webist

I'm certain that many of the folks you are attempting to reach with this post actually ride "Organic" bicycles as well.

Or, perhaps self-righteously boasting about a circumstance they can't actually change. Take me for example. I purchased a late model SUV which had a previous owner. I did so, of course, because I didn't want the barons of detroit to use up additional resources to produce a new one for me.

KrisPistofferson

Where's ILTB?

velotimbe

Success!!!

Hey guys, I have to apologize in one sense, i was just stirring the pot from an ultra-environmentalist standpoint..... I wanted to see what many of your perceptions were on what the term sustainable meant, and I wanted it to be seperate from that other sustainable thread. I felt the term was getting tossed around a bit much.

I myself do what I can, and hope that it makes a difference.... Glad you guys are too.

"Society is like a stew, you have to stir it up or you get a lot of scum on top" ~ Edward Abbey

Oh, and Env. Ed. is primarily user-fee funded i.e. school districts. Except for one large one in Jackson, WY funded by Wal-Mart. Just an FYI

cooker

Didn't work. Someone else wanted that used SUV but because you scooped it first, he had to dig deep and buy a new one. Another person was debating whether to buy one but didn't want to be stuck with a white elephant. However, when he saw his buddy successfully sell a used one to you, it reassured him he'd be able to unload one later too, so he bought a new one as well.

Buying used is better than new, but not buying at all would be even better.

gwd

The Sentinalese from the Andaman Islands. If they have anything it was brought in accidentally by the sea, and they don't depend on it. The July 7 issue of Science, just had a little article about them. As far as anyone can tell they still live in the stone age. The Indian gov. has decided for now to leave them alone and let them continue with their habit of killing anyone who tries to visit. The article said the government went to check on them by helicopter after the tsunami. When they attacked the helicopter with arrows the government knew they were doing alright and flew away.

Alekhine

Doh, my bad - it wasn't Borneo/Indonesia, it was New Guinea. Norm sent me back this website:

https://www.papua-adventures.com/first-contact.html

The only thing he has to show for it is a weird little tattoo on his ankle.

EDIT: One of the things you have to realize about places like this is the lack of infrastructure in deep jungle territories - even in developed countries like Thailand and the Phillipines. You might assume that tribes themselves are exploratory and make their way out to find civilization, but that's erroneous. They exist in areas that are a far walk from any civilization - the world isn't entirely paved over yet (though it's getting there), and although nations, big business, and private enterprise have claimed or bought all lands on the earth by law to do with what they will, they haven't yet exploited all of it, which allows the interior natives - for now - to live freely the way they have for thousands of years. So for westerners trying to find them, it has to be done by either helicopter or expedition, which would certainly involve river crossings, cutting through dense jungle, luck in making contact with them (unless you have a guide), and solo touring skill.

One of the things that comes to mind in this discussion is the Japanese soldiers who after World War II didn't know the war was over and lived on the islands off the land, digging mole holes to live in and literally returning to stone-age practices to survive. One of them didn't cease living like this for almost 30 years after the war was over! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda EDIT 2: Actually, he was superceded by another who lived 35 years like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumio_Nakahira

wahoonc

Well let's see We typically only buy bulk items at the grocery store, things like flour, sugar and coffee. We could grow our own wheat, but is not a good use of the land at the moment. My truck runs on B100 and I really don't have to have it(the truck). We raise chickens, rabbits, and goats. We have fruit and nut trees. We plant multiple gardens. We are in the process of building a pond that will be well stocked. Mail I could care less about. Wanna save the enivronment stamp out junk mail! Most of my bikes are steel (at least the ones I prefer) However I am having an issue finding natural rubber tires I have actually seen a bike built out of bamboo, talk about sustainable! Even 200 years ago people still depended on items from outside the homestead.

Aaron

Blackberry

I love those Pashley bicycles!

nedgoudy

Amen Brother! You are
preach'n to the choir here!

Junkmail is cr*p.

Blackberry

"Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
--Margaret Mead

SmithW6079

Good post Cooker,

I can't help but think that although the coming generations are not likely to be oil free for some time (if ever), it seems completely ludicrous to me that a large percentage of our remaining oil is essentially BURNED in order to power all manner of vehicles. Finding alternatives to combustion engines should not only reduce a significant amount of pollution, but should also allow us to use what oil we have for better purposes than powering 3000 pound automobiles. It MAY also buy us more time to develop sustainable energy sources and architecture, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that current energy use and a population of 6 billion is unsustainable.

bragi

It's come up a couple of times in this thread that our current population is not sustainable, never mind the additional 3-6 billion that are due to arrive this century. Does anyone have any ideas about what to do with the extra people? This seems to be the elephant in the room...

carless

velotimbe,
Sustainable is a collective ideal to strive for, a philosophy of individual actions meant to buttress the increasingly self centered individual. Some people reduce definitions to numbers- without a moral equivalent.
You seem to be saying "Nobody can live off the grid" and that may be true. You also imply that we view ourselves as superior as a forum group.. That may be true also, a part of being a group committed to change is disdain for the current group (drivers).
Sustainable is a system of transportation or energy that won't kill our grandkids, or make us rationalize clearcuts. Unsustainable is Walmart trucking chinese goods through Main St and driving from a suburb 30 miles from where you work.
I hope this helps your education, and just a note on your title and posts: anytime you speak to a group don't start out by saying "none of you are" ...anything. It's a trite condemnation; notwithstanding your quote about stirring the pot and the "Just kidding" (sounds hollow).
If, as an Environmental Educator this is your best idea about fostering discussion, I suggest you recycle your thoughts. If this is the depth of your knowledge and a peak at your classroom method, you need more of one and less of the other.

Icycle

Just as there are many people who strive to be car-free, there are many people who strive to eat locally. Through farmers markets, co-ops, community supported agriculture, and even backyard gardens, it is possible to get a significant fraction of one's food from local sources. This food is often fresher and tastes better, since it didn't have to travel hundreds of miles, nor be bred for sturdiness above all else. One can often get to know the people who actually grow the food, fostering a greater sense of community. Eat Local Challenge is a blog run by people who challenge themselves to eat as locally as possible. And there was a recent segement on NPR's Living on Earth, where commentator and writer Bill McKibben only eats food grown in his native Vermont for an entire winter. Perhaps you could tell your evironmental education students about some of these resources for eating locally.

gizmocat

Speak for yourself, velotimbe.

I've taken the environmental 'footprint' tests. I live like a German and yes, I live in the USA. Yes, I am car-free. I haven't driven a car since 1999 and am glad to be rid of it. My groceries come from local farmers' markets. I buy from the Amish but even they don't drive in with horse drawn buggies any more.

And you make an absolutely ridiculous statement that riding a bicycle makes no difference. It does. It means there's one less car on the road.
You know what? There are too many humans on this planet. You'd probably suggest that most of us go and kill ourselves to remedy the problem.
If you feel that bicycling is pointless, don't post on this forum. You are making noise to no purpose.

Thor29

Now THAT is funny!!!! Since I started using a bike as my sole transportation my social status has skyrocketed. I'm the man!!! Everyone looks up to me, the women throw themselves at my feet, everyone wants my advice, I'm invited to all the cool parties, people cheer as I ride my bike to work...

No I sure don't care about saving the planet, I'm car free because of all the groupies. It's much easier to ride a bike than to try and be a rock star.

cooker

It's a problem which will correct itself. The only question is how painfully that will happen. During prolonged famines, populations tend to reduce. Some of the methods or mechanisms that come into play can include people starving to death, murder including infanticide, war including genocide, epidemics and reduced fertility due to malnourishment, forced sterilization, abstention from sex, and contraception. As you can see, some of these are more horrible than others.

It's also true that it's not just numbers. North American populations are less sustainable than third world populations because we live large when it comes to our ecological footprint.

Roody

I don't agree at all that your admitted mindf*** was a success. You could make it into a success, perhaps, by starting a new thread that seriously addresses the question of what sustainable means. Actually you owe the community that much, unless you are a total troll (which I doubt).

For starters, you seem to be saying that the only truly sustainable lifestyle is stone-age hunting and gathering. But many parts of the globe have sustained dense human populations and intensive agriculture for nearly 4000 years (Egypt, Mesopotamia, northern India, China, Central America). Some other areas have sustained heavy industry for nearly 400 years (England, Flanders, northern France). Yet most of us would agree that contemporary North American economies are not sustainable. What are the differences? What can be done? Are we doing enough, or is carfree a waste of time?

So how about it, Mr. so-called Educator? You up for a more dialectical discussion of sustainability, without the smug arrogance of your opiginal post here?

aikigreg

I think I can agree with the sentiment of the O.P. Our entire American infrastructure is based on oil. Everything we do, down to the smallest things, wastes so darned much. The best we can hope for is to balance out some of the jackholes doing REAL damage.

Where the O.P is mislead is his perception that car free must be equal to OIL-FREE. It's not. Those of us (and I'm NOT including myself here - I'm very car dependant unfortunately) who do not own or use a car are car-free. By definition.

