I'd rather spend my vacation here...
Sometimes I hang out at junk yards and garbage dumps out of sheer curiosity and to make money. I’ve been an avid dumpster diver for decades, and at times have gone semi-pro.
In the trash heaps, I consistently find usable furniture (most of my apartment is furnished as such), kid’s toys (yes, my girl is using those), televisions (cleaned and sold, or harvested for copper), printers (nobody wants these because they’re cheaper than replacement cartridges), and old electronics (can be recycled for trace metal). This is how I learned to fix everything from antique typewriters to diesel engines. By placing serviceable products back into the stream, you become the ultimate recycler while occasionally earning extra income. This type of thinking is called, the “Brown Movement.”
The green movement will ultimately fail because it is still reliant on the principle of staging new products into emerging markets based on so-called consumer demand, and demand is generated through a machine called marketing (see Matt’s post on meme’s). Even if it’s a product made from recycled toilet paper rolls and crushed tires, it STILL requires production and manufacturing (energy resources) which at this late stage, is mostly a waste. I’d submit that there are extraordinarily few consumer products embedded in our collective minds that really need to be produced, if any.
The infinite growth paradigm is dead and gone even if corporate balance sheets and the GAO can’t accept it. Growth is THE business paradigm and is necessary for something called sustainability of operations. Does anybody detect a problem with this idea? You need growth to be sustainable? In essence, market growth is the product itself. American consumers produce approximately 251 million tons of municipal waste which represents 4.6 pounds/day/person. Not good, right? But, consider that this is merely 3% of all waste produced, and the other 97% is INDUSTRIAL waste caused by production of goods and products and the conclusions are simple:
- stop buying shit you don’t need
- start pulling shit out of the trash and reusing it
Not all products are created equally. This means that if you are buying products it should be the sort that lasts a long time and won’t break down in 3 months and end up in a landfill or dumped in the ocean. The second criteria of the product is that is should have intrinsic value that doesn’t erode… think shovels and lincoln logs. Old, handmade toys made of wood blocks and metal are every bit as usable and fun as they were 150 years ago. There is no need to produce shiny, noisy crap except that the crap breaks down and the wastage is what keeps the money cycle churning and the growth paradigm alive. Further, the metal soldier can be melted down and the wood block can be thrown in a fireplace.
....than here.
The streets are lined with free resources for somebody with the Human Capital to convert them to use. I recently learned an accounting trick employed to demonstrate “growth” that features intentional waste, overproduction, and initiation of products that will never see a market. Without boring you with the accounting, what this does is creates a temporary illusion of efficiency (I know it’s counter-intuitive, that’s why it’s called a trick) and growth. This is happening RIGHT NOW, and is partially responsible for our so-called economic recovery. The illusion marches on and forces new products that are essentially vastly more expensive in terms of cycle impact and energy consumption than the price tag indicates. At this point, a plastic shampoo bottle should be costing hundreds of dollars.
I have hundreds of examples but here’s one from my own experience that illustrates how I perceive the brown movement:
I rarely if ever drive, but I “bought” a 1992 Ford F-250 with 7.3L diesel engine. I did this through a series of trades, and in terms of dollars cost nothing. With this truck, I picked up scrap metal off the street and at construction sites and made thousands of dollars taking metal out of the waste stream. The engine itself is worth more than the truck, and conspiracy theorists claim that Ford discontinued this engine because it was too good. Many owners get over a million miles on this engine. I’ve run it off biodiesel that was brewed by a friend and was made from waste oil. We shared the truck in exchange for the fuel. Forget about commercial viability of biodiesel because it’s never going to happen — brew your own. Net result of this: use of an old truck that was bound for the crusher, using waste product that produces no emissions, recycling several hundred tons of resource metal (every pound handled by my two hands), making several thousand dollars that I applied toward debt freedom.
Before you beat me up over owning a giant truck, consider that the truck already exists. It’s powered off waste and does not require the manufacture of anything new. Right now, the meme is F-250=wastemobile, but dig deeper and discover it’s not true depending on how it’s used and why. Consider the net equation, and you’ll discover that the Toyota Prius is every bit as wasteful as a Hummer.
Ironically, saving yourself actually contributes to minimizing consumptive impact. Sound good? Welcome to brown.
{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post, Tommy.
I’ve always been amazed at how easy it can be to live off the “waste” our society generates once “making a buck” becomes beside the point.
There’s a whole dirt-bag climbing subculture that exists primarily between Camp 4 in Yosemite in the warmer months and Joshua Tree in the winter. Since climbing as much as possible (and working as little as possible) is the goal, a lot of folks manage to live pretty well on what they can pull out of the dumpster behind the Trader Joe’s in Palm Springs while driving only when they need to and biking the rest. Not a bad way to live…
Growth is THE business paradigm and is necessary for something called sustainability of operations. Does anybody detect a problem with this idea? You need growth to be sustainable? In essence, market growth is the product itself.
