Biodiversity is life. Industries aren't grounded, they're profit driven. Factory farming, the chemicals and genetic engineering involved, it's all going to spell a disaster. It's this human arrogance, this abject notion that the earth belongs to us, that we are somehow seperate from nature. Why is cancer such a growing epidemic now? The harmony of life is being disrupted.
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
On the Discovery Home and Leisure channel they are talking about metal homes.
The guy is claiming using wood depletes natural resources.
When was the last time you saw someone grow a metal tree?
Why is it the very real fact that the vast majority of our wood is farmed, renewable, and is depleting nothing is not known by the majority, nor is it spoken of on stupid shows like this? Why is it the fact that we have more trees in the US today than we did 200 years ago never is exposed on these damn shows?
Now I'm not saying metal homes aren't a good idea. (they're more expensive, but they don't get termites). I'm just pissed at the amount of misinformation out there.
This reminds me of the time I heard Al Gore claim water is a nonrenewable resourse.
If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it...
I would (somewhat) agree if it was stone vs wood (and stone can't catch fire) but metal vs wood?
Is he expecting to recycle his home anytime soon?
Point by point:
Forestry advocates are shouting for SUSTAINABLE forestry. Your claim that the US practices something near to (or really) sustainable forestry is FALSE. Us Americans have the largest appetite for wood products. It is in large part for the US that rainforests are being clear cut in the Amazon, Asia, Canada and Alaska. These areas are in some cases too precious to loose, but we are still cutting them.
True, media debate on the topic is lame brain. The research is in but the media won't even carry discussions on the topic. It's only opposing side's view points. No debate as usual.
As for your last claim that we have more trees today than 200 years ago. I again disagree. From my education I believe hearing that that is true on the eastern seaboard. In the rest of the country (where most of the large forested areas are) logging has not always entered subsequent generations. Anyways, I see great value in an old growth forest. Sadly we are still logging the last 4% of US old growth.
The wood products industry needs to be kept on tree farms. That is the case in Europe (where they have had many more years to deal with the problem) and that is our future. Thing is, why would logging conglomerations give up free logging rights to our national lands?
Our forests
why wouldnt you want a metal house? What would an earthquake do to the house?
. I have metal beams supporting my (wood)house, is my house screwed? Im sure I sould like an idiot and the answer will be vary obvious.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,863
- 14,002
- 146
Cancer rates went up with life expectancy. It has more to do with old age and weak genes than any environmental reasons.
Of course industries are profit driven. In what fantasy land do you live in where humans do things for altruistric purposes? We never have, never will.
And I say again, you forgot to scream something about the sky falling.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,863
- 14,002
- 146
Clear cutting in South America is done mostly for grazing land, not timber. They're BURNING the forests down. And I challange you to prove that we get ANY construction grade lumber from South America.
As for sustainable forestry, we HAVE that. We are NOT cutting down more trees than we're planting. The only need for old growth trees is fine furniture. You do NOT need old growth trees for construction lumber or paper products.
You can disagree all you want, you're wrong.
In Europe they have almost no old growth areas over 200 years old. They've cut and regrown almost every forest they have. Don't EVEN try to use them for historical examples of nature conservancy. If anything, Europe is proof that man can massively over use renewable resourses, and nature still survives.
Oh yeah, now THERE'S an unbiased source.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,863
- 14,002
- 146
Originally posted by: Bobomatic
why wouldnt you want a metal house? What would an earthquake do to the house?
I agree. I fail to see how a house built with metal studs would be any more dangerous in an earthquake. If anything, it would stand up to the twisting much better. Metal bends far more than wood before it breaks.
It doesn't matter, as I've seen in other threads, AmusedOne is always right. Not that others aren't guilty of this (I'm not singling you out AmusedOne but I've noted that when you have an argument to present you don't budge an inch in your opinion). In any case, I somewhat agree with him in this thread. Somewhat being key word
I think the main problem with forests lie not in the industrialized nations but in nations like Brazil where thousands of poor farmers clear vital forests for farms that last a couple years and then they move on. That, to me, is a more significant problem.
I think the main problem with forests lie not in the industrialized nations but in nations like Brazil where thousands of poor farmers clear vital forests for farms that last a couple years and then they move on. That, to me, is a more significant problem.
Yeah, which is why we should try not to f*ck it up too much so that future generations still have something worth owning.
- Apr 14, 2001
- 55,863
- 14,002
- 146
Originally posted by: Ultima
It doesn't matter, as I've seen in other threads, AmusedOne is always right. Not that others aren't guilty of this (I'm not singling you out AmusedOne but I've noted that when you have an argument to present you don't budge an inch in your opinion). In any case, I somewhat agree with him in this thread. Somewhat being key word
I think the main problem with forests lie not in the industrialized nations but in nations like Brazil where thousands of poor farmers clear vital forests for farms that last a couple years and then they move on. That, to me, is a more significant problem.
Ultima, I only argue that which I know. If I don't know something, I keep my mouth shut and listen. You will notice I don't post in the majority of threads on AT, and if I do post on a topic I know little or nothing about, it's to ask a question.