I've also known a few people who *ARE* oil free. They power their homes by batteries driven by an exercise bike and wind, or geothermal. They grow all their own food and are completely off the grid. Impressive, but not the way I want to live.

to the O.P. It's the goal for many of us to be as less of a burden as possible. Soudns like you don't really give a rat's ass, so why are you poisoning student's minds with what you do not beleive?

bragi

I like to believe that the OP does, in fact, give a rat's ass; otherwise, it's doubtful he would have posted here at all. I imagine him to be an earnest young man who means well. However, I do think he needs to define his terms a little better. He was, I think, using the word "sustainable" when he meant "subsistence farmer," which of course has led to all kind of trouble. (Or fun, depending on your attitude.)

carless

Need a roomate?

KrisPistofferson

Yeah, truly, car-free grants you no special status on Bikeforums, as most of the posters here strap their mountain- or road-bike to the top of their car to ride, and tend to look at people who don't live in New York or Chicago without a car as scrubs. Seriously, I had a girl who was all up on my jock diss me like a roach as soon as she found out I had no car a couple weeks ago. I didn't feel like I had any special status at that point.

marcm

And you keep up the good work, but please stop the smearing.

If you see evidence of a misconception, correct it. If you see evidence of arrogance, bash it (if you wish). In other words, respond to specific posts, if you wish. But don't address us as if we're all responsible for the mistakes or shortcomings you notice in those specific posts. We're not. Get it?

(I hope you'll forgive my sarcasm. The temptation to respond to perceived rudeness/smugness in kind is extremely hard to resist. I'm trying.)

Also, please don't say "none of you are sustainable" unless you, yourself, are sustainable. It's a partial truth which reveals your temporary blindness to the fact that while pointing one finger at all of us (indiscriminately), three other fingers are pointing back at you.

Recognizing that, you might have chosen a more appropriate title, like "none of us are sustainable". But then you would have had to be more humble in expressing your point. Well, next time.

As for the notion of sustainability: IMO, to the extent any of us are unsustainable, we are all unsustainable. Because we are all connected. No man or woman is an island. We live on the same planet, recycle the same air and water, depend on the same sun for warmth and energy, et cetera. I don't believe sustainability is an absolute thing, something one "is" or "isn't". Reality is more fuzzy than that. Rather, it's a matter of degree. The point of sustainability is to make decisions that support the ability of life on this planet to thrive into the indefinite future. We face a multitude of choices every day, including choices about our lifestyle, choices between options that are more or less sustainable, options that increase or reduce our (big "our") sustainability.

According to Jim Merkel's 2003 book, Radical Simplicity, the average US ecological footprint (based on the old method, not the new Footprint 2.0) is 23.5 acres per person. Of this total, 4.0 acres are the result of driving (and riding in) a car. So learning to get by without a car can significantly reduce one's ecological footprint. Is it enough? No. Find somewhere on this forum where someone suggested that it's enough, and straighten them out. Don't accuse the rest of us, please. Can we do better? Of course. Out of that US per-capita average of 23.5 acres, the food footprint is 5.5, shelter 4.3, goods & services 8.6. With the current population, and based on that model, a per-capita ecological footprint of 4.7 acres (total) would be sustainable. Ouch. There's a lot we can do besides going car-free to reduce our (individual) ecological footprint and improve our (collective) sustainability. And I'll bet members of the car-free forum will tend to be more aware of such things, and practicing more such things, than your average BikeForums member. But if you have any specific suggestions, please feel free to contribute. I think you will find them welcomed.

Cosmoline

We're clearly not mortifying our flesh with hairshirts and whips enough! We need to be PUNISHED for living in the US, otherwise we shall be IMPURE in the eyes of the PC.

I spent years listening to this bravo sierra from the far left enviros. They don't view any of these matters rationally. For them it's a matter of RELIGION. A matter of GUILT and PUNISHMENT. This cultish attitude has done an enormous amount to alienate people and harm the environmental movement. The clowns who foist a "hollier than thou" attitude can watch my broad American buttocks ride away.

Roody

Well the analogy of environmentalism to religion is an age old rightist dodge of the fact that Americans deserve more PUNISHMENT for the simple reason that we are more GUILTY. (To use your system of capitalization.) Of course guilt is just an old fashioned word for RESPONSIBILITY. Do you think there is something wrong with us taking responsibility for our actions, both as a nation and as individuals? Do you not think that the first step toward correcting wrong behavior is recognizing that it is wrong, then resolving to correct it in the future? Or are you completely unable to accept any criticism, even when it's meant to be constructive? Do you think your country is too weak and immature to accept responsibility? That is not a patriotic attitude!