Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

My Life's Dream

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 4:26:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Every year America alone throws away about 34 million TONS of food per year. The only thing we throw away more of is paper.

There are about 925 million chronically hungry people in the world. It's a big number. But microscopic in retrospect with how much food we throw away.

All that's needed to feed the world is an efficient and sanitary way of recycling food. So here's my idea. Very little funding is actually needed. There's the initial start up cost of producing over a million special containers. And then there's the continued cost of shipping it. But it will actually be very easy to get people on board with it and create a mass supply of food to recycle because it costs absolutely nothing to the business owners who would be given the containers. It works like this. The container is a freezer. Individual meals are dropped into a baggie in the top which drops down and is stored, being replaced by a new baggie. They run on battery. The idea becomes popularized. Every restaurant owner in America is encouraged to place one in their kitchen at no cost to them. The organization which makes the containers goes to pick them up and ship them where they need to go. With a few celebrity endorsements and big wallet contributors, I really think this could be the solution to world hunger.

I want to get to work on this as soon as I graduate college.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 4:28:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
People like you will save this planet.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 4:44:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How will the food be sanitized though?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 10:43:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedo I am a graduate student of environmental science and policy. Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that, but this is not an idea that should be taken seriously. Let me help you understand why.

First off, what you're proposing isn't recycling. You really can't recycle food, technically, because once it's processed it turns to waste. Unless you're selling your feces to these starving people you aren't "recycling" food.

Secondly, recycling isn't a great idea in the first place. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. It's in that order for a reason. That's because you should ALWAYS reduce FIRST. When you cannot reduce consumption (e.g., turning off lights not in use, making smaller automobiles, making smaller plates of food, etc.) then you reuse second. So if you want to save the world, the answer isn't to make lots of food and then save it, the answer is to make less food in the first place so there isn't any waste to worry about.

Another problem here is that you are creating all this extra hassle to save the food. We have to package it, refrigerate it, ship it, create institutions to oversee the process... right-wingers would eat you for breakfast in terms of cost and the like.

The only natural solution is for us to reduce our waste products. I've personally worked in many restaurants and the waste is unholy. When I was a teenager about your age I worked at a Burger King in Providence, and there was a double-cheeseburger that "died" in the window. My manager told me to throw it in the garbage. I said, "how about I eat it so we don't waste it?" The manager told me I couldn't eat it and that it must be put in the trash for accounting purposes.

If you are interested in respecting the laws of physics, biology, and social science, and finding the most pragmatic solution to happiness and full-bellies for everyone, then that starts at home with reduction of consumption. Don't make meals that are bigger than you can eat, don't spend lots of money on things you don't need, and don't support the status quo of economic growth. You asked me a few days ago to "ask an economist" about the central bank. Well I don't ask economists about anything, because economists believe the answers to all our problems is growth. Businesses are only successful if they grow, as are nations and individuals. You all are hoping to make more money when you get older, no doubt... Well here's a hint. Everybody can't grow. If I grow, then there's less for you. If we both grow and cooperate, as a nation, then other nations can't grow. Plato knew this 2500 years ago and enlightened us, but we didn't listen. And we've been spouting nonsense ever since.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:21:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting, I got a similar idea long time ago from things like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

(I don't live in UK, btw, this appeared on a forum on some website I can't recall)
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:25:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 10:43:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Freedo I am a graduate student of environmental science and policy. Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that, but this is not an idea that should be taken seriously. Let me help you understand why.

First off, what you're proposing isn't recycling. You really can't recycle food, technically, because once it's processed it turns to waste. Unless you're selling your feces to these starving people you aren't "recycling" food.

Secondly, recycling isn't a great idea in the first place. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. It's in that order for a reason. That's because you should ALWAYS reduce FIRST. When you cannot reduce consumption (e.g., turning off lights not in use, making smaller automobiles, making smaller plates of food, etc.) then you reuse second. So if you want to save the world, the answer isn't to make lots of food and then save it, the answer is to make less food in the first place so there isn't any waste to worry about.

Another problem here is that you are creating all this extra hassle to save the food. We have to package it, refrigerate it, ship it, create institutions to oversee the process... right-wingers would eat you for breakfast in terms of cost and the like.

The only natural solution is for us to reduce our waste products. I've personally worked in many restaurants and the waste is unholy. When I was a teenager about your age I worked at a Burger King in Providence, and there was a double-cheeseburger that "died" in the window. My manager told me to throw it in the garbage. I said, "how about I eat it so we don't waste it?" The manager told me I couldn't eat it and that it must be put in the trash for accounting purposes.