Hence the term “rat race.” Unfortunately, exponential growth implies that the treadmill must continue to speed up at a faster and faster rate. Too bad the rats are falling off the back in record numbers now, and the ones still running are looking pretty damn tired. Looks like we’ve got maybe one more good bubble and crash before the treadmill motor blows, THEN maybe we can get down to the serious business of building something better.
Good post by the way. I’ve felt the same way about the so-called “green revolution” for some time now as well. If nothing else, most of the technologies are geared toward wealthy first world consumers, which is not even where the primary problem lies. The “technology as savior” myth is especially pernicious here in the US, where it has really come to justify the whole military/industrial/consumer economy. It’s now pretty much accepted as gospel that any problem, no matter how intractable, can be solved on our terms given enough time and money to throw at R&D and sufficient profitability thereafter. Might work for a lot of things, but it appears that we’re gonna be testing the limits of that ethos in the coming decades. Probably ain’t gonna be pretty either.
@Matt, I’ve got my harness. When do we leave?
@Disaffected, I like the treadmill to nowhere analogy. Running just to run while going absolutely nowhere.
Great post…and thanks for bringing the ‘brown movement’ to my attention. I am fully in concurrence with the concept, I just didn’t know it had a name. Greenwashing is my pet peeve this week. While people think they can ‘buy green to save the planet’ we have no hope; BAU continues. Blatant consumerism needs to stop. It does my head in when a work colleague comes in to tell me about how he’s saving the world because of the new doodad he bought! Ick! The sooner the final crash comes, the better off we’ll be. As disaffected says “we can get down to building something better”.
Getting into climbing soon. Might catch you at J-tree sometime!
A good post. The brown movement is what my dad used to call “spare parts”. Someone else’s junk was a step up for our equipment, usually, but the farmers with new stuff inevitably called him (and still do) when something needed to be fixed for real or modified to work better.
I’m thinking a lot about the sustainability factor, though, as well as the powerdown aspect of brown materials. So; we some get old vehicles and grow fuel for them, or collect old nintendo boxes and use them to operate the internet for a while….THEN what? Where do our children go that is truly sustainable locally or through minimal global trade? Like you mentioned: MOST of the crap we have and make is not needed in the first place, so how can we come up with 5% of ‘local economics’ to be applied to things like GPS and space travel and communications and weather forecasts without the marketers and war mongers trying to get THEIR 5% each (and the government’s cut along with them)?
My always simple solution is “consumption taxes”, but that doesn’t put the mindset before the horse’s asscart: it merely puts a fence around how far the big horse can go without any real direction or distance designation. It doesn’t put us in charge of our own destination with forethought to what the future should look like.
I’m thinking of something between the Venus Project/Zeitgeist and World Made by Hand…leaning more toward the latter.
Along some of the same lines:
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2010/02/industrys-parting-gifts.html
Great thread. Thanks, Tommy. I really liked that link to the Brown Movement. I should have some fasting news and Operation Reverse Leverage info later this month (which I will post in the forum), but for now am just enjoying everyone’s comments. Nice work, guerrillas. When I was in the first grade I went to a rural public school surrounded by farms that reeked of manure. Every time we drove by my Dad would say, “That’s money you smell.”
Brown is great, but there is nothing wrong with making things green, as long as you are doing so because a certain product is needed and doesn’t exist. Of course, you could argue that nothing is needed, but until we go back to living in caves or hand-built shelters and acheive zero population growth, to sustain the type of living Americans have, there will always be a little bit of manufacturing. For someone like me who recycles paper, cardboard, plastics, metals, styrofoam, and plastic bags, green is fine. What pisses me off is getting an item that cannot be recycled. I also hold onto items many times longer than most people, and do so until they completely fall apart and are not repairable. Green can go hand in hand with brown. Recycling is the same thing as re-using. There will always be energy used to aquire, re-constitute, or repair. Still, Tommy makes a good point about how wasteful we are. He isn’t being anti-green, he’s being anti-wasteful. Green isn’t the problem, being wasteful is. Green is common sense, wasteful is just stupid and lazy.
A particularly good example of brown-cycling at a societal level is Cuba. People there are still running American cars from before the Castro regime. Every repair and spare part has to be improvised because of the half-century trade embargo, but it’s amazing to see how some of these run. Ditto most other manufactured goods in service there today.
Maybe even more interesting and relevant is the food situation there. After their sugar-for-grain managed economy collapsed with the demise of the Soviet Union, the entire country had to undergo agricultural restructuring in order to feed itself. As a result, most people took to rooftop gardens, using abandoned lots for food production, etc. Americans could really learn a lot from this. Check out Bill McKibben’s excellent article from a few years back:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501
Hummer the same as a Prius? Don’t undermine the rest of your article with such absurdities.
Yes, I know you justified it by asking us to compare the net “equation,” but let’s look at the net equation in reality versus Tommy’s world.
The truth is, Tommy… You are not the normal person. You are more intelligent, hard working, and honest than the average person. You are one of the few people who can make a Hummer (yes I know you own an F-250truck not a hummer) equitable.
First, you live in New York, which probably has the best pulblic transportation in the U.S. (although, maybe not the safest or cleanest…) If you only use your truck while you are dumpster diving (which has always been known as recycling in my vocabulary) than the vehicle ceases to create waste in the “net equation.” We don’t all have the luxary of competent public transportation (New Orleans, for example, does not. I tried.)
If you are making your own fuel (I more often than not don’t even have time to shit when I have to, never mind making my own fuel…) regardless, if you are making your own fuel than in the net equation they are similar (expcept one is still taking a lot more human capital (?) to satisfy the fuel consumption needs, even if it is fake gas.
So, if you are an oddity, like Tommy, than you can make them close in terms of the net equation. In real terms, however, the Hummer will continue to waste at limits far exceeding the Prius. So Tommy, you can’t make arguments based on exceptions to the rules.
I point out the Prius – Hummer example (yes I know you were making a point) because the dumpster example is the same.
First off, there is the time factor, versus the convenience of being a consumer. Consumerism itself is not the problem (as you’ve previously said, that would be like feeling guilty for drinking water.)
Credit encourages people not to be responsible consumers as it is better if everyone is in debt, and is consistantly working to pay interest. Lax credit encourages reckless consumerism. Most people don’t give a shit, so while you’re dumpster diving, there needs to be rules in place to keep them in place.
You live in NYC with how many millions of people? What would happen if everyone suddenly took to the dumpsters and ceased to be a consumer? What would those millions of enemployed people be doing? Not growing rooftop gardens… I would bet on that.
So the “brown movement” (ah-hum… recycling) is good if less than one percent of the population is partaking. As far as real solutions, again, if we weren’t allowed to borrow amounts that far exceed what we would ever reasonably be able to pay back, that would cut waste down far more than swimming in trash… and then you could go and enjoy the wonders Disney World (with your family… I know you don’t want to believe, but I bet Goofy can make you smile.)
Along these lines, the “green movement” (ah-hum… recycling) is a more real path to reducing waste, even if its technology is in its infancy.
I was listening to a radio show once, where they taked about a garbage dump that was able to return over 90% of the trash to the market. For example, they had huge magnets that were strong enough to pull nails out of wood. There was a means of separating all trash in the same way and they had lined up a market for all of it. This dump/facility – whatever it is properly called – needed almost no room for storage of their waste, as it all went back out into the market.
The dump actually made a profit from all the recycled materials it was selling. It was a successful experiment – except the start up was apparantly too expensive for other cities to convert.
As far as dumpster diving. I gave it a try. I paid to enter the dump with my truck. I drove around and picked the garbage I wanted. I loaded some furniture, and then I went to another pile and I started loading cinder blocks. Soon I found myself surrounded by dump workers, in their intimidating flourescent vests. I was made to unload my truck.
They had a contract with a company that moves the trash from these large piles to the compactors, where people are not allowed (if you fell in, there would be no C3PO’s or R2 units to save you.)
These trucks get paid by the number of trucksloads they move. As part of their contract, they have exclusive rights to remove the trash from the dumpster. It is not allowed to be reused. It must become waste so they can increase their number of truck loads. And no, I did not write a letter to my congressman(woman) or call the city council.
Cagesafe,
I think you’ve missed the point. The “net equation” I’m referring to is the product’s FULL life cycle from birth to death. A Prius uses enormous production energy and resources from around the world (same as a Hummer). Prius owners tend to drive much more than other drivers as well. The result is fuel savings to the consumer (Yippee!) which is a fantastic, fuzzy, feel-good marketing tool, but the truth is that the car uses more net energy than a Hummer. Now, that can change over time with more production over time, but that is not the case now nor will it be anytime soon, making the time/cost factor irrelevant in today’s world (not just Tommy world).
Ironically, did you see the news today that it looks like Hummers are on the way out? Another marketing triumph as Hummer is THE symbol of consumption when reality (not even Tommy world) tells us that there are plenty of other vehicles on the road that consume significantly more energy than a Hummer.
I think you missed the word, “example” in my post. I provide these details as a way of THINKING and not a step-by-step guide to lifestyle.
