Back then........

[studiot]

Checking out at the supermarket recently the young cashier suggested I should bring my own bags because plastic bags were not good for the environment.

I apologised and explained, “We didn’t have these things back in my earlier days.”

The cashier responded “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

 

Back then we returned milk pop and beer bottles to be washed, sterilised and refilled.

We walked to the local shops and didn’t climb into a car every time we had to go two minutes up the road.

Back then we washed babies’ nappies because we didn’t have the throwaway kind.

We dried them on a clothes line, not an energy gobbling machine so wind and solar power really did dry our clothes.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from relatives, not always new designer labelled stuff.

Back then we had one TV or radio in the house, not one in every room.

In the kitchen we stirred and blended by hand rather than having electric machines for everything.

When we posted a fragile item we used screwed up old newspaper as packaging, not plastic foam or bubblewrap.

 

Back then we didn’t burn petrol to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by walking and working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on exercise machine run by electricity.

We drank from a fountain instead of purchasing plastic bottles of water.

We refilled ink in writing pens and replaced blades in razors.

Back then we took the bus and kids rode their bikes or walked to school.

A stag night meant a few mates going on a pub crawl, not two dozen people flying to Prague.

 

Back then we didn’t need a computer to receive a signal beamed from a satellite 2,000 miles out in space just to show a photo of a meal we had just prepared to a friend who lives next door.

 

But, of course we weren’t green back then.

[dimreepr]

The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.

 

Of course not all progress is progressive or good for society and sure we can learn from the past but what we have now is what we have to work with; no amount of hand wringing or harping back can change that simple fact; rose coloured specs is a result of confirmation bias i.e. we remember what gave us pleasure and forget the forgettable norm.

Edited May 6, 2015 by dimreepr

[swansont]

Back then we didn’t burn petrol to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

 

This is one with which I have a quibble. Human power is far from green. You have to eat food to replace the calories you burned, and are responsible for all of the impact of that food in such an analysis. Just because you push it out of sight doesn't mean it's not there.

 

There is a broad reason we have historically employed machines to do work for us, and it's not laziness.

[StringJunky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[zapatos]

Back then...

Back then you did all those things because they were state of the art and fit with your economic situation, not because you were being 'green'.

There is no question that in many first world countries there is more of an emphasis on being 'green' now then there was 'back then'.

[StringJunky]

Back then you did all those things because they were state of the art and fit with your economic situation, not because you were being 'green'.

There is no question that in many first world countries there is more of an emphasis on being 'green' now then there was 'back then'.

We didn't need to be green because it wasn't a problem, until there were too many of us.

[dimreepr]

until there were too many of us.

 

 

When did that happen?

[zapatos]

We didn't need to be green because it wasn't a problem, until there were too many of us.

I beg to differ:

 

During the 1940s and 1950s some parts of the United States experienced pollution episodes like those now occurring across parts of China. And even on good days the air wasnt as clean as it generally is now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/10/25/u-s-once-had-air-pollution-to-match-chinas-today/

 

The Cuyahoga River, at times during the 20th century, was one of the most polluted rivers in the United States. The reach from Akron to Cleveland was devoid of fish. A 1968 Kent State University symposium described one section of the river:

 

From 1,000 feet below Lower Harvard Bridge to Newburgh and South Shore Railroad Bridge, the channel becomes wider and deeper and the level is controlled by Lake Erie. Downstream of the railroad bridge to the harbor, the depth is held constant by dredging, and the width is maintained by piling along both banks. The surface is covered with the brown oily film observed upstream as far as the Southerly Plant effluent. In addition, large quantities of black heavy oil floating in slicks, sometimes several inches thick, are observed frequently. Debris and trash are commonly caught up in these slicks forming an unsightly floating mess. Anaerobic action is common as the dissolved oxygen is seldom above a fraction of a part per million. The discharge of cooling water increases the temperature by 10 °F (5.6 °C) to 15 °F (8.3 °C). The velocity is negligible, and sludge accumulates on the bottom. Animal life does not exist. Only the algae Oscillatoria grows along the piers above the water line. The color changes from gray-brown to rusty brown as the river proceeds downstream. Transparency is less than 0.5 feet in this reach. This entire reach is grossly polluted.[11]

 

At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.

