for 20 minutes for her views on sustainability and there is nothing directly attributed to her.

Comment on Reading one’s garbage by Jan Steinbock

Jan Steinbock — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:48:07 +0000

I agree that awareness is a huge obstacle. In my home I have taped the list of items that can be recycled to our refrigerator, in plain view. Yet I am constantly pulling garbage out of the recycling bin and pulling recycling out of the garbage bin.
Another obstacle is inertia or the strength of habits. We discuss what can be recycled in our family but most members of our household throw their drink bottles away rather than rinse them and separate the cap from the bottle.
Frustrating!
One member of our household puts anything into the recycling bin that HE thinks SHOULD be recycled, whether it can be recycled or not. It is his way of protesting the current system. Unfortunately, I worry that this only contaminates our recycling and may make it all “garbage”.