I do not believe that I am more hard-working, intelligent, or blah blah blah than most people. I think I simply look at things differently. But when I see amazingly talented people working intelligently and efficiently 90 hours per week on the wrong project, I feel like maybe I should mention something. Almost universally, these people are pissed off, burnt out, and empty (in Tommy world, at least).
My post urges some of those people to look at THEIR situation and think about it.
I think you also missed that I don’t brew biodiesel. One of my good friends does, and we worked out a trade agreement…no hard work, intelligence, or Tommy world application. Don’t have public transportation? How about ride shares? How about voting in train service? How about creating the demand? How about moving closer to work? How about negotiating 10 hour days/4 days/week? How about….? It’s strange how people always see the angle on how to make money or how to fool themselves, yet never see the angle on how to improve anything in their own view. I imagine I could solve a host of problems within hours of arriving in a new town. I know this because I’ve lived all over the country. My goal is to have somebody see a pile of XYZ on the street or on the roadside, pull it out, clean it up, and use it. That’s it.
I have hundreds of “F-250 stories” because it’s now a way of life that didn’t just arrive one day. I’ve had my ass handed to me over and over and over again, but my only “talent” is the getting back up. That’s what I’m promoting in Freedom Guerrilla. Get back up. Don’t stop. Hustle. All this bullshit: Peak Oil, economic meltdown, environmental degradation, healthcare, Federal Reserve, war, terrorism, debt, population crisis, etc is completely overwhelming and some days makes me want to sit down and cry. Fuck that. Get back up. Don’t stop. Keep putting the pressure on. Government, business, and industry will solve NONE of these problems.
Orange vested guys got you frazzled? Come back later. Or, come back with your own orange vest, a middle finger, and a Louisville slugger.
@IMTHRASH:
It’s a great point, and you’re right that new products should be produced sustainably. But, be careful how it’s advertised and analyze why and for whose benefit. Here’s another EXAMPLE (notice, cagesafe): is a brand new $1000 EnergyStar washing machine really better than an agitator hooked to an old bicycle? Especially considering if you workout in a gym or run on a treadmill for exercise.
These are ways of analyzing that I find frequently lacking because our collective focus is elsewhere, and modern consumers are always pressed for time, money, and energy. We are overwhelmed. Take a step back and think the opposite of what “makes sense” right now. Believe me, the guys at the top of the food chain are thinking this way.
The green movement will fail not because it’s not a great idea, but because it doesn’t solve the problem of commercialism and production for production’s sake. That is to say, solar panels and wind generators cannot replace the oil dependent energy grid, but does that mean you shouldn’t install them on your own house? Of course not!! It makes sense for your household because it will pay for itself in a matter of months.
I’ll interject my “expertise” on the subject…for what its worth (I think you’ve nailed it pretty well). I am currently working on my Bachelor in Environmental Science and I here the “Green” speak everyday. From my perspective, the only aspect of the Green Movement that will make any sort of difference in the long run is to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels to provide our energy, be it residential, transportation or otherwise.
The thought that we can “buy” our way out of the problem, as noted above, is a joke, a lie, perpetuated by major corporations looking to make a buck off of the latest fashion trend. Yes, Green is a fashion trend. It looks nice for companies to “Go Green” but they aren’t doing shit in terms of what they COULD be doing. Of course, they can use this for PR and make themselves look better to the public so they can sell their product to people who want to feel good about buying from socially responsible companies. Wrong answer.
Buying more shit, even “Green” shit, isn’t solving our problems. Like you said earlier, the solution is to stop buying shit that we don’t need. Being Green requires no consumer action, and the less consumption, the more Green we are. How about that!? Of course, no company is going to tell anyone not to buy their product.
This is a major reason why I try to live as minimally as possible. Sure, I can do better, but I’m also not out there spending money on shit I don’t need. I don’t buy into the Green movement. Instead, I live responsibly and try to do what I can to “save” the world. I sort recyclables, I compost my kitchen waste, I carpool, I turn the heat down in winter, but most importantly, I don’t buy a ton of stupid shit that I will just end up throwing away in a week.
Great post Tommy, you really nailed it…again!
Good one, Tommy. RE: the Prius I would add that lithium-ion batteries require lithium which is a rare mineral. There is not enough lithium around at any price for 200 million Priuses. Plus the recycling costs of lithium batteries are unknown. Unless they are constructed to be recyclable, the costs are likely to be high.
Hey Tommy,
First off, I have been reading your posts, and I have actually started re-thinking some of our financial choices as a result. And this is not because I’ve been following any sort of step by step advice, it is more through shifting my thinking. As you’ve said, there are ways of thinking that don’t make a lot of sense, but are accepted because they are -the way of thinking… Do things the way they are being done.
So I understand that you are sharing examples of how an individual can make different choices, and not telling us that we should go jump in a dumpster.
