I know our actions will eventually determine our fate, and I'm not saying I just don't care at all, I still do some things. Like, I recycle as a normal thing, don't have lights on when I'm not doing anything in a room because that's just pointless, etc. What I am saying, however, is that we've taken it too far.
Like, a whole bunch of people want to plant trees. Well woop-de-doo, they do absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, but would this be such a big ordeal if we didn't cut so many down in the first place? Not to be talking eco-friendly right now, but sometimes we don't need a lot of stuff we build. We take out way too much land to designate for parks, and about 30% of the park could've still been forests or whatever.
And also, if you really want a tree to be taking in it's fair share of CO2, you need to wait about 20 years. And also, isn't nature going to end up getting in the way? A tree could be easily destroyed by ants, lightning, you name it. And then when sticks fall off the trees, what do you do?
You either burn them (more CO2 in the air) or use a chipper and use them for woodchips (using electricity).
Also, there's problems with germs that end up wasting technology. Do we really need automated towel dispensers? Really? Do we think those handles are that dirty? What, are there no people who's jobs are to clean that stuff?
Like, a whole bunch of people want to plant trees. Well woop-de-doo, they do absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, but would this be such a big ordeal if we didn't cut so many down in the first place?
Oh, definitely, there is a reason why the order is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The most important is to reduce your use so you don't waste stuff. Then, reuse the stuff you did buy or opt for reusable stuff. Then, recycle what you do throw away, which at this point should be a lot less due to the previous 2 steps.
But if they do cut down trees, then I'd rather have them replant them rather than not. Seems like common sense to me. And usually they just replant them in the same place, since they're using the trees just for that.
And then when sticks fall off the trees, what do you do?
You either burn them (more CO2 in the air) or use a chipper and use them for woodchips (using electricity).
OR you do nothing, and it's used by animals (for nests, dams, etc depending on size) or reabsorbed into the earth. You don't have to just intervene in every single thing that happens, you know.
If you mean specifically in maintained parks, I'm sure they have established what to do with them, sending them to whoever does need the wood chips or wood dust, so it just means less trees are cut down especially to produce said chips or dust because some comes from there.
OR you do nothing, and it's used by animals (for nests, dams, etc depending on size) or reabsorbed into the earth. You don't have to just intervene in every single thing that happens, you know.
Yes, but it's much more sensible to pick up all the sticks then to have nature just take them away, taking a tremendous amount of time, and it's the worse off choice because clearly, man does not control nature. We can manipulate it, persuade it, but nothing else.
As of with recycling and that business, my only true concern of why I recycle is so that we don't have such dirty water and get contaminated soil, which is not only bad for animals but for humans as well.
But what on earth led you to talk about recycling when I mentioned planting trees?
Yes, but it's much more sensible to pick up all the sticks then to have nature just take them away
Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.
But what on earth led you to talk about recycling when I mentioned planting trees?
You said it made more sense to cut off less trees than to cut them off and replace them. You were talking about Reducing, so I did too. Since it's part of a trio (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), I mentioned the other two as well to point out how Reducing is the part with the strongest impact.
Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.
Exactly, if you think it's unsightly put it on a compost heap.
Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.
In the rest of that sentence, I explain why more people would pick up the sticks and get rid of them because if nature were to get rid of all of them and use them as nests and whatever, it would take way too long.
Sure, we could just pile them up and leave them like that so we can mow the grass, but is that helping us OR nature?
The answer is simply no. If I were to decide that I would do the preceding, then I would end up having a massive pile, and would only get worse.
On nature's part, sure some mice could go in the sticks and stay there, but then what about the birds? It would be much worse for the birds to get twigs from the pile because most of them are bound to go all the way through the bottom, from little cracks in the pile.
Also, fire (although a "pollutant") is one of man's greatest discoveries. It can get bacteria out of water, heat up raw food to make it healthier, and much more. The second we stop using fire regularly, we make a turn for the worse.
In the rest of that sentence, I explain why more people would pick up the sticks and get rid of them because if nature were to get rid of all of them and use them as nests and whatever, it would take way too long.
Sure, we could just pile them up and leave them like that so we can mow the grass, but is that helping us OR nature?
The answer is simply no. If I were to decide that I would do the preceding, then I would end up having a massive pile, and would only get worse.
...what.
Okay, look. Here's the good thing about nature. Things we don't use don't just continually pile up forever. We don't have a giant pile of sticks somewhere in the middle of uninhabited woods. You seem to have this idea that when nature drops a stick on the ground, if human beings don't snag it up with all their efficiency and technology, surely the world will soon be covered in sticks.
The great thing about sticks though, is that they're dead tree parts. Like all dead organism parts, they decompose. Decomposition is great in many ways: it removes the clutter of dead things, it takes nutrients from dead things and re-introduces them into the environment, and it has absolutely no negative environmental impact. People don't need to do a damn thing for this process to start. It's really cool.
On nature's part, sure some mice could go in the sticks and stay there, but then what about the birds? It would be much worse for the birds to get twigs from the pile because most of them are bound to go all the way through the bottom, from little cracks in the pile.
