Hippy-crits

[tourmaline]

I am an exploration geologist working in metals.

I have considered myself an environmentalist for as long as I have known the term. I recycle, reduce, and reuse as much as I can. I have an old car, it gets ~28 mpg, and I try not to use it. I dont buy frivolous toys. I advocate renewable energy/resources and deplore negligent practices.

I have friends that also consider themselves environmentalists. But they usually find ways to excuse there own ecological footprint and condemn others, especially those would produce the services and products they use every day. For example, they benefit every day from the use of fossil fuels and metals without considering they both cause degradation of the environment; and they ignore their economic support of related industries by repeated business (which is why people like me have jobs).

One in particular, grows plants using artificial lighting, owns 3 "gas guzzling vehicles," and admits that he is too lazy to recycle. He often makes the statement that individual households being environmentally conscious is pointless/insignificant considering the scale of industry. He has the nerve to criticize me for working in resources because I help those that pollute on a larger scale than the individual.

My counter points to him usually follow the "every bit counts," the practicality of going "cold turkey" with regard to fossil fuels, the economics of "only-recycled" material, practicality vs ideals, and if it wasn't for people like me you would not have such an easy life.

So I ask the JREF community their opinion of environmentalism with practicality in mind.

Are my friend and I both hippy-crits?

Is it just me or do many environmentally minded people love the proverbial "sausage" yet chide its production?

Do the producers of resources have more "blood on their hands" than the end user?

Are we all just fukushimaed?

[commandlinegamer]

Acorns to oaks come to mind, and the journey of a thousand miles beginning with a single step.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

Acorns to oaks come to mind, and the journey of a thousand miles beginning with a single step.

Why would anyone travel a thousand miles, on foot, for acorns? Or even for oaks?

[Cleon]

Well, they have a point. One person taking the bus or recycling beer cans is not going to have much of an impact. What's needed is infrastructure and technological changes to both industry and society at large. I don't think it's hypocrisy, I think it's simple acknowledgement of the futility of an individual's activities against the scale of the problem.

Attacking you for having an industry job, though, is just being a douche.

[quadraginta]

I like sausage.

[quadraginta]

And bacon.

[fuelair]

We all like bacon!! Even vegetarians secretly crave it!

and polluters and anti-polluters (just to keep on the topic).

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, they have a point. One person taking the bus or recycling beer cans is not going to have much of an impact. What's needed is infrastructure and technological changes to both industry and society at large. I don't think it's hypocrisy, I think it's simple acknowledgement of the futility of an individual's activities against the scale of the problem.

Attacking you for having an industry job, though, is just being a douche.

The problem is leading by example works, i hate to say it but look at smoking.

Higher prices don't stop us, having to smoke outside doesn't stop us, what has been the most effective is individual non smokers making the decision to not allow smoking, for example in their cars, homes, around their children, around them, etc.


This kind of logic extends well beyond environmentalists, and is part of one of the biggest bains of my existence, the slacktivisim movement. It is much easier to sign an internet petition against Dow's practices than to actually do something one's self.

If you stop using your gas guzzling car all the time, your friend might, and if your friend does some of his friends do. People are pack animals, i mean for the love of Kord, wearing pants that hang to ones knees and impede proper walking became a huge fad simply because one person started it, to think that this same premise cannot extend to things that are useful, is just another way to avoid having to do anything yourself.

I blame the internet, one can feel like an activist by filling out petitions, discussing issues in forums, etc. And people like this, they don't want to go back to the days where actually doing something was the only way to feel like one was helping a worthwhile cause.

[bruto]

So does this fellow also not vote, not throw his litter in the barrel, shoplift small items? All these things are insignificant taken one at a time. At some point in one's thought process one has to acknowledge that all mass actions are those of individuals, and while it's true that the likely effects of our actions are very small, they are not nothing.

I tend not to be extreme, doctrinaire or fanatical about much of anything these days, but I think that if you consider yourself an environmentalist you should make at least a little effort to follow your own principles at the local level. Leading by example has at least some effect, and so do just plain actions. Your air conditioner is one of the many that make power grids go dim in summer. Your taste for good tomatoes is one of the things that keeps that local producer growing good tomatoes. etc. etc.

I also think that many people have a kind of "all or nothing" attitude about these things. I remember years ago an argument that took place partly in the pages of Popular Science magazine, over small wind generators and how they might affect the energy crisis back in the 70's. The argument was that at best a little home windmill would only generate about 20 percent of the power you need, so why bother? Of course I still don't have a windmill myself, but it seemed to me then and still does that 20 percent is a pretty good deal if you can get it.

[Verde]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Why would anyone travel a thousand miles, on foot, for acorns? Or even for oaks?

Find a squirrel. Make an allowance for squirrel/human footsteps.
Ask of it your question.

V.

[Verde]

Originally Posted by bruto

At some point in one's thought process one has to acknowledge that all mass actions are those of individuals, and while it's true that the likely effects of our actions are very small, they are not nothing.

This a good example of the prevalent me-first mindset. I am not immune to it, but at some point it will come back and bite me in the butt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

V.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was disgusted the people in India don't stop the horrendous abuse of street orphans (after seeing Slumdog Millionaire), but I'm not doing anything about it either. I don't think the OP dilemma is exactly the way to look at things.

First, I think your neighbor is being a selfish twit. I don't know how easy your city makes it to recycle, but where I am it takes only a fraction more energy to separate the trash as it takes not to separate it. The city contract with the waste hauler negotiated the service to include a significant recycling service.

That stands on its own whether he criticized you or not. And your job stands on its own whether your neighbor used it as an excuse to rebuff your complaint about him or not. What exactly do you do? How bad is the pollution? Are there things which would lessen the environmental impact in your industry that your company isn't doing but could? Do you have a choice of changing jobs?

There are no black and white answers here.

[Aepervius]

What do I do for the environment ? I don't consume too much fossile fuel, mostly : I go everywhere using bicycle (below 40 km), and long distance using train (above 40 km). I do not heat much in winter, I put another wooly pull over instead. I try to avoid any stuff in a packing with a lot of plastic. What's nice about all of this, is since I don't have much money, the same method can be used to spare a little every month, for a gift, or christmas. That's about it.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Well, they have a point. One person taking the bus or recycling beer cans is not going to have much of an impact. What's needed is infrastructure and technological changes to both industry and society at large. I don't think it's hypocrisy, I think it's simple acknowledgement of the futility of an individual's activities against the scale of the problem.

Attacking you for having an industry job, though, is just being a douche.

I agree with infrastructure change.

I dont think the problem is a mutually exclusive dichotomy of producers and consumers. I think its one system that reenforces itself.

The whole reason resource extractors have jobs is as simple as supply and demand. Your right that the individual does not have much of an impact. Its the aggregate of all consumption that is the problem. And there could be no consumption without production. And production would be pointless without consumption.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I was disgusted the people in India don't stop the horrendous abuse of street orphans (after seeing Slumdog Millionaire), but I'm not doing anything about it either. I don't think the OP dilemma is exactly the way to look at things.

First, I think your neighbor is being a selfish twit. I don't know how easy your city makes it to recycle, but where I am it takes only a fraction more energy to separate the trash as it takes not to separate it. The city contract with the waste hauler negotiated the service to include a significant recycling service.

That stands on its own whether he criticized you or not. And your job stands on its own whether your neighbor used it as an excuse to rebuff your complaint about him or not. What exactly do you do? How bad is the pollution? Are there things which would lessen the environmental impact in your industry that your company isn't doing but could? Do you have a choice of changing jobs?

There are no black and white answers here.

The project I work on isnt in production. Its still in exploration and feasibility. My job is to log the rock that a drill produces and submit it to the project geologist. I basically collect data.

As far as I know the company is following all applicable laws strictly. There are some practices that are legal but I dont agree with. But I understand its the norm in that state.

I graduated in 2009 and most places wouldnt consider you without 3-5 years experience. Its still like that for most places. I got lucky and found one of the few companies hiring inexperienced people.

I suppose one of the points I'd like to make is that there is no such thing as environmentally friendly resource extraction. Environmental degradation is integral. Whether its metals or agriculture, the best you can do is minimize the impact.

[Kopji]

I don't have any answers. Just want to say thanks for helping build the computer I'm using right now, and perhaps being more aware than most of us that turning earth into power and information is an environmental issue.