I did not miss any of the points that you tried to make clearer for me, however, but I thank you anyway.
For example, I understand that you mean from the birth to the death of the car. If they both use enormous amounts of resources and energy to get onto the market, how does a Prius ultimately use more energy? If I am going to run both of those cars up to a hundred thousand miles, how much will I spend on gas for my Hummer versus how much I will spend on my Prius? That is part of the from birth to death. Then there is also the fact that one (The Hummer) also cost more than twice as much.
So… if getting your furniture from the trash saves you two thousand dollars – and creates personal freedom for you from debt – And the Prius saves you 50 – 75 thousand dollars (from it’s birth to death – ticket price and gas consumption) – and our goal is to recognize the grid as somehting that makes us want to spend and remain in debt so we stay on the tread mill – how can we say that they are the same? The Hummer, with the cost associated with it, is going to then be using far more of my human capital.
My point is that part of the article is to help us think differently, but then I feel like part of it is condemning what some of us think of as making a positive choice. i.e., the green movement is an illusion or that a Prius and a Hummer are the same thing.
Yes, if we get a Prius, and then assume we can drive around ten times as much, that is pointless. If we buy ten times as much as we need because it is from recycled materials, that is bad.
But, the idea of the Prius is supporting the idea of different technology. I don’t think the Prius is the final step in progress. But I support technology. I think that if everyone started getting solar panels and wind turbines, regardless of the immediate effect of them, the corporations would have to adjust to meet the ideas of what people want.
So I read your article as “you can make positive changes – but this choice is bad.” As far as the “Green” movement, from you and the entries that follow, I think that the problem is that the media has used the environment to sell even more stuff that people don’t need. “Buy this whether you need it or not, It’s made from recycled goods.” So people are than tricked into buying more stuff that they don’t need, because it is “environmentally friendly.”
I agree that is… ironic? Buy more junk to save the planet…
But then the connotation of you entry implies that recycling is bad, because it fools people into thinking that they can buy more.
So yes, I understand that your article is to make us think of alternatives, but I’m also leaving, thinking okay… recycling is bad and if a Hummer and the Prius is the same, I should buy a Hummer.
As far as “Tommy is intelligent…” I’m sorry if that offended you, because you took it as flattery. It wasn’t meant as flattery. It was meant to say that sometimes being too humble is not good (not that arrogance is any better…)
I say this because through several articles you have stated, that you are not smart, you just like numbers and like to look at them. You’ve said variations of this several times. I think that’s bad because it is misleading.
I don’t think that your articles are about getting knocked on your ass and simply getting back up (although it was a good line in a Rocky movie.) It is about getting knocked down, re-evalutaing the situation, and then getting back up.
It wasn’t meant to be flattery. It was meant to say that you are leaving a chunk out of your sentence.
I believe that if you came to town you could immediately come up with a dozen things to make it better. I’m glad that you were not too humble to say that this time.
Most people can not.
I think that your response to my response was sending the message a little (a lot) clearer that people can think of alternatives.
I think your first message was saying it, but that message was over-shadowed by other things.
I’ll be redundant.
I don’t care if there enough lithium batteries. I don’t care if the Prius goes extinct. I think that the Prius represents an important change in the way people think, and I don’t care if someone feels warm and fuzzy while they financially support progress.
People buying more shit then they need is bad. People recycling (even if it is not as effiecient as “brown.”) is not bad.
If companies were not selling something as “recycled goods” they’d have a different angle, and people would still be buying it.
In one hand it is “you would not believe the shit in the trash,” and in the other hand it is “you’re fooling yourself if you think you’re doing anything by recycling.”
Also, I know that in Tommy’s world, his friend brew’s the biodiesel. I din’t miss the point. I didn’t think I needed to clarify that difference, for what my point was. (I’d rather force the people making the vehicles to make more fuel efficient cars than to spend my time – or a friend’s time – brewing biodiesel. I think the best way people can vote is with their dollars. Buy a Hummer.)
I’ve taken up too much space, so I won’t go through the response point for point.
I also liked your response (that’s not flattery…)and I don’t want my disagreeableness to imply otherwise (moreso than it already does…)
Yeah… I say that, but I’m tempted to write for another hour. anyway…
Cagesafe,
You were that kid in school who always had his hand up in the back of the class, huh?
If you’re buying crap, it’s better that you’re buying green crap I guess. Sure, that makes sense. If you’re hell bent on driving an electric car, I think it’s a lot cooler to convert a 1964 Ford Ranchero into an EV than buy something that came out of a factory last year — for several reasons.