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

[studiot]

Go at it folks.

 

 

 

 

swansont

This is one with which I have a quibble. Human power is far from green.

 

 

It depends on your definition of 'green'.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I am sorry to hear this, studiot... this cashier girl was very rude.

[Endy0816]

If you do end up moving to reusable bags, make sure you reuse them enough to make up for their higher footprint. Cotton is probably the best(washable and biodegradable), though it takes the most reuses to come out ahead(~130 uses).

[Phi for All]

Checking out at the supermarket recently the young cashier suggested I should bring my own bags because plastic bags were not good for the environment.

I apologised and explained, “We didn’t have these things back in my earlier days.”

The cashier responded “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

But we didn't do nothing. We were motivated because previous generations didn't do enough either.

 

Back then we returned milk pop and beer bottles to be washed, sterilised and refilled.

Actually, the state-of-the-art Tetra Pak milk packaging that lets milk be stored without refrigeration is almost twice as eco-friendly as glass bottles.

 

We walked to the local shops and didn’t climb into a car every time we had to go two minutes up the road.

It takes me two minutes to walk out of my neighborhood to get to a major street that will lead me to the local shops, which are about a fifteen-minute walk after that. I drive because it takes me two minutes, and gives me 30 minutes to shop, in the time it takes to just walk there and back. If I didn't actually need anything, it would be a good way to save money.

 

Back then we washed babies’ nappies because we didn’t have the throwaway kind.

This one is twitchy. There are more factors than you'd think if you've never had kids, like disposable diapers actually keep babies drier, so they don't have to be changed as often as cloth. But changing less often may require you to buy more rash creams, which isn't necessarily bad for the environment, but certainly adds to the costs associated with diapers.

 

We dried them on a clothes line, not an energy gobbling machine so wind and solar power really did dry our clothes.

This works for me, but not my relatives in Seattle.

 

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from relatives, not always new designer labelled stuff.

I completely agree with this one, and I'm a big fan of Goodwill.

 

Back then we had one TV or radio in the house, not one in every room.

One TV, eight computers, two pads, three cell phones. No land line, no cable, no dish.

 

In the kitchen we stirred and blended by hand rather than having electric machines for everything.

I'm not a huge fan of a machine for every little purpose, but it's hard not to love a blender. I do a lot by hand, but I just recently replaced a (manual) salad-spinner, and it sure does make a better salad.

 

When we posted a fragile item we used screwed up old newspaper as packaging, not plastic foam or bubblewrap.

And that's because we read newspapers back then, and had them lying around (because I never threw them away). Now I use plastic foam and bubble wrap because I have THAT lying around (because I don't throw that away either).

 

Back then we didn’t burn petrol to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

When I bought my Honda lawnmower fifteen years ago, I looked at push mowers, and because of the lack of demand, they were almost as expensive as my Honda, and I would have had to drive quite a ways to get one.

 

I do think that if I would have bought a push-mower, I'd either have much bigger calf muscles, or I would have torn my lawn out ages ago and xeriscaped the whole yard.

 

We exercised by walking and working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on exercise machine run by electricity.

Not everyone works a job that gives them exercise. But it still bothers me to see cars circling the lot in front of the gym looking for a closer parking space.

 

We drank from a fountain instead of purchasing plastic bottles of water.

This is one I long shook my head over, but people are drinking more water, staying hydrated more. I stopped buying them in favor of sport bottles that can be reused.

 

We refilled ink in writing pens and replaced blades in razors.

And what a pain in the butt it was refilling ink! As for razor blades, I see little difference between throwing away a big old double blade razor and a throwing away a little bit of plastic holding five razors (using still less metal than the old razor blades).

 

Back then we took the bus and kids rode their bikes or walked to school.

I never took the bus. I walked or rode my bike until I was old enough to drive, and then I did everything by car. Cities in the western US are usually sprawling, and not very conducive to short distance travels.

 

A stag night meant a few mates going on a pub crawl, not two dozen people flying to Prague.

This is a sign of our prosperity, as well as a trend. Although, I don't understand the need these days to spend so much on weddings.

 

Back then we didn’t need a computer to receive a signal beamed from a satellite 2,000 miles out in space just to show a photo of a meal we had just prepared to a friend who lives next door.

If you did that and never spoke to the neighbor, I think it would be bad. But I'm sure the neighbor would probably prefer this to being dragged over physically to see your new dish.

 

But, of course we weren’t green back then.

We did plenty to be green back then, back when it wasn't as easy or trendy. I don't think I've ever thrown away a plastic container without reusing it at least once for something else, not in the last twenty years. My garage is full of them, and they're full of nuts, bolts, nails, washers, and everything else I've scavenged and reused.

[Sensei]

This is one with which I have a quibble. Human power is far from green. You have to eat food to replace the calories you burned, and are responsible for all of the impact of that food in such an analysis. Just because you push it out of sight doesn't mean it's not there.

But production of food consumes current (+-1 year) Sun energy, takes CO2 from atmosphere and converts it in plant cells, eat by animals, and this way at 1st or 2nd stage, goes to human body.

While burning fossil fuel releases CO2 absorbed millions years ago.

 

People have to eat regardless whether they work or not.

Whether they work on something important, or something meaningless.

Optimally they should do something useful for population.

 

There is a broad reason we have historically employed machines to do work for us, and it's not laziness.

Money. Greedy.

Machines don't strike.

Machines don't want rise..

That's the main reason..

Edited May 6, 2015 by Sensei

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

studiot, unless I am mistaken, you are not the author of your post. That particular story is one I've seen posted before on various social media sites. You should know better than to do this, so please cite your sources next time and make it clear when you are merely copying / quoting something from somewhere.

[studiot]

 

studiot, unless I am mistaken, you are not the author of your post. That particular story is one I've seen posted before on various social media sites.

 

Sorry, I wouldn't know I've never been on a social media site, I not sure i would even know how.

 

However you are correct in that this is based on something I read in our local what's-on rag, 'Suited and Booted', with my own take on some of the items and some additions of my own.

 

However the subject has clearly put put up for wide discussion in the public domain, which is what we are doing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Sorry, I wouldn't know I've never been on a social media site, I not sure i would even know how.

 

However you are correct in that this is based on something I read in our local what's-on rag, 'Suited and Booted', with my own take on some of the items and some additions of my own.

 

However the subject has clearly put put up for wide discussion in the public domain, which is what we are doing.

!

Moderator Note

Which is fine, but you shouldn't go around copy-pasting entire monologues that you didn't write without making it clear that you are not the author. Cite your sources.

 

Please do not respond to this in-thread.

[swansont]

But production of food consumes current (+-1 year) Sun energy, takes CO2 from atmosphere and converts it in plant cells, eat by animals, and this way at 1st or 2nd stage, goes to human body.

While burning fossil fuel releases CO2 absorbed millions years ago.

 

People have to eat regardless whether they work or not.

Whether they work on something important, or something meaningless.

Optimally they should do something useful for population.

 

 

Production of food uses fossil fuels. And fertilizer, and lots of water, and a whole host of things that impact the environment.

 

The minimum of how much people eat depends on how much physical activity they do. It's true that you need ~2000 Cal a day even if you do nothing, but if you do do a few kWh of mechanical work (and the body is not particularly efficient in this) on that diet, you will die relatively quickly. You need food intake above and beyond what a non-working body does.

[Danijel Gorupec]

I see your point, Swansont, but you are probably exaggerating: lawn mowers need to be made, fueled and disposed; are not particularly efficient; are not particularly 'natural'; and you still need to walk behind them.

 

But what I wanted to note is that when people are using their own physical power then people have innate sense for efficiency. This is lost when we use machines (and slaves, I suppose). This is why I think it is not realistic to expect that general population will use machines to max of their efficiency (you will let the lawn mower idle for extended periods just because you are lazy to optimize the mowing path - but when you need cut the grass using your own power then you will think all in advance).