I'd think it would be hard for any of us posting or reading here to call you a hypocrite and have it mean something. Each pixel involves exploitation or sacrifice of a natural resource.

On the other hand, ideas that result in better, more environmentally friendly use of resources often come from ordinary people working in industry. Your ideas or individual example could have some impact where it makes a great difference.

I don't see any more hypocrisy being an industrial environmentalist, than with any other human endeavor.


http://www.lnt.org

[coalesce]

My feeling is if you can make a difference, why not? Yes, you're only one person, but if the opportunity presents itself, and it's not inconvenient (using a recycling bin in a mall, for instance), what's to stop you? "It won't make a difference," you might think. But as others have pointed out, it's better than doing nothing, and one person is sometimes all you need to start something.

So why not do it?

Michael

[Björn Toulouse]

Originally Posted by tourmaline

Are my friend and I both hippy-crits?

I only take humorous objection to the spelling. Having been referred to as a "hippie" in the 60's, because I had long hair, smoked pot, and dressed funny, I accepted the designation although I had a job, a car, an apartment, and I showered and SHAMPOOED my long hair every single day and wore clean clothing.

So....

Hippie - a longhair, smokes pot, dresses funny

Hippies - two or more longhairs, smoke pot, dress funny

Hippy - someone with a fat ass or saddlebags

Now, when I used to haunt Ciudad Juárez in 1970, they called me a "happy hoopie" but never a "hippy".

Ah, maybe the language has changed on me again. It's been over 40 years.

[marplots]

"Practical" is the weasel concept in the mix.

I'll use the parallel of being honest. "I cheated on the test because everyone does and there's really no way to pass this class without doing so, at least a little bit."

I am honest, not because I am working toward making the whole world honest, but because it is the right thing to do. This cuts through the dilemma of the commons nicely.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

What do I do for the environment ? I don't consume too much fossile fuel, mostly : I go everywhere using bicycle (below 40 km), and long distance using train (above 40 km). I do not heat much in winter, I put another wooly pull over instead. I try to avoid any stuff in a packing with a lot of plastic. What's nice about all of this, is since I don't have much money, the same method can be used to spare a little every month, for a gift, or christmas. That's about it.

.
In this park, any wasted water gets the space owner a notice from the park.
Across the street, up the hill where the rich folk live, the gutters look like rivers, from the excess water from their lawns.
I'm almost tempted to make an issue of it.

[Segnosaur]

I have a friend that lives in a "pro-Environment co-op" building that I teasingly call "A nest of hippies".

Supposedly a requirement to live in the building is to be pro-environment. (They have rules, for example, that air conditioners are not allowed, there is no parking, and recycling bins are everywhere.

Yet when visiting the building I see plenty of "no nuclear power" signs (despite the fact that nuclear may be one of the most "green" sources of power we have, and posters for "organic food" (even though organic food requires more land to grow the same food, and thus might ultimately harm the environment more.) So, basically they've taken all the "popular pro-environment messages" and failed to do any research on whether they're true.

My motto.. if you truly want to help the environment, start by getting rid of the hippies.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

...

My motto.. if you truly want to help the environment, start by getting rid of the hippies.

.
Why do so many solutions to problems involve getting "rid" of those with the problem?
Why not edumucate them out of their error, instead of sending them to FEMA camps to become part of the countryside?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Quote:

My motto.. if you truly want to help the environment, start by getting rid of the hippies.

Why do so many solutions to problems involve getting "rid" of those with the problem?
Why not edumucate them out of their error, instead of sending them to FEMA camps to become part of the countryside?

I'm assuming you do recognize my comment wasn't to be taken totally seriously. (Besides, all those FEMA camps are supposed to be used once the Illuminati start to take control and ship everyone off who questions the conspiracy.)

Of course, you're assuming you could educate them out of their errors. I've pointed out these sorts of things to my friend in the past, to no avail. She's got her mind set on what is right and doesn't even want to entertain information that might change her views.