My point is that what you do with your stuff and why you have it matters, and I doubt you’d disagree. It’s something to think about, and it’s an idea to spread. There is an enormous marketing initiative afoot right now (even EXXON is using it?!) to “go green.” I’m in business school in NYC, and I’m telling you there is an enormous marketing initiative afoot right now to go green that doesn’t really make sense. Everybody pushing it has absolutely NO IDEA what the fuck they are talking about. Yet, I am literally witnessing the crap in, crap out.
I recently had a Professor tell my class that Coca Cola was becoming “water usage neutral.” Huh? How? By collecting worldwide urine and recycling it back into soft drinks? I let that one slide because I get tired of being the kid in the back of the class with his hand up.
I think the Prius is great as a consumer because you’re going to save a lot of money on gas, but if you’re buying it to save the planet then think again. There’s a lot better options.
The “Brown Movement” could use a push to get it on its way, and this post is fantastically thought provoking. Who hasn’t seen valuable items cast aside and left to rot in the elements and wished they had the means to cart them away and salvage them? Dumpster diving and using ‘found objects’ is one of the most ecologically minded and sustainable things that you can do on a personal level. Reusing as much as possible is an alternative to supporting the capitalist system and can help to unravel the economy if enough people, willingly or by necessity, get on board with the concept. Planned obsolescence needs to be put in the trash heap. Cheap, novel, useless crap can cease to exist and the planet will thank us.
I had an uncle who was a multi-millionaire and who used to dumpster dive for sport and as a symbol of allegiance to Depression-era frugality. He scored a thirty pound turkey that we ate for Thanksgiving one year. In the 70’s, my family used to shop at ‘The Dump Boutique’, which consisted of a little shack and some large containers that the sanitation workers set up alongside the garbage pits in a wealthy town on Cape Cod. We’d come away with antiques and fine furniture that rich people decided wasn’t trendy enough. I found my cats living in the bins outside of the Goodwill in Boston, along with most of my wardrobe. Tools, cookware, apparel, furniture, pets: all can be found on the side of the road, in dumpsters, or, for a fraction of what you’d pay in a department store, in consignment and antiques shops (maybe not the pets, unless they’ve paid a visit to the taxidermist) . I recently came upon a place that I’ve fondly named, ‘The Post-Apocalypse Store’, because it contains everything you’d probably need to survive, all lightly used and super-cheap. The place is obsessively organized and offers everything from needles and thread to chains and pulleys.
Encouragingly, the “Brown Movement” is becoming more main stream. Whether this is due to choice or by necessity really doesn’t matter, as the end result is less demand for new crap. As an added bonus, trolling for treasures or for practical items can be a tool for creativity. Oftentimes you happen across objects that you didn’t know existed, and their discovery can lead you to new ideas and inspirations. The time is ripe to compile a wish-list of items that will be useful in the years ahead and to begin stockpiling the necessities. Well made tools never go out of style. And I’ve always loved a sturdy pair of boots.
Book suggestion: Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal, by Tristram Stuart. It may make you angry, but it’s a well written expose on the dark underbelly of the wastefulness inherent in modern food production. While looking at the photos of the fresh and delicious food that he’s found in dumpsters, I experienced the unwelcome sensation of hunger while simultaneously wanting to vomit. How often can you get that kind of dichotomy of sensory experience from a book?
Bumpersticker: Save 100%. Buy Nothing.
The dirt-bag climbing subculture (and Trader Joe’s dumpster diving) sounds the most fun here. Ah, my misspent youth.
hummer vs. prius energy stories:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/
I think the argument over specific products is a waste of time. It is like arguing “Coke vs. Pepsi”.
Like the debate over global warming, the data over life cycle costs of Hummer vs. Prius can be adjusted a lot either way while we all still work at jobs for someone else in order to have a small percentage of the value of our production “given” to us by corporations and the System of systems which survives based upon the deluded Perception of Perpetual Growth. Lose the perception, and you start to see that all of the shiny, noisy crap’s future is dependent upon more growth in order to justify using it. (“It’s OK to use plastic bottles of water because recycling plants create jobs for people to buy more plastic bottles and to advertise how ‘green’ they are.”)
“We Don’t Need Them”:
http://dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Carpenter1102.htm
Dumpster diving is popular in Cambodia as well. As a matter of fact, they like it so much that much of the population actually built their homes in the dumps so they can be the first ones there as the trucks empty. They raise their families there as well, even with the night raids and child trafficing. Maybe one of them has an empty bunk? Now that would be a vacation, huh?
Yes, I know. That’s a random fact that has no relevence on our dumster diving?
Tommy-
I will not be in a position to buy a car for awhile, but what are the options that are better than the Prius and why?
I was watching a show on the television and it was about cars and technology. They devoted time to all the various technologies that different scientist were experimenting with. One was the hydrogen car (currently some of the Nordic countries use them for public transportation – but they are apparently rather volitile.) Another scientist was explaining that the weight of the car was a major factor in how much fuel a car needed, and was experimenting with different materials that would reduce the weight of a car by 50% without reducing the safety.