If you are interested in respecting the laws of physics, biology, and social science, and finding the most pragmatic solution to happiness and full-bellies for everyone, then that starts at home with reduction of consumption. Don't make meals that are bigger than you can eat, don't spend lots of money on things you don't need, and don't support the status quo of economic growth. You asked me a few days ago to "ask an economist" about the central bank. Well I don't ask economists about anything, because economists believe the answers to all our problems is growth. Businesses are only successful if they grow, as are nations and individuals. You all are hoping to make more money when you get older, no doubt... Well here's a hint. Everybody can't grow. If I grow, then there's less for you. If we both grow and cooperate, as a nation, then other nations can't grow. Plato knew this 2500 years ago and enlightened us, but we didn't listen. And we've been spouting nonsense ever since.

What?
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:26:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 11:21:01 AM, WW wrote:
Interesting, I got a similar idea long time ago from things like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

(I don't live in UK, btw, this appeared on a forum on some website I can't recall)

I don't think it's a good one though.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 4:39:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 11:25:26 AM, WW wrote:
At 11/3/2012 10:43:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Freedo I am a graduate student of environmental science and policy. Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that, but this is not an idea that should be taken seriously. Let me help you understand why.

First off, what you're proposing isn't recycling. You really can't recycle food, technically, because once it's processed it turns to waste. Unless you're selling your feces to these starving people you aren't "recycling" food.

Secondly, recycling isn't a great idea in the first place. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. It's in that order for a reason. That's because you should ALWAYS reduce FIRST. When you cannot reduce consumption (e.g., turning off lights not in use, making smaller automobiles, making smaller plates of food, etc.) then you reuse second. So if you want to save the world, the answer isn't to make lots of food and then save it, the answer is to make less food in the first place so there isn't any waste to worry about.

Another problem here is that you are creating all this extra hassle to save the food. We have to package it, refrigerate it, ship it, create institutions to oversee the process... right-wingers would eat you for breakfast in terms of cost and the like.

The only natural solution is for us to reduce our waste products. I've personally worked in many restaurants and the waste is unholy. When I was a teenager about your age I worked at a Burger King in Providence, and there was a double-cheeseburger that "died" in the window. My manager told me to throw it in the garbage. I said, "how about I eat it so we don't waste it?" The manager told me I couldn't eat it and that it must be put in the trash for accounting purposes.

If you are interested in respecting the laws of physics, biology, and social science, and finding the most pragmatic solution to happiness and full-bellies for everyone, then that starts at home with reduction of consumption. Don't make meals that are bigger than you can eat, don't spend lots of money on things you don't need, and don't support the status quo of economic growth. You asked me a few days ago to "ask an economist" about the central bank. Well I don't ask economists about anything, because economists believe the answers to all our problems is growth. Businesses are only successful if they grow, as are nations and individuals. You all are hoping to make more money when you get older, no doubt... Well here's a hint. Everybody can't grow. If I grow, then there's less for you. If we both grow and cooperate, as a nation, then other nations can't grow. Plato knew this 2500 years ago and enlightened us, but we didn't listen. And we've been spouting nonsense ever since.

What?

You are probably operating under the assumption that limitless growth is possible. Some believe that resources are created by man, therefore all we need to do is become more productive and, if everyone is ambitious and diligent, we can all be rich. This is absolutely false. There is a limited amount of resources and we must SHARE them. It's probably the biggest nail in the coffin for free market capitalism, because it shows that ambition necessarily leads to poverty.

Why are we so god-awfully stupid in this country, that we can't even see that more for one means less for others? Because the externalities of our economic activities are exported to other areas. For instance, S America bears the brunt of the clear-cutting of forests where the cheap cattle are raised for beef. Did you know about that? Of course not. You don't know about a plethora of externalities, a mountain of negative effects which are polluting, resource-degrading, and culture-degrading, which occur when you spend your dollars at the store. Not only is America completely ignorant of its negative effects, but we don't have the time or money to care. We're rich beyond all comprehension, but we are all in debt, addicted to spending and luxury, and inundated with propaganda.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
WW
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 6:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are probably operating under the assumption that limitless growth is possible. Some believe that resources are created by man, therefore all we need to do is become more productive and, if everyone is ambitious and diligent, we can all be rich. This is absolutely false. There is a limited amount of resources and we must SHARE them. It's probably the biggest nail in the coffin for free market capitalism, because it shows that ambition necessarily leads to poverty.

Eventually, all will be over. Obviously. And obviously some resources will expire quicker than the others, but men do create wealth. A builder, for example, can build a house. He didn't create the metals or the wood necessary for the building to exist but the building is worth much more than the materials needed to create it.


Why are we so god-awfully stupid in this country, that we can't even see that more for one means less for others? Because the externalities of our economic activities are exported to other areas. For instance, S America bears the brunt of the clear-cutting of forests where the cheap cattle are raised for beef. Did you know about that? Of course not.

