<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The self-congratulatory environmentalist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 17:45:22 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: marc</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-154</guid>
		<description>There are all kinds of environmental effects unique to high-density areas.  The price we pay for lowering global impacts such as fossil fuel use are vastly increased damage to local natural conditions.  If you check out EPA&#039;s list of severe nonattainment areas for various atmospheric pollutants you&#039;ll see that they all line up with major cities.  The northeastern US&#039; problem with particulates and sulfur dioxide being exacerbated by Midwestern power plants notwithstanding, most of these problems are of local origin.  With the exception of industiral mining sites the same is true for water pollution.

Environmental systems are awesomely complex, and all are interrelated.  So, while it&#039;s great-and probably correct-to tout the benefits of high-density living it is also important to recognize the local impacts.  Finally, let&#039;s recognize that the problems or air and water quality in urban environments do far more harm to the human animals that anything else.  That&#039;s what water treatment plants and asthma medication are all about, after all.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are all kinds of environmental effects unique to high-density areas.  The price we pay for lowering global impacts such as fossil fuel use are vastly increased damage to local natural conditions.  If you check out EPA&#8217;s list of severe nonattainment areas for various atmospheric pollutants you&#8217;ll see that they all line up with major cities.  The northeastern US&#8217; problem with particulates and sulfur dioxide being exacerbated by Midwestern power plants notwithstanding, most of these problems are of local origin.  With the exception of industiral mining sites the same is true for water pollution.</p>
<p>Environmental systems are awesomely complex, and all are interrelated.  So, while it&#8217;s great-and probably correct-to tout the benefits of high-density living it is also important to recognize the local impacts.  Finally, let&#8217;s recognize that the problems or air and water quality in urban environments do far more harm to the human animals that anything else.  That&#8217;s what water treatment plants and asthma medication are all about, after all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: echillri</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>echillri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-153</guid>
		<description>Nah, I really don&#039;t think office waste cancels out the energy consumption advantages talked about in the article, mostly because I don&#039;t believe it&#039;s any different in suburban offices. Yes, NYC produces a shitload of trash, and we could do a better job of recycling a lot of it, but we consume a lot less energy disposing of it, too. Out in the land of office parks trash must be driven around for miles until it is aggregated into a bargeful, burning fossil fuels all the while. Here all we have to do is drive everything to Staten Island.

The point of the article is that per capita cities like New York are greener than any suburban or rural areas, mostly due to us not driving everywhere. I don&#039;t think that&#039;s really disputable; to form an effective counter-argument you&#039;d have to show some unique or out-of-scale environmental harm that emerges from high density areas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah, I really don&#8217;t think office waste cancels out the energy consumption advantages talked about in the article, mostly because I don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s any different in suburban offices. Yes, NYC produces a shitload of trash, and we could do a better job of recycling a lot of it, but we consume a lot less energy disposing of it, too. Out in the land of office parks trash must be driven around for miles until it is aggregated into a bargeful, burning fossil fuels all the while. Here all we have to do is drive everything to Staten Island.</p>
<p>The point of the article is that per capita cities like New York are greener than any suburban or rural areas, mostly due to us not driving everywhere. I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s really disputable; to form an effective counter-argument you&#8217;d have to show some unique or out-of-scale environmental harm that emerges from high density areas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsquared</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>dsquared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-152</guid>
		<description>First, there is indeed no monolithic opinion among biologists about &quot;what animals really want anyway,&quot; so I&#039;ll withdraw that unfortunate remark from what stands as a genuinely sincere attempt to respond to your points on their merits, my characterization of biologists notwithstanding.  Second, I did not claim that you had espoused nihilistic views, but instead used the example of a hypothetical nihilist to make an argument.  Nor need I characterize your position as nihilist to make said argument, by which I stand.  Third, there are definitely more than my three options (which aren&#039;t even options so much as they are arguments), which is why I never claimed that my three points represented the totality of all possible options.  That would be a pretty arrogant thing to do.  Thankfully I didn&#039;t do it.  In fact, all I did was to number my points, thereby following a rhetorical convention dating pretty far back--I want to say something clever like &quot;dating to the Frankish kindgoms&quot;--but for fear of provoking an unironic response like &quot;There is definitely no evidence that the Franks numbered their points,&quot; I&#039;d better refrain from further attempts at [what I consider to be] cleverness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, there is indeed no monolithic opinion among biologists about &#8220;what animals really want anyway,&#8221; so I&#8217;ll withdraw that unfortunate remark from what stands as a genuinely sincere attempt to respond to your points on their merits, my characterization of biologists notwithstanding.  Second, I did not claim that you had espoused nihilistic views, but instead used the example of a hypothetical nihilist to make an argument.  Nor need I characterize your position as nihilist to make said argument, by which I stand.  Third, there are definitely more than my three options (which aren&#8217;t even options so much as they are arguments), which is why I never claimed that my three points represented the totality of all possible options.  That would be a pretty arrogant thing to do.  Thankfully I didn&#8217;t do it.  In fact, all I did was to number my points, thereby following a rhetorical convention dating pretty far back&#8211;I want to say something clever like &#8220;dating to the Frankish kindgoms&#8221;&#8211;but for fear of provoking an unironic response like &#8220;There is definitely no evidence that the Franks numbered their points,&#8221; I&#8217;d better refrain from further attempts at [what I consider to be] cleverness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator>rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:49:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-151</guid>
		<description>sure I&#039;m responding to kind of a dead old thread here, but maybe hold off on congratulating your green ass until you assess how much trash gets thrown out of our office every day. No recycling, no reuse, and certainly no reducuction. Multiply that by all the offices in midtown. And then for kicks look at what the daily trash output of every mcdonalds and starbucks is. manhattan has two of each of those places on every corner... crap like that threatens to cancel out all of the happy stats from the new yorker article, no?  

