Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course it doesn't make "sustainability" a real thing. I didn't think it did. I assume we're probably all going to die and that'll be the end for each and every one of us. Welcome to the absurd world, a world where everything happens without a grand design or overall intent.

Well, let me put it the other way, since you raise the question to me, and I have answered it plainly.

What if what I'm telling you is true? What then, for you?

Then you'll be able to celebrate in heaven while I'm sent to the fiery pits of hell.

And that prospect doesn't concern you?

If you're right, then you'll never have the joy of knowing it. But if I'm right...

There's a good deal more at stake than who wins this argument, Gary. There's you.

[Gary Childress]

Well, let me put it the other way, since you raise the question to me, and I have answered it plainly.

What if what I'm telling you is true? What then, for you?

Then you'll be able to celebrate in heaven while I'm sent to the fiery pits of hell.

And that prospect doesn't concern you?

If you're right, then you'll never have the joy of knowing it. But if I'm right...

There's a good deal more at stake than who wins this argument, Gary. There's you.

If there is a God, then I don't think God is good by human standards. The world is too screwed up for that to be the case. All the evidence I see points to oblivion when we leave this world. I didn't exist before my body was born. Why should I think I'm going to exist after my body dies?

[Immanuel Can]

Then you'll be able to celebrate in heaven while I'm sent to the fiery pits of hell.

And that prospect doesn't concern you?

If you're right, then you'll never have the joy of knowing it. But if I'm right...

There's a good deal more at stake than who wins this argument, Gary. There's you.

If there is a God, then I don't think God is good.

That's understandable. By your own confession, you don't know Him. You might well imagine anything.

The world is too screwed up for that to be the case.

Ah, the old "problem of evil." It's a good question, Gary, but not one that lacks an answer. You might imagine that we Christians have done some thinking and asking of our own during the last 2,000 years or so. Have you ever read or considered any of what we've discovered about that?

All the evidence I see points of oblivion when we leave this world.

Evidence for oblivion? I'll have to see what you've got.

I didn't exist before I was born. Why should I think I'm going to exist after I die?

Oh, that's easy. Because the mere fact that something began doesn't tell you how it's going to end. Your deduction simply doesn't follow.

But if there were to be information from the other side...well, that would make a huge difference, wouldn't it? That would tip the balance, for sure.

So the only question is, is there any information from the other side? If you say yes, then what information? If you say no, then how do you know there's not?

I don't see the grounds for you to be categorical here. Do you?

[Gary Childress]

And that prospect doesn't concern you?

If you're right, then you'll never have the joy of knowing it. But if I'm right...

There's a good deal more at stake than who wins this argument, Gary. There's you.

If there is a God, then I don't think God is good.

That's understandable. By your own confession, you don't know Him. You might well imagine anything.

The world is too screwed up for that to be the case.

Ah, the old "problem of evil." It's a good question, Gary, but not one that lacks an answer. You might imagine that we Christians have done some thinking and asking of our own during the last 2,000 years or so. Have you ever read or considered any of what we've discovered about that?

All the evidence I see points of oblivion when we leave this world.

Evidence for oblivion? I'll have to see what you've got.

I didn't exist before I was born. Why should I think I'm going to exist after I die?

Oh, that's easy. Because the mere fact that something began doesn't tell you how it's going to end. Your deduction simply doesn't follow.

But if there were to be information from the other side...well, that would make a huge difference, wouldn't it? That would tip the balance, for sure.

So the only question is, is there any information from the other side? If you say yes, then what information? If you say no, then how do you know there's not?

I don't see the grounds for you to be categorical here. Do you?

The only thing you have to counter my beliefs is uncertainty. You don't have any evidence and neither do I. But from my experience, I see the world as absurd. I'm sorry not to conform to your wishes. Take it up with God if you ever meet him.

[Immanuel Can]

If there is a God, then I don't think God is good.

