Recylcing: An Idiot's Quest (beliefs, hell, America, service, organizations)

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

There is something that cannot be replaced. Original forests, the rainforest's, the beauty of nature that is being destroyed.

Forests are only being depleted in third world countries where there is little regulation. In North America and Europe, forests are growing.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Forests are only being depleted in third world countries where there is little regulation. In North America and Europe, forests are growing.

Proof? And who cares, those forests are first-generation forest that have never had to be replanted. They have treasures in them that are unknown to the human knowledge. Do you really care so little for this earth?

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by rojse

The point of recycling is that processing older resources to gain the materials out of them would consume less energy than to extract new resources, and process them to a point where they could be used in that same material.

It takes less energy to melt a can and gain the metal out of it than to mine for that metal, and smelt it, so that they are in the same state for use.

I do agree that some recycling processes take up more energy than harvesting that resource from nature, such as trees, but there are other reasons besides this to recycle.

As for the point that resources are infinite, where would we get the metal from? Or gold? Even if we mined the entire earth, such as you suggest, where would we go from there?

One, we will never mine the entire earth. To do that would take far to much energy. By the time we have mine as much of the earth that current efficiencies allow, we would probably have started on asteroids.

Furthermore, I do not argue against recycling metals. Its cheap and efficient, BUT IT WAS ALREADY BEING DONE before government subsidies. That is the reason that you can get paid for giving cans to a recycling plant. Currently, recycling everything we do today is wasteful and bad for the environment.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

Proof? And who cares, those forests are first-generation forest that have never had to be replanted. They have treasures in them that are unknown to the human knowledge. Do you really care so little for this earth?

? The only reason they are not being replaced is because the governments there made forests public property and the locals are grabbing as much land as they can so they can feed their families. Enforce private property rights there and the forests will grow.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

One, we will never mine the entire earth. To do that would take far to much energy. By the time we have mine as much of the earth that current efficiencies allow, we would probably have started on asteroids.

Where have you gotten this information from? I have read in science magazines that some metals will be not economically viable to mine within ten years, and these were pretty major metal resources. Will we be mining asteroids by that time?

If you would like, I could dig the article up for you. It also highlighted America's annual consumption, and recycling rates of major metals.

Originally Posted by yossarian22

Furthermore, I do not argue against recycling metals. Its cheap and efficient, BUT IT WAS ALREADY BEING DONE before government subsidies. That is the reason that you can get paid for giving cans to a recycling plant. Currently, recycling everything we do today is wasteful and bad for the environment.

How is it wasteful? It uses less resources and less energy than mining it from the ground.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

? The only reason they are not being replaced is because the governments there made forests public property and the locals are grabbing as much land as they can so they can feed their families. Enforce private property rights there and the forests will grow.

You never answered my question. Do you really care so little for the environment and this earth?

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

You never answered my question. Do you really care so little for the environment and this earth?

Do you? Recycling harms the environment more then it helps it, and yet you support it?

To answer your question, I do care about the environment. I am simply realistic. If I had to choose between the loss of an entire ecosystem and getting people fed, **** the environment.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by rojse

Where have you gotten this information from? I have read in science magazines that some metals will be not economically viable to mine within ten years, and these were pretty major metal resources. Will we be mining asteroids by that time?

Did you even read any of my points and base your argument on my thread title? We were on the verge of running out of resources at least 3 times in the past century, yet here we are. We haven't even scraped the surface of the earth's resources.

How is it wasteful? It uses less resources and less energy than mining it from the ground.

Correct. For METALS it uses less resources and less energy than mining it form the ground. NOT for plastics or paper or any of the other "recyclables"