[I Ratant]

50 years ago, when I was a hippie.. kinda.. I never met any that I considered were playing with a full deck to start with.
At the love-ins in Griffith Park, I'd see just a buncha stoners grokking on living... really simple basic minimal effort living.
Discussing Scientology with them, waste of time, they had no idea what it was about, or its origins.
Just a chance to ask someone with a clean shirt and pants for spare change.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I have a friend that lives in a "pro-Environment co-op" building that I teasingly call "A nest of hippies".

Supposedly a requirement to live in the building is to be pro-environment. (They have rules, for example, that air conditioners are not allowed, there is no parking, and recycling bins are everywhere.

Yet when visiting the building I see plenty of "no nuclear power" signs (despite the fact that nuclear may be one of the most "green" sources of power we have, and posters for "organic food" (even though organic food requires more land to grow the same food, and thus might ultimately harm the environment more.) So, basically they've taken all the "popular pro-environment messages" and failed to do any research on whether they're true.

My motto.. if you truly want to help the environment, start by getting rid of the hippies.

Funny, the friend I mention in the OP believes strongly believes in AGW and is strongly against nuclear power. He always cites 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima. He ignores the magnitude of 3MI and the fundamentally stupid nature of the other two. Some how he never considers which is worse meltdowns or the plethora of consequences of AGW.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I have a friend that lives in a "pro-Environment co-op" building that I teasingly call "A nest of hippies".

Supposedly a requirement to live in the building is to be pro-environment. (They have rules, for example, that air conditioners are not allowed, there is no parking, and recycling bins are everywhere.

Yet when visiting the building I see plenty of "no nuclear power" signs (despite the fact that nuclear may be one of the most "green" sources of power we have, and posters for "organic food" (even though organic food requires more land to grow the same food, and thus might ultimately harm the environment more.) So, basically they've taken all the "popular pro-environment messages" and failed to do any research on whether they're true.

My motto.. if you truly want to help the environment, start by getting rid of the hippies.

To be fair, nuclear waste is green in a different way a and pesticides have been known to cause environmental damage. I'm not saying your friends are completely right, but there are a lot of value judgements to be made.

[Mr. Purple]

I just finished a 60+ hour work week as an environmental educator, and don't have the energy to do any more preaching.

I have two points:

1) Don't lump dumb hippies in with dedicated, thoughtful environmentalists. I don't want them on my team (except for their herb).

2) You are responsible for your job. I don't buy the "I am just doing my job" argument. You are responsible for your actions, regardless of whether it is actions that feed your family or not. However, I think there are bigger fish to fry than those in your industry. Though, to be honest, I haven't researched metals / mining very much. I would start first with developers destroying habitat faster than you can blink, were I to get uppity about it.

ETA: This is directed mostly at the OP. Sorry, forgot to quote.

[Mr. Purple]

Ugh...sorry...one more thing.

Pesticides / Herbicides can and do cause damage to local ecosystems, so I tend to embrace (in theory) organic farming.

The fact that there are too many friggin people on the planet makes this a complicated issue though.

I don't really (well, maybe on a grumpy day) want people to starve, but I don't want to live in a world bereft of the natural habitats that I (and gagillions of others) enjoy.

[jayh]

I was at a lecture given by a local college professor. He talked buzzwords about local planned communities, etc. Except that he had a nice little home deep in the woods and a 50 mile commute.

On the other hand, much of the stuff labelled 'save the earth' is basically genuflecting. Nice in concept, but would not change much (often things that would not change much even if everybody did them).

[jayh]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

What do I do for the environment ? I don't consume too much fossile fuel, mostly : I go everywhere using bicycle (below 40 km), and long distance using train (above 40 km). I do not heat much in winter, I put another wooly pull over instead. I try to avoid any stuff in a packing with a lot of plastic. What's nice about all of this, is since I don't have much money, the same method can be used to spare a little every month, for a gift, or christmas. That's about it.

In my younger days I was somewhat like that (I'm still selectively frugal, but only where I choose to be). But I began to realize that I only have one life and that my self flagellation was only hurting me. I decided I was no longer going to be guilted into trying to atone for other peoples behaviors. I realized I was being driven by the secular version of Catholic guilt. Now, if I walk, or ride a bicycle it's only for my own personal exercise, not some personal need to 'save the planet'. And if I need to drive (like my work commute) I do it. I won't give up my job (the fact that I can travel means I can make a lot more money), and I won't give up my home.