No, I wasn't. I'm not from South America, so I don't see why I should know. I do, however, know that deforestation can be reversed. I know that many industries to compete in a free market have re-plant policies where for every tree cut, three are planted, or something like that. E-books are advertised on the premise that books use up world's trees. Many toy industries use similar concept with endangered species. And so on and so on.

You don't know about a plethora of externalities, a mountain of negative effects which are polluting, resource-degrading, and culture-degrading, which occur when you spend your dollars at the store. Not only is America completely ignorant of its negative effects, but we don't have the time or money to care. We're rich beyond all comprehension, but we are all in debt, addicted to spending and luxury, and inundated with propaganda.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 9:24:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 6:34:26 PM, WW wrote:
You are probably operating under the assumption that limitless growth is possible. Some believe that resources are created by man, therefore all we need to do is become more productive and, if everyone is ambitious and diligent, we can all be rich. This is absolutely false. There is a limited amount of resources and we must SHARE them. It's probably the biggest nail in the coffin for free market capitalism, because it shows that ambition necessarily leads to poverty.

Eventually, all will be over. Obviously. And obviously some resources will expire quicker than the others, but

First off, some resources are renewable (solar) and some aren't (oil). Some resources are mutually exclusive (property) and some are not (wind).

men do create wealth. A builder, for example, can build a house. He didn't create the metals or the wood necessary for the building to exist but the building is worth much more than the materials needed to create it.

A pile of logs doesn't become a cabin without the productive resources of people. Agreed. However, Man didn't create the land that the cabin resides on. If you own that land, then I cannot use it. Perhaps I would hunt or fish there. Perhaps that is an environmentally sensitive area that is ecologically significant. Human resources cannot be used as an input to create more land. Therefore, logically, we must make efforts to create a balance between
1) your needs (residential, industrial, commercial, etc.)
2) My needs (food, recreation, aesthetics, ethics, etc.)
3) Ecological needs (riparian buffer zones, wildlife corridors, steep slopes, wetlands, etc.)
4) Resource needs (water, air, etc.)
[there is a fair amount of overlap between these items]

As it is now, only 1) is given much thought. You say "men do create wealth," but can men create clean water and air for me after it has been polluted? Can men create land for me to enjoy, or for wildlife to thrive on? Men can take it and use it or they can let it be.

Why are we so god-awfully stupid in this country, that we can't even see that more for one means less for others? Because the externalities of our economic activities are exported to other areas. For instance, S America bears the brunt of the clear-cutting of forests where the cheap cattle are raised for beef. Did you know about that? Of course not.

No, I wasn't. I'm not from South America, so I don't see why I should know.

*facepalm* That would actually be comical if it weren't both ignorant and unethical. Americans don't just not know the damage they are causing, they don't even care even if they did know. Usually the rebuttal here would be that those countries are making money off of the environmental damage, but that argument fails two-fold:
1) The ecology of the world is not owned by men and
2) We are adept at using economic pressure at getting what we want out of these countries. We see the resources we want, and we do what it takes to get them. China does this too, destroying ancient forests and all types of historically and ecologically priceless areas.

I do, however, know that deforestation can be reversed.

I could feed you carcinogens and then pay for the chemo. It's certainly possible that the cancer "can be reversed." But that doesn't make up for, not only the ethical problems, but the damage I caused and the resources it took to undo the damage.

I know that many industries to compete in a free market have re-plant policies where for every tree cut, three are planted, or something like that.

"Something like that" is about right. Re-planted forests are not forests. Artificial wetlands are not wetlands. Attacking someone's face with a knife and then paying for cosmetic surgery is not quite the same as just leaving their face alone in the first place.

E-books are advertised on the premise that books use up world's trees. Many toy industries use similar concept with endangered species. And so on and so on.

There are some efforts but E-books are not going to make the difference needed. We need a drastic change in our ethics and our economic activities. We need reduction of consumption, first and foremost, coupled with re-using and sharing of goods and services and sustainable sources of energy and raw materials.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:09:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 10:43:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Freedo I am a graduate student of environmental science and policy. Your heart is in the right place, I'll give you that, but this is not an idea that should be taken seriously. Let me help you understand why.

Respectfully, nothing you said here makes any sense.

First off, what you're proposing isn't recycling. You really can't recycle food, technically, because once it's processed it turns to waste. Unless you're selling your feces to these starving people you aren't "recycling" food.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. The point is that there's a tremendous amount of food being thrown away that could otherwise be used.

