Posts 8Comments 62Joined 4 wk. ago
Cheers, I've added them to the list!
Yeah, it's similar to the debate around whether paper bags or tote bags are more eco friendly. As others mentioned here in regards to dishwashers, what likely matters most is how many times an item must be used before it offsets the environmental cost of it's own production.
Sadly even if you reject the receipt in my regular shops they still get printed, the staff just toss them instead.
A wide adoption of a digital alternative would be great. It of course opens up questions around the impact of hosting them digitally, but I'm optimistic that would cost less than all the unnecessary paper, especially if the service was hosted on renewable power.
Thank you for sharing!
Ahhh nothing is sacred :(
And you get a delicious bread treat after your meal ;)
Thanks for sharing! This is very cool, some great common sense in action.
Point no. 3 here makes me wonder. Is it worth making plastic for temporary items circular? In the end it will find its way into the trash. Would it be better to bite the bullet and just outlaw plastic in these situations? I guess plastic is very useful especially in regards to food safety.
It aims to: Prevent and reduce packaging waste, including through more reuse and refill systems. Make all packaging on the EU market recyclable in an economically viable way by 2030. Safely increase the use of recycled plastics in packaging. Decrease the use of virgin materials in packaging and put the sector on track to climate neutrality by 2050.
Another win for the EU! Forcing Apple to adopt USB Type C was such a huge triumph also.
Very cool idea. It reminds me of how many receipts are printed just to be immediately tossed in the bin by the cashiers or customers. It's maddening.
I feel like there is an equation in here
Thanks for this!
Apologies, I assumed you meant using waste, i.e. packaging materials that are not easily reused, to ensure food safety. Glass is great in comparison to plastic.
I'm not sure how useful this exercise is, but I like to boil things down to the basic "cavepeople fighting for survival scenario".
In this scenario, art is irrelevant. So are any politicians that don't offer immediate results such as more food or more water.
What matters is survival by means of effectively allocating resources and defending those resources. This is where ambition comes in.
These drives don't go away when survival is no longer at risk. They are inherent to our being because they ensure our survival. Unfortunately, we also love excess.
I fear the current system exists because our nature has resulted in it existing.
I am unfamiliar with the potlatch system, so please forgive me if I am misunderstanding it, but I would guess that the fact it is no longer around and capitalism is proves that it is not a viable long term solution that humans would gravitate towards.
I fear that eventually someone in the system would think "those people who are giving away their stuff are gaining social approval, sure, but at the end of the day I have all of my resources and can use them to accumulate more, and then social approval will be irrelevant because I will own all of the wealth"
Admittedly I need to learn more about degrowth. However, I feel GDP is just a manifestation of multiple cases of personal ambition.
Let's say we all worked to the point that we had equal, abundant luxuries. Surely at this point we are happy and need no more? Unfortunately I think this is not the case. If a person or a group identifies a route to greater success, or dominion over others, it's likely they will take it, just for the sake of being more powerful.
Then apply this not just to the individual, but to the group, and then to the nation.
Very interesting discussion, thanks both!
Thank you for the explanation, I need to look at the ideas more closely and understand the differences between them.
I do find it strange that these network states don't explain how classic issues like climate change or equality would come into play. In fact, it's funny that the Network State book doesn't acknowledge what happens to differently abled or disadvantaged individuals. I guess the easy answer is that they simply don't care!
When I was younger and sillier, I threw a banana skin into the river above the lower Yosemite falls in order to watch it cascade into the plunge pool below. The people in the pool below shouted at me for littering. I didn't understand because, as far as I could tell, the item was compostable.
I learned: A) The item was not native to the area B) It could attract bears C) Despite being compostable, it would take years to degrade
I agree with what you're saying, ultimately if it can decompose it should be all good. There are other factors to take into account, however, such as cleanliness and contamination.
So they would have to pay for the packaging, and upon reusing/recycling it they get the money back? It's a great idea - but who would they be paying this deposit to? The government?