Also, fire (although a "pollutant") is one of man's greatest discoveries. It can get bacteria out of water, heat up raw food to make it healthier, and much more. The second we stop using fire regularly, we make a turn for the worse.
...and it's things like this that make me wonder if you're actually having this conversation, or if you're having some parallel conversation with yourself.
Okay, look. Here's the good thing about nature. Things we don't use don't just continually pile up forever. We don't have a giant pile of sticks somewhere in the middle of uninhabited woods. You seem to have this idea that when nature drops a stick on the ground, if human beings don't snag it up with all their efficiency and technology, surely the world will soon be covered in sticks.
Except, in the woods we don't do anything to manipulate it, besides cutting it down, so obviously we don't go and pick up sticks there. However, when at our back yards, we don't want to mow the lawn with sticks jamming up the tractor/mower, we don't really want to walk around in it, and I'm not going to wait longer to do that stuff, because it seems to be common sense.
P.S: None of my neighbors have a compost bin, and they all burn their sticks as well, or put them all in bags and send them off (where they probably burn as well).
P.S.S I'm still burning my sticks.
how to make a rudimentary compost pile:
step one: gather dead plant matter
step two: put in pile off to the side
step three: wait and stir around
step four:???
step five: PROFIT!!
how to make a rudimentary compost pile:
step one: gather dead plant matter
step two: put in pile off to the side
step three: wait and stir around
step four:???
step five: PROFIT!!
I think we may have missed the problem, what kind of leper tree do you have that it losing "sticks" is a problem?
Also what do you do with the grass trimmings and leaves, if nothing you could have an ideal start for a compost heap. Compost is a fantastic fertiliser, so yes, it does help nature.
Do you know any science? Fire ain't all that great, it's the simple exothermic reaction of oxygen and carbon becoming carbon dioxide, nuclear fission is much crazier, which automatically makes it cooler. You make an atom unstable, which causes one atom to split into two (different elements) along with neutrons and photons (packets of energy). Fire is pretty lame.
If you previously bought a form of compost for growing your plants, making your own compost for free is a monetary gain.
Also, if you need to pay for garbage (like, pay per bag you throw away), as some people do, reducing the amount of things you throw away (by putting organic stuff on the compost pile) would also save you money.
And finally, whatever you use to burn the sticks, you probably spend some money on it, be it matches, fire starters or whatever. You'd save money on that, too.
So, yes, it can definitely be a monetary gain. It's cutting off the middle man, too: instead of paying to get rid of sticks, eggs shells and peels, then paying to get some compost to use in your garden, you don't pay for either and turn one into the other.
Also, if you need to pay for garbage (like, pay per bag you throw away), as some people do, reducing the amount of things you throw away (by putting organic stuff on the compost pile) would also save you money.
And finally, whatever you use to burn the sticks, you probably spend some money on it, be it matches, fire starters or whatever. You'd save money on that, too.
I don't use the bags, but my neighbors do. All I do for a fire is crumple up some papers from the recycling bin (call it irony if you must) and put them in a fire, and most fires will take about 2-3 matches to start, and it's like 1.50 for 200.
I wasn't talking about buying the bags themselves. In some places, the garbage people charge you per garbage bag you throw away, or just plain have a limit and you're on your own for the rest. In that kind of situation it's useful to be able to limit how much you throw away.
I wasn't talking about buying the bags themselves. In some places, the garbage people charge you per garbage bag you throw away, or just plain have a limit and you're on your own for the rest. In that kind of situation it's useful to be able to limit how much you throw away.
Still, I don't use the bags, so it doesn't concern me.
Comments
Like, a whole bunch of people want to plant trees. Well woop-de-doo, they do absorb CO2 and produce oxygen, but would this be such a big ordeal if we didn't cut so many down in the first place? Not to be talking eco-friendly right now, but sometimes we don't need a lot of stuff we build. We take out way too much land to designate for parks, and about 30% of the park could've still been forests or whatever.
And also, if you really want a tree to be taking in it's fair share of CO2, you need to wait about 20 years. And also, isn't nature going to end up getting in the way? A tree could be easily destroyed by ants, lightning, you name it. And then when sticks fall off the trees, what do you do?
You either burn them (more CO2 in the air) or use a chipper and use them for woodchips (using electricity).
Also, there's problems with germs that end up wasting technology. Do we really need automated towel dispensers? Really? Do we think those handles are that dirty? What, are there no people who's jobs are to clean that stuff?
Oh, definitely, there is a reason why the order is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The most important is to reduce your use so you don't waste stuff. Then, reuse the stuff you did buy or opt for reusable stuff. Then, recycle what you do throw away, which at this point should be a lot less due to the previous 2 steps.
But if they do cut down trees, then I'd rather have them replant them rather than not. Seems like common sense to me. And usually they just replant them in the same place, since they're using the trees just for that.
OR you do nothing, and it's used by animals (for nests, dams, etc depending on size) or reabsorbed into the earth. You don't have to just intervene in every single thing that happens, you know.
If you mean specifically in maintained parks, I'm sure they have established what to do with them, sending them to whoever does need the wood chips or wood dust, so it just means less trees are cut down especially to produce said chips or dust because some comes from there.
Sadly, that seems extremely believable to me.
Yes, but it's much more sensible to pick up all the sticks then to have nature just take them away, taking a tremendous amount of time, and it's the worse off choice because clearly, man does not control nature. We can manipulate it, persuade it, but nothing else.
As of with recycling and that business, my only true concern of why I recycle is so that we don't have such dirty water and get contaminated soil, which is not only bad for animals but for humans as well.
But what on earth led you to talk about recycling when I mentioned planting trees?
Why? Why? Your option is to pick them up and get rid of them, which is a waste. Nature reuses it, meaning that whether it's on the tree or on the ground it's being useful for something. The second you decide to pick it up when you don't even need it, it turns into garbage instead of being a resource. I don't get how that's supposed to be sensible.
You said it made more sense to cut off less trees than to cut them off and replace them. You were talking about Reducing, so I did too. Since it's part of a trio (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), I mentioned the other two as well to point out how Reducing is the part with the strongest impact.
Exactly, if you think it's unsightly put it on a compost heap.
In the rest of that sentence, I explain why more people would pick up the sticks and get rid of them because if nature were to get rid of all of them and use them as nests and whatever, it would take way too long.
Sure, we could just pile them up and leave them like that so we can mow the grass, but is that helping us OR nature?
The answer is simply no. If I were to decide that I would do the preceding, then I would end up having a massive pile, and would only get worse.
On nature's part, sure some mice could go in the sticks and stay there, but then what about the birds? It would be much worse for the birds to get twigs from the pile because most of them are bound to go all the way through the bottom, from little cracks in the pile.
Also, fire (although a "pollutant") is one of man's greatest discoveries. It can get bacteria out of water, heat up raw food to make it healthier, and much more. The second we stop using fire regularly, we make a turn for the worse.
Okay, look. Here's the good thing about nature. Things we don't use don't just continually pile up forever. We don't have a giant pile of sticks somewhere in the middle of uninhabited woods. You seem to have this idea that when nature drops a stick on the ground, if human beings don't snag it up with all their efficiency and technology, surely the world will soon be covered in sticks.
The great thing about sticks though, is that they're dead tree parts. Like all dead organism parts, they decompose. Decomposition is great in many ways: it removes the clutter of dead things, it takes nutrients from dead things and re-introduces them into the environment, and it has absolutely no negative environmental impact. People don't need to do a damn thing for this process to start. It's really cool.
...and it's things like this that make me wonder if you're actually having this conversation, or if you're having some parallel conversation with yourself.
Except, in the woods we don't do anything to manipulate it, besides cutting it down, so obviously we don't go and pick up sticks there. However, when at our back yards, we don't want to mow the lawn with sticks jamming up the tractor/mower, we don't really want to walk around in it, and I'm not going to wait longer to do that stuff, because it seems to be common sense.
P.S: None of my neighbors have a compost bin, and they all burn their sticks as well, or put them all in bags and send them off (where they probably burn as well).
P.S.S I'm still burning my sticks.
step one: gather dead plant matter
step two: put in pile off to the side
step three: wait and stir around
step four:???
step five: PROFIT!!
not so sure about profit..
When you burn sticks, you gain nothing and it costs you the same effort of moving the sticks and costs you in terms of air quality.
I meant money.
Yet however, profit is more used in the financial sense rather then of a gain. If I say that I meant money, it does not deny it's other uses.
Also what do you do with the grass trimmings and leaves, if nothing you could have an ideal start for a compost heap. Compost is a fantastic fertiliser, so yes, it does help nature.
Do you know any science? Fire ain't all that great, it's the simple exothermic reaction of oxygen and carbon becoming carbon dioxide, nuclear fission is much crazier, which automatically makes it cooler. You make an atom unstable, which causes one atom to split into two (different elements) along with neutrons and photons (packets of energy). Fire is pretty lame.
Also.
Tractor:
Lawnmower (not tractor):
I meant push mower. My bad.
Also, if you need to pay for garbage (like, pay per bag you throw away), as some people do, reducing the amount of things you throw away (by putting organic stuff on the compost pile) would also save you money.
And finally, whatever you use to burn the sticks, you probably spend some money on it, be it matches, fire starters or whatever. You'd save money on that, too.
So, yes, it can definitely be a monetary gain. It's cutting off the middle man, too: instead of paying to get rid of sticks, eggs shells and peels, then paying to get some compost to use in your garden, you don't pay for either and turn one into the other.
Win.
I don't use the bags, but my neighbors do. All I do for a fire is crumple up some papers from the recycling bin (call it irony if you must) and put them in a fire, and most fires will take about 2-3 matches to start, and it's like 1.50 for 200.
Still, I don't use the bags, so it doesn't concern me.