There was another half dozen ideas in the works.
With all of them, they said that the major cost would be creating the machines that would create the new parts, and basically abandoning what all of the factories currently consist of. This is the main reason that everyone is very resistant. It would be like starting from scratch.
After then making that commitment, there would be years of analyzing data from millions of cars.
Basically it is a process.
So even if the Prius is not there yet, or any of the ideas for that matter, shouldn’t we be supporting the companies that are investing in new technologies? (Yes – I know – there will always be the companies that are pretending to for their marketing campaigns…) Is the Prius an example of one of those companies that are trying to fool us? Is it simply a marketing campaign? What is it about its net equity that makes it the same as the Hummer.
In your first response you said that the Prius uses more net energy than the Hummer. I am not going to say that that is not true, but I don’t feel comfortable accepting that without it being explained. It is a big statement.
Punk Rock: The Ramones toured England in the 70′s. Some record executives said, “Wow, they only know two chords, and the kids love them.”
The record company created the Sex Pistols and Anarchy T-shirts, still worn by every punk going on four decades later.
So if someone is able to package and market anarchy, they can package and market anything, including “green.”
Does that make punk bad? We were later given Blink 182, which is equivalent to a product that prints, “made of recycled material” on the side as a marketing ploy. And there are a thousand versions of Blink 182. That doesn’t make me not like the Ramones.
So yes, someone is going to take advantage of it, and it will become a marketable fad like the Cabbage Patch kids, but I guess what I am asking is regardless of the people who will take advantage of it and make money off of it, is it completely a waste of time to recycle my bottles and plastics? Should I stop listening to the Ramones because Fraternity guys now sport Mohawks?
There are now condo projects that charge more for their units because they were designed with garbage. They are unique and individual and even have one of the items you mentioned: Bicycles generating electricity within the apartment. The price is more because it is recycled garbage.
Now that someone has turned dumpster diving into consumerism, should I abandon it as an idea?
Alright, so that last idea was obviously facetious.
I know your idea is more just to make people rethink, but I would like some step by step instructions for a moment if you’re willing. So the questions are: Is recycling a complete waste of time, or does your comments simply refer to the companies that will be waving the “green” banner to encourage us to feel good about buying more stuff that we don’t need.
Secondly, are companies that make vehicles like Prius falsely selling us the idea that they are invested in future technologies?
Thirdly, who makes the best teacher, the one that has you in the back of the class asking questions, or the one who has a bunch of well behaved students taking notes and getting 100 on all their tests… quoting statistics to prove to the teacher that they are in fact brilliant?
Cagesafe,
“I wanna be sedated….”
There’s no way I can handle all of that right now, but I think, “does your comments simply refer to the companies that will be waving the “green” banner to encourage us to feel good about buying more stuff that we don’t need” is the closest. I agree with auntigrav that the reality of municipal recycling is that it has no substantial impact, and in many municipalities has proven to be even worse than just throwing it in a dump. I’m sorry to say that, but it is true. Even knowing this, I still separate and recycle because the “making us feel good” still does have some value.
All I can say is that I’m not sure what you can believe until you see, breath, and touch it yourself….even this site. I will always encourage the thought process, questioning what you read, synthesizing information, then deciding what’s real. For many people, there are no problems such as those we incessantly discuss in this virtual reality. They think stuff like this is foolish and funny.
Adaptability is everything even in a dumpster in Cambodia. There’s a difference between being poor and being wanton. My greatest point is that solving a lot of your personal crises through personal devolution tends to lend toward global solution to greater crises even if this is not your intent. Through opting out of the system and refusing to play, you take life from it. Plus, the smarter, more productive, and more energetic you are the harder that scale will tip. I think we need it to tip sooner than later lest we have a harder time recovering.
By the way, do you really want a step-by-step guide? If that’s a serious request, I could start working on something that may be useful/applicable, but it might take me awhile.
– Tommy
cage: The most efficient alternative is a small car with a turbocharged diesel engine. That narrows things a bit in the U.S. to “volkswagen”, or finding a way to import a car from Europe and get it converted to U.S. safety standards (or start a business doing so).