We&#039;ve gotta do it like India man-- make paper cups that disintegrate when you throw &#039;em hard enough onto the train tracks. heh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sure I&#8217;m responding to kind of a dead old thread here, but maybe hold off on congratulating your green ass until you assess how much trash gets thrown out of our office every day. No recycling, no reuse, and certainly no reducuction. Multiply that by all the offices in midtown. And then for kicks look at what the daily trash output of every mcdonalds and starbucks is. manhattan has two of each of those places on every corner&#8230; crap like that threatens to cancel out all of the happy stats from the new yorker article, no?  </p>
<p>We&#8217;ve gotta do it like India man&#8211; make paper cups that disintegrate when you throw &#8216;em hard enough onto the train tracks. heh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marc</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-150</link>
		<dc:creator>marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-150</guid>
		<description>First, there are more than your three options.  Second, optimism and nihilism are not necessarily opposed.  Third, I am not, nor have I espoused nihilistic views.  Fourth, there is no monothilic opinion among &#039;Biologists&#039; as to what &#039;animals really want anyway&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First, there are more than your three options.  Second, optimism and nihilism are not necessarily opposed.  Third, I am not, nor have I espoused nihilistic views.  Fourth, there is no monothilic opinion among &#8216;Biologists&#8217; as to what &#8216;animals really want anyway&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsquared</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>dsquared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:07:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-149</guid>
		<description>Three things: first, can you really be sure of that?  Sure, your vessel will be gone, but maybe the soul-matter gets reincarnated.  I don&#039;t know if it does or not, and neither do you.  If it does, it&#039;s worth preserving the vessels from a self-interested standpoint.  Maybe your spirit will come back as another one, and then another one, and so on, until the day the human race has ended.

Second, even if we assume that reincarnation doesn&#039;t happen at all, isn&#039;t there something special about humanity that&#039;s worth saving?  Aren&#039;t we different from the bugs &amp; bees?  Doesn&#039;t that whole self-consciousness thing mean something?  The nihilist responds by saying, &quot;Means nothing, look at all the wars, all the self-consciousness gets us is the ability to destroy ourselves.&quot;  By contrast, anyone with a shred of optimism points to the positive things humans have done and to the possibility that BECAUSE we are self-conscious, we can stop the trend of self-destruction.  And what better way to harness our unique power than to save future humans from extinction?  That&#039;s the best use of the innate faculty unique to Homo Sapiens that I can think of.  

Third, if you don&#039;t buy any of that you think we&#039;re just plain animals and nothing more, no smarter and no more self-aware--an idea with which I wholeheartedly disagree--then we at least share in animals&#039; desire to pass on their gene code.  Biologists seem to think that at the end of the day that&#039;s all animals really want anyway.  At the least we are animals, so at the least we wanna pass on our genetic material, which means you&#039;ll want to have your descendants well taken care of.  Got to keep that DNA flowing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Three things: first, can you really be sure of that?  Sure, your vessel will be gone, but maybe the soul-matter gets reincarnated.  I don&#8217;t know if it does or not, and neither do you.  If it does, it&#8217;s worth preserving the vessels from a self-interested standpoint.  Maybe your spirit will come back as another one, and then another one, and so on, until the day the human race has ended.</p>
<p>Second, even if we assume that reincarnation doesn&#8217;t happen at all, isn&#8217;t there something special about humanity that&#8217;s worth saving?  Aren&#8217;t we different from the bugs &amp; bees?  Doesn&#8217;t that whole self-consciousness thing mean something?  The nihilist responds by saying, &#8220;Means nothing, look at all the wars, all the self-consciousness gets us is the ability to destroy ourselves.&#8221;  By contrast, anyone with a shred of optimism points to the positive things humans have done and to the possibility that BECAUSE we are self-conscious, we can stop the trend of self-destruction.  And what better way to harness our unique power than to save future humans from extinction?  That&#8217;s the best use of the innate faculty unique to Homo Sapiens that I can think of.  </p>
<p>Third, if you don&#8217;t buy any of that you think we&#8217;re just plain animals and nothing more, no smarter and no more self-aware&#8211;an idea with which I wholeheartedly disagree&#8211;then we at least share in animals&#8217; desire to pass on their gene code.  Biologists seem to think that at the end of the day that&#8217;s all animals really want anyway.  At the least we are animals, so at the least we wanna pass on our genetic material, which means you&#8217;ll want to have your descendants well taken care of.  Got to keep that DNA flowing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marc</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-148</link>
		<dc:creator>marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-148</guid>
		<description>worthwhile for whom?  not me.  i&#039;ll already be dead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>worthwhile for whom?  not me.  i&#8217;ll already be dead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsquared</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>dsquared</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2004 07:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-147</guid>
		<description>Jesus.  For goodness&#039; sake, we can do something.  Something is better than nothing.  Even if we assume that the human race will eventually be extinguished, isn&#039;t it worth lengthening the time till we approach that eventuality, thereby saving human lives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jesus.  For goodness&#8217; sake, we can do something.  Something is better than nothing.  Even if we assume that the human race will eventually be extinguished, isn&#8217;t it worth lengthening the time till we approach that eventuality, thereby saving human lives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marc</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Yes I am.  I am a ray of retina-searing, cancer-causing, globe-warming, satelite-frying sunshine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes I am.  I am a ray of retina-searing, cancer-causing, globe-warming, satelite-frying sunshine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.horseforce.net/archives/54/comment-page-1#comment-145</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:06:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.horseforce.net/blog/?p=54#comment-145</guid>
		<description>You, sir, are a little ray of sunshine and no mistake.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You, sir, are a little ray of sunshine and no mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