That's understandable. By your own confession, you don't know Him. You might well imagine anything.

The world is too screwed up for that to be the case.

Ah, the old "problem of evil." It's a good question, Gary, but not one that lacks an answer. You might imagine that we Christians have done some thinking and asking of our own during the last 2,000 years or so. Have you ever read or considered any of what we've discovered about that?

All the evidence I see points of oblivion when we leave this world.

Evidence for oblivion? I'll have to see what you've got.

I didn't exist before I was born. Why should I think I'm going to exist after I die?

Oh, that's easy. Because the mere fact that something began doesn't tell you how it's going to end. Your deduction simply doesn't follow.

But if there were to be information from the other side...well, that would make a huge difference, wouldn't it? That would tip the balance, for sure.

So the only question is, is there any information from the other side? If you say yes, then what information? If you say no, then how do you know there's not?

I don't see the grounds for you to be categorical here. Do you?

The only thing you have to counter my beliefs is uncertainty.

Not at all. But it is all you have, so I don't presume to tell you more than you insist you know.

You don't have any evidence and neither do I.

Well, you know YOU don't. You don't know what I know, of course.

But I've even told you how you could know. You didn't want to.

Don't be surprised if you then get what you're asking for. I wouldn't wish it for you, but it's your decision.

[Gary Childress]

That's understandable. By your own confession, you don't know Him. You might well imagine anything.

Ah, the old "problem of evil." It's a good question, Gary, but not one that lacks an answer. You might imagine that we Christians have done some thinking and asking of our own during the last 2,000 years or so. Have you ever read or considered any of what we've discovered about that?

Evidence for oblivion? I'll have to see what you've got.


Oh, that's easy. Because the mere fact that something began doesn't tell you how it's going to end. Your deduction simply doesn't follow.

But if there were to be information from the other side...well, that would make a huge difference, wouldn't it? That would tip the balance, for sure.

So the only question is, is there any information from the other side? If you say yes, then what information? If you say no, then how do you know there's not?

I don't see the grounds for you to be categorical here. Do you?

The only thing you have to counter my beliefs is uncertainty.

Not at all. But it is all you have, so I don't presume to tell you more than you insist you know.

You don't have any evidence and neither do I.

Well, you know YOU don't. You don't know what I know, of course.

But I've even told you how you could know. You didn't want to.

Don't be surprised if you then get what you're asking for. I wouldn't wish it for you, but it's your decision.

You never give up, do you. You're like the energizer bunny, you just keep going and going. Go bother someone else. You're ruining what little peace of mind I have left.

[phyllo]

So stop talking to him about it.

If you yack about it, he's going to reply.

[Gary Childress]

So stop talking to him about it.

If you yack about it, he's going to reply.

He'll just find another one of my posts to reply to. All I have to do is say is that the world is absurd and he'll tack something on the end of it to the effect that I don't know that. Being unhappy is all I have left in this world. I intend to keep that right.

[phyllo]

Well, don't write about Christ, hell, resurrection, God. And you will avoid all the unpleasantness that comes along with his replies on those topics.

[Gary Childress]

Well, don't write about Christ, hell, resurrection, God. And you will avoid all the unpleasantness that comes along with his replies on those topics.

Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

The only thing you have to counter my beliefs is uncertainty.

Not at all. But it is all you have, so I don't presume to tell you more than you insist you know.

You don't have any evidence and neither do I.

Well, you know YOU don't. You don't know what I know, of course.

But I've even told you how you could know. You didn't want to.

Don't be surprised if you then get what you're asking for. I wouldn't wish it for you, but it's your decision.

You never give up, do you. You're like the energizer bunny, you just keep going and going. Go bother someone else. You're ruining what little peace of mind I have left.

Maybe your peace of mind is the problem. You're not concerned enough to do anything about the fact that you don't know God. And maybe it's better you don't have peace of mind, until you do something to change that.