Recycling is pretty much a complete waste of time unless you are someplace where greenies actually have some say in things, like Oregon. Everywhere else pretty much just landfills it and makes the citizens happy by having them use different bins for things. The real trick is to reduce the use of resources to start with.
http://www.storyofstuff.com
I highly recommend Auntiegrav’s link above. I just came from there, and the videos on ‘The Story of Stuff’ (the product life cycle and ancillary effects) and ‘Cap and Trade’ were both very entertaining and informative. Best in a nutshell summary of both of those issues that I’ve seen yet.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
http://www.storyofstuff.com IS great; one of the best things about it is that it is SIMPLE. So simple, in fact, children can understand the essence of what’s being said. Simplicity is smart; it contains all of the building blocks necessary to make decisions regarding what is helpful or not helpful for yourself and by extension, the planet. Is buying ANYTHING new a good thing? Some may argue that supporting the economy creates jobs, but, why do we need so many jobs? I would answer that it’s because there are so many people, redundant people, that there aren’t enough ‘niches’ to allocate to those who need them. It really isn’t a conundrum. It’s simple. It’s beating that dead horse to yet another death, but there it is.
It’s interesting how simplicity is oftentimes overlooked as an answer to so many questions regarding sustainability and reform. For example: Is television simple? Or does it create layers of abstraction that ultimately rob people of reason through psychological methods embedded in the messages? Turn it off, rent the movie or documentary. (Thanks for that plug from the other forum, Antiegrav, to unplug that diabolical thing.) Is recycling simple? Or does much of our recycled waste get loaded onto cargo ships and hauled thousands of miles, using fossil fuels, to places where it’s cheaper to process? Recycling, unfortunately, USUALLY adds to the ultimate resource/ecological cost of the item.
Of course, I’m not trying to suggest that everything complex is bad or wrong. Nature is complex, but subtle. Human creation (production of complex ‘things’) involves unleashing our ideas and dreams into a world that we ultimately do not understand. Until we understand the world in which we exist and the dreams that exist within our minds, we cannot hope to understand the system in which the two combined could be ideal, or sustainable. So keep it simple. The best part is, simple is fun.
I would answer that it’s because there are so many people, redundant people, that there aren’t enough ‘niches’ to allocate to those who need them.
Which highlights the other disastrous effect of exponential economic growth: it’s made possible/encouraged, nay, actually demanded exponential population growth to make it “sustainable.” Now, of course, that the illusion of economic sustainability has been popped, we’re left with the lingering hangover of unsustainable populations that are in need of their exponential economic growth “fix” to remain even marginally viable in the short term. Quite a little conundrum we’ve created. Anyone wanna bet a whole lot more warfare – regardless of the obvious economic benefits to the ruling class, which will just be an added benefit as far as they’re concerned – won’t be in our near term future?
There are alternatives to war.
Some points to ponder:
1. Our food is currently provided by 1% of the population and a whole lotta oil.
2. We have some 2% of our population in prisons.
3. Jobs are irrelevant to our future as a species. A job is what you do to fit the economy, not something necessary to obtain food without the economy (unless you are going to work for a farmer…which comes to point 4…
4. We have spent the last 100 years replacing people on farms with oil. During the last Depression, 50% of Americans were on farms. A gallon of fuel provides the work of 100 people for a day. Replacing each gallon of farm fuel with 100 people is not all that difficult if the people are not cooped up hundreds of miles away in cities and prisons, and in fact, creates jobs making tools for them to use with their hands.
Crop Mob: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28food-t-000.html
Getting back to the Story of Stuff: if people are living and working on farms, they don’t need so many trucks or packages or processing plants to ship food when they can cook and eat it at their place of work. They don’t need cars because they can walk to their houses. They don’t need such big houses because they aren’t going to be in them anyway: they will be outside working all the time, and big meals will be cooked as a group effort near the work.
So, tell me again how humans are better off with modern food technology?
Those that don’t work on farms can go to school to be doctors and teachers.
http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php
Cheap food hasn’t done anyone long-lasting good (except maybe as a bad example).
Auntiegrav,
Agreed. However for all that to happen we will need to completely reverse our current course, which, while certainly possible, doesn’t look very likely in the short run, as we are currently actually accelerating our transition to the global corporate supply chain. Peak oil’s gonna bring all that to a screeching halt sooner or later, but I don’t expect the global corporatocracy to go meekly into the night when that happens.
Driving a 1994 F250 4 X 4 getting 15 MPG. Figure the energy cost of this truck vs a 2010 hybrid where all the parts are shipped from China to Mexico to be assembled in San Antonio. I would have to drive that car a quarter million miles. By that time the F250 will have the same mileage pushing 750,000 on the odometer.
I have another 98 Suzuki Sport that gets 25 MPG that is my grocery getter and runabout. Has over 200K on it and still runs strong. Just spent $70 bucks on a slave cylinder. I should be able to drive these for 10 to 15 years.
I have to expend less personal energy, labor, to drive these plus I do not have to put out $40K of capital for a hybrid which in my tax bracket is around $54K total just to be “green”
I will take my paid for F250 and the Sport. Less TOTAL energy expended, especially personal energy.
{ 2 trackbacks }