Secondly, recycling isn't a great idea in the first place. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. It's in that order for a reason. That's because you should ALWAYS reduce FIRST. When you cannot reduce consumption (e.g., turning off lights not in use, making smaller automobiles, making smaller plates of food, etc.) then you reuse second. So if you want to save the world, the answer isn't to make lots of food and then save it, the answer is to make less food in the first place so there isn't any waste to worry about.

This is pointless. Me cutting my portions does not feed anyone unless I'm directly giving the food I would have eaten to someone else. There is food being thrown away. People can eat it. That would feed them. Cutting my portions does not feed anyone. That just reduces demand.

Another problem here is that you are creating all this extra hassle to save the food. We have to package it, refrigerate it, ship it, create institutions to oversee the process... right-wingers would eat you for breakfast in terms of cost and the like.

Last time I checked, right-wingers didn't have any problem with private charities.

The only natural solution is for us to reduce our waste products. I've personally worked in many restaurants and the waste is unholy. When I was a teenager about your age I worked at a Burger King in Providence, and there was a double-cheeseburger that "died" in the window. My manager told me to throw it in the garbage. I said, "how about I eat it so we don't waste it?" The manager told me I couldn't eat it and that it must be put in the trash for accounting purposes.

If you are interested in respecting the laws of physics, biology, and social science, and finding the most pragmatic solution to happiness and full-bellies for everyone, then that starts at home with reduction of consumption. Don't make meals that are bigger than you can eat, don't spend lots of money on things you don't need, and don't support the status quo of economic growth.

Again, the problem I'm addressing isn't waste. The problem is hunger. Reducing consumption does not help us feed people. That just leads to less production. You offer no solution and no actual rebuttal to my idea.

You asked me a few days ago to "ask an economist" about the central bank. Well I don't ask economists about anything, because economists believe the answers to all our problems is growth. Businesses are only successful if they grow, as are nations and individuals. You all are hoping to make more money when you get older, no doubt... Well here's a hint. Everybody can't grow. If I grow, then there's less for you. If we both grow and cooperate, as a nation, then other nations can't grow. Plato knew this 2500 years ago and enlightened us, but we didn't listen. And we've been spouting nonsense ever since.

Uh. No? No.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:20:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 4:39:38 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are probably operating under the assumption that limitless growth is possible. Some believe that resources are created by man, therefore all we need to do is become more productive and, if everyone is ambitious and diligent, we can all be rich. This is absolutely false. There is a limited amount of resources and we must SHARE them. It's probably the biggest nail in the coffin for free market capitalism, because it shows that ambition necessarily leads to poverty.


Ah, that's where you're coming from. It would have been a good clarification in the upper post.

It's simply misguided to take a hard stance either way. The world doesn't work that way. There are limited resources. But we don't have the resources immediately accessible and innovation is limitless. There is a cost to pay in terms of growth. But it makes no sense to say that growth for one person MUST equal poverty for another.

More specifically, you can't just throw this generalizing blanket over your argument and have it make sense. You have to give a specific reason why my idea has a result canceled out by this effect.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2012 10:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 11:20:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/3/2012 4:39:38 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
You are probably operating under the assumption that limitless growth is possible. Some believe that resources are created by man, therefore all we need to do is become more productive and, if everyone is ambitious and diligent, we can all be rich. This is absolutely false. There is a limited amount of resources and we must SHARE them. It's probably the biggest nail in the coffin for free market capitalism, because it shows that ambition necessarily leads to poverty.


Ah, that's where you're coming from. It would have been a good clarification in the upper post.

It's simply misguided to take a hard stance either way. The world doesn't work that way.

Please describe this dichotomy you are referencing.

There are limited resources. But we don't have the resources immediately accessible and innovation is limitless.

I might be misunderstanding you but if you are saying that we can innovate ourselves out of anything I would be very much in disagreement. Certain fields like computers advance at rapid rates, while others, like solar power and batteries, don't progress much at all.

There is a cost to pay in terms of growth.

We are in agreement.

But it makes no sense to say that growth for one person MUST equal poverty for another.

I tend to side with Plato on the subject. This is an excerpt of Book II for the Republic. Socrates and Glaucon are building a theoretical state in order to find the meaning of justice. They start with a sustainable state and then move to a luxurious one:

S: And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?

G: Quite true.
S: Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?

G: That, Socrates, will be inevitable.
S: And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?
G: Most certainly, he replied.
S: Then without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States, private as well as public.
http://classics.mit.edu...

2500 years ago, Plato was telling the world that luxury and limitless growth were unsustainable (in terms of peace). When you "grow" it always includes increasing your demand on the economy. When the economy grows, externalities arise. Environmental damage and war are two of these externalities.

More specifically, you can't just throw this generalizing blanket over your argument and have it make sense. You have to give a specific reason why my idea has a result canceled out by this effect.

What generalizing blanket?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.