[phyllo]

One thing we could do is help the Developing World modernize more safely -- bring them into the modern world in less-damaging, less-polluting ways, using the knowledge and technologies we've gleaned from our own mistakes. Give them prosperity and hope for their futures, and they will have more incentive to invest in the world. A second thing we could do is educate their populace, which always results in them having more autonomy and making better choices. Thirdly, we could be investing in invention, future technologies and innovative solutions; because the solutions that don't exist today need to be invented before tomorrow, and human beings are actually rather good at that.

What knowledge and technologies?

The knowledge of how to generate cleaner energy, for example. They don't have to be burning coarse coal. Or how about how to heat their homes and cook with rocket stoves, which save tons of wood? How about the knowledge of how to get fresh water from their own water sources, instead of having only the local pond to drink from? How about farming techniques that don't destroy the land? How about education in communcation technologies, and in accessing information on new devices to solve their local problems? How about basic heath-care? There are SO many such knowledges and technologies we have in the Developed World -- by sharing them, we could make their transition to modernity VASTLY less environmentally damaging.

We do know stuff. There is a reason that the West is modernized, and much of the rest of the world is still not. It has nothing to do with "oppression" by the West or "colonialism"; it has to do with bad, corrupt, inefficient local governance, more than anything. And many of those regimes are Socialist dictatorships...like China, like Cuba, like North Korea, like Venezuela was, like Zimbabwe...and on, and on, and on.

You already gave your evaluation of 'green' technologies, innovation and knowledge:

Right. Those are environmentally-damaging pseudo-solutions, fakery from the politicians. These alleged "solutions" don't "sustain" anything. In fact, all of them do more harm then good. And not because I say so, but because science has shown that's true.

For example, recycling is not cost-sustainable for most types of plastic -- only for the clear stuff. The rest goes into the landfills anyway, without the government telling anybody that. And meanwhile, we're sending diesel trucks around to pick up what are basically balloons of air, in addition to all the regular garbage trucks we already have to have. So now we're using more trucks, more expensively, with more pollution, in order to "recycle" only one of four types of plastic balloons, operating at a level well below profit-level. It's insane. Nothing about it is "green."

But most people continue to believe it's "green" to recycle their plastics. That's sort of insane virtue signalling has to stop, if any real good is to be done for the environment.

Same old.

Blame the other guys.

Make them do all the work.

Suggest some piddly solutions which will have a minuscule effect.

At home, undo progress that has been made.

[Immanuel Can]

What knowledge and technologies?

The knowledge of how to generate cleaner energy, for example. They don't have to be burning coarse coal. Or how about how to heat their homes and cook with rocket stoves, which save tons of wood? How about the knowledge of how to get fresh water from their own water sources, instead of having only the local pond to drink from? How about farming techniques that don't destroy the land? How about education in communcation technologies, and in accessing information on new devices to solve their local problems? How about basic heath-care? There are SO many such knowledges and technologies we have in the Developed World -- by sharing them, we could make their transition to modernity VASTLY less environmentally damaging.

We do know stuff. There is a reason that the West is modernized, and much of the rest of the world is still not. It has nothing to do with "oppression" by the West or "colonialism"; it has to do with bad, corrupt, inefficient local governance, more than anything. And many of those regimes are Socialist dictatorships...like China, like Cuba, like North Korea, like Venezuela was, like Zimbabwe...and on, and on, and on.

Right. Those are environmentally-damaging pseudo-solutions, fakery from the politicians. These alleged "solutions" don't "sustain" anything. In fact, all of them do more harm then good. And not because I say so, but because science has shown that's true.

For example, recycling is not cost-sustainable for most types of plastic -- only for the clear stuff. The rest goes into the landfills anyway, without the government telling anybody that. And meanwhile, we're sending diesel trucks around to pick up what are basically balloons of air, in addition to all the regular garbage trucks we already have to have. So now we're using more trucks, more expensively, with more pollution, in order to "recycle" only one of four types of plastic balloons, operating at a level well below profit-level. It's insane. Nothing about it is "green."

But most people continue to believe it's "green" to recycle their plastics. That's sort of insane virtue signalling has to stop, if any real good is to be done for the environment.

Same old.

Blame the other guys.

Let's try it the other way, then. What success are these "green" measures, like recycling, actually having in reducing environmental degredation? Let's see what real effects all this green-yammering is actually producing in respect to the problems it claims to address:

https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.o ... -recycling

[phyllo]

Is recycling truly beneficial for the environment?

EPA data show that recycling conserves energy and natural resources. For example:

Recycling one ton of office paper can save the energy equivalent of consuming 322 gallons of gasoline.
Recycling just one ton of aluminum cans conserves more than 152 million Btu, the equivalent of 1,024 gallons of gasoline or 21 barrels of oil consumed.
Plastic bottles are the most recycled plastic product in the United States as of 2018, according to our most recent report. Recycling just 10 plastic bottles saves enough energy to power a laptop for more than 25 hours.

How does recycling save energy?

When we make new products out of virgin materials, we expend energy to extract and process those materials. This includes burning fossil fuels. However, if we manufacture products using recycled materials, we reduce the need for virgin materials and save the energy required to extract and process them.

To estimate how much energy you can save by recycling certain products, EPA has developed a tool called the individual Waste Reduction Model (iWARM). This tool calculates how much energy you save by recycling aluminum cans, glass or plastic bottles, magazines or plastic grocery bags, and shows you how long those savings could power different electrical appliances.
Is recycling the best management option? What other options are there?

The most effective way to reduce waste, and the most environmentally preferred strategy, is to not create it in the first place. Source reduction, along with material reuse, are the most functional ways to save natural resources, protect the environment and save money. Making a new product requires a lot of materials and energy, from extracting raw materials to fabricating the product to transporting it to the place of purchase.

https://www.epa.gov/recycle/frequent-qu ... -recycling

[Immanuel Can]

Is recycling truly beneficial for the environment?

Well, of course there are pro-recycling sites: didn't you read the article? For one thing, the government is behind it; and they have no interest in telling you the truth. They make buckets of money on convincing you to do it, and they gain influence and status by being the ones who claim to do it. What else aren't they going to tell you, though?

As usual, they aren't distinguishing between what recycling everything could do, and what only recycling a small percentage DOES do. In other words, they're selling what they tell you could be, in some ideal state, but not what is being done in the real world.

Recycling everything could be wonderful -- if it could be done by means that generate at least a break-even, if not a profit, and if it could be done in a way devoid of spinoff environmental costs. Unfortunately, still only one type of plastic can be recycled at a profit, and all recycling programs come with associated environmental damage that makes the programs more environmentally damaging than helpful.

The little recycling sign on the bottom of most plastics? It means "could be recycled if we wanted to do it." It's not a promise that it will be done. So it's not being.

And you can verify those facts for yourself. So you're being lied to.

But what I find is that most "greenies" would rather be lied to than believe the truth. That's because they don't actually care about the environment: they care about being seen to be virtuous people who care about the environment. And if they can convince themselves that they're "helping," that's as far as their real interest in the issue goes.

Windmills? They are horrendous in terms of energy, labour and pollution cost to produce, last 15 years, produce energy N. America finds surplus, and then are reduced to unrecyclable junk, ending up in massive "elephants' graveyards" of parts. Solar panels? 90% of them end up in landfills. Sure, they "could" be recycled: they just aren't. It's too expensive and difficult. Population control? Most of the West is in democratic deficit (i.e. population far below replacement values, threatening the survival of the West itself), and it's in the Developing World that large families continue to be produced; so there's absolutely no benefit, and great detriment, in telling Western people to stop having babies.

All this stuff, any serious "green" would actually know already. Many do; but they know their panic-industry depends on others not knowing these things.