I guess you could call me a debating pussy. I only debate topics when I know I'm right and I know I'll win.
And I somewhat agree with you as well. It's a damn shame what they're doing to the rain forest in SA. But we're damned if we do/damned if we don't here. The same people that bitch about the rain forest are the very same people that bitch when we interfere with the business and policies of other countries.
Well unfortunately we can't go back. People have tasted cars, houses, and the convenience of a material lifestyle, and they're not about to back away from that. Instead of trying to stop progress I think we (society) should be looking at ways to preserve what we still have and at the same time giving people the quality of life they desire. It's just a question of balancing the two. Take sprawl for example:
At one end of the extreme we can have everyone living in a giant house on one-acre lots in segregated subdivisions connected only with high-speed arterials and freeways. On the good side you have a roomy house and yard, little traffic on your street, a nice park for the kids to play in and a quiet neighbourhood to relax in. On the bad side you have to drive everywhere and you will probably sit for at least an hour in traffic on your way to work. Winding streets make walking or even biking annoying. Big sprawling neighbourhoods eat lots of farmland and open space and turns it into boring look-a-like clones. This is the kind of neighbourhood often seen today.
On the other end of the extreme you can live in a small apartment 5 minutes from downtown and 5 minutes from many of the stores that you like to visit. Cultural places are not too far and there is often a great nightlife in the city. Jobs are also easier to get to. Public transit takes you many places and a car is not necessary. On the bad side, living in an apartment really sucks. After 20 years of living there you have nothing to show for it. You're at the mercy of neighbours and because traffic is much higher in the city sitting out on the balcony facing the street is not so enjoyable. Too noisy. Especially when a bus goes by. Public transit is often not enjoyable. Questionable characters live in the city. Etc... this high-density living was commonplace in the cities before everyone took off to the suburbs.
Then you have the older suburbs which you find closer to the city, and in fact I live in one of these. Houses are mainly bungalows or two story buildings on 6000 sq. ft lots (probably none bigger than 9000 sq. ft). Not very big, but much, much better (and about the same price!) than an apartment. Streets are straight with some curves here and there but none of the cul-de-sac crap you find in the new suburbs. There's a convenience store that's a 10 minute walk or a 2 minute bike ride away. All the houses have their own "look" and many have nice trees or bushes. No barren cookie cutter crap. There's a bit more traffic than you will find in a new suburb but that's okay. Sure you need a car to do some shopping and to get to work and sure a house is a much less efficient use of land but the quality of life is worth it. After living in an apartment in a questionable neighbourhood for the past 3 years I'm truly glad to live out here.
I think that many people have become fed up with sprawl and the problems it creates and many new developments are trying to be "sprawl-friendly" with more varied house architecture, leaving green space here and there, better pedestrian access, and so on.
So as you see there's a balance for everything. Sure if everyone lived in the city there'd be a lot less pollution because there'd be a lot less driving and there'd be a lot less land usage, etc... but is the effect on the quality of life worth it, for the sake of some more free space or people driving less? There's a reason why people left the cities when the car was invented. (and just picture what will happen if a skycar becomes commonplace). That's just one example. Take any other hotly debated issue and you'll find a similar balance.
Too bad you can't run real life like a video game:
Put the wood houses where they have the greatest benefits, put the concrete houses where they are needed, same with steel, and use underground houses where possible / wanted (I wish I had an underground house).
Now balance it based on the ammount of each resource you have and the ability to refresh that resource. As one resource becomes too overused, hit the other resources equally to aleviate stress.
If you could do this as easily as you can in a video game, the world would be half as good as my video game worlds usually are.
Put the wood houses where they have the greatest benefits, put the concrete houses where they are needed, same with steel, and use underground houses where possible / wanted (I wish I had an underground house).
Now balance it based on the ammount of each resource you have and the ability to refresh that resource. As one resource becomes too overused, hit the other resources equally to aleviate stress.
If you could do this as easily as you can in a video game, the world would be half as good as my video game worlds usually are
.I post a gigantic reply and the guy hasn't even returned to comment.. nor has anyone else.. dammit
Anyway I wonder how much it would cost to build a floating city. You know, something like Midgar from FFVII except that it wouldn't be dark and ugly. There would also be gaps here and there to let sunlight down so that everyone underneath had sunlight at least for a couple hours during the day (but does anyone really have to live down there? You can use the land for other things... like a huge nature preserve right underneath the city.. or something).
Anyway I wonder how much it would cost to build a floating city. You know, something like Midgar from FFVII except that it wouldn't be dark and ugly. There would also be gaps here and there to let sunlight down so that everyone underneath had sunlight at least for a couple hours during the day (but does anyone really have to live down there? You can use the land for other things... like a huge nature preserve right underneath the city.. or something).
The earth owns us, and profit is going before long term enviromental well being.
History always makes fools of those with arrogant disregard....what makes us thing we will be any different?
History always makes fools of those with arrogant disregard....what makes us thing we will be any different?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter