8 Elephants Worth of Stuff

On this matter, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

:greetings10:

You aren't just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with science.

Back on the original topic...I have always lived a frugal lifestyle with very little waste. I've always had 4-cylinder vehicles, small homes, never owned motorized toys, practiced low consumption, etc. I would expect my "elephant" footprint is lower than most.
 
Not sure this is so clear cut. from :

Causes of Drought: What's the Climate Connection? | Union of Concerned Scientists

emphasis mine


So are those undeveloped countries dependent on snowfall, or rainfall? Also note at that and other sites, there are a lot of qualifiers in almost everything - 'potentially', etc.

-ERD50

I did state "some countries". Climate change does manifest itself in various ways with severe weather events becoming more frequent & intense in the form of greater precipitation in some instances & drought in others. Developing areas of the world lacking resources & infrastructure are less equipped to cope with these events.
 
You aren't just disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with science.

Back on the original topic...I have always lived a frugal lifestyle with very little waste. I've always had 4-cylinder vehicles, small homes, never owned motorized toys, practiced low consumption, etc. I would expect my "elephant" footprint is lower than most.

I am disagreeing with you and the science you rely on in forming your opinions about climate change. You are disagreeing with me based on the same premise.

But as you say - back on the original topic and a focus on what unites rather than divides us.... We do agree 100% on frugality as one of the best methods for not only reducing our footprints on the ecosystem, but also as a more sustainable means for FI. And for that less elephants approach you are taking I would say, "congratulations" & "well done"!
 
...

But as you say - back on the original topic and a focus on what unites rather than divides us.... We do agree 100% on frugality as one of the best methods for not only reducing our footprints on the ecosystem, but also as a more sustainable means for FI. And for that less elephants approach you are taking I would say, "congratulations" & "well done"!

Yes, avoiding waste makes sense, but I don't think we can extend that to say that the 'one elephant' footprint individual is a model to follow.

In general, the lower footprint groups are probably not developing medicines to fight terrible diseases, or developing enabling technologies for people with disabilities, or communication systems to help people keep in touch or summon help when needed.

Those things require resources. But yes, we could do much to eliminate wasted resources.

A recent example was the thread on the cell phone with the battery bursting into flames. Yes, non removable batteries can provide some advantages in keeping the phone sleek and waterproof, and many indicated a preference for that. But it also means you can't just swap out a battery when something like this happens, and the phone is much more likely to be tossed (hopefully recycled, but that's not perfect and takes energy) when the battery gets weak, rather than just replace the battery. Maybe the 1st owner would prefer to just buy new at that time, but with a fresh battery, that phone could be used by a consumer who doesn't need to latest/greatest. Better to get a few more years out of it before it hits the recycle pile.

-ERD50
 
A recent example was the thread on the cell phone with the battery bursting into flames. Yes, non removable batteries can provide some advantages in keeping the phone sleek and waterproof, and many indicated a preference for that. But it also means you can't just swap out a battery when something like this happens, and the phone is much more likely to be tossed (hopefully recycled, but that's not perfect and takes energy) when the battery gets weak, rather than just replace the battery. Maybe the 1st owner would prefer to just buy new at that time, but with a fresh battery, that phone could be used by a consumer who doesn't need to latest/greatest. Better to get a few more years out of it before it hits the recycle pile.

-ERD50


Or... one can continue to use a 30 year old landline phone like I do.

Isn't it amazing how long civilization was able to function without computers and cell phones.

.
 
Yes, avoiding waste makes sense, but I don't think we can extend that to say that the 'one elephant' footprint individual is a model to follow.


-ERD50

Agreed on all counts. Maybe a better way to view the 8 vs single elephant comparison would be to say that in developed nations we have an obligation to our brothers & sisters in less developed parts of the world to do what we can to eliminate the unnecessaries - i.e. wastefulness as other posters have suggested. Let's see if we can collectively reduce by a full elephant, or so. If we don't, and matters continue on its current pace related to consumption & worldwide population growth, it won't be long 'til we run out of enough "stuff" to sustain any elephants at all!
 
Or... one can continue to use a 30 year old landline phone like I do.

Isn't it amazing how long civilization was able to function without computers and cell phones.

.

I sometimes go months w/o using my cell phone and average just a few minutes a month, outside of a few exceptions.

But I don't like being w/o it. When you would like to use it, it sure is convenient. And in those cases, the call often saves resources.

Society 'functioned' without landline phones too. Surgery was done w/o anesthetic and with no knowledge of germs and septic procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield

Unfortunately for Garfield, most American doctors of the day did not believe in anti-sepsis measures or the need for cleanliness to prevent infection.[56] Several inserted their unsterilized fingers into the wound to probe for the bullet, and one doctor punctured Garfield's liver in doing so.

The good old days? No thanks!

-ERD50
 
Isn't it amazing how long civilization was able to function without computers and cell phones.

.

Amen to that!! How I miss the days of my employer lacking the means to reach out and "touch me"!
 
.

My brother recently retired from NASA. Before he retired, NASA interviewed him concerning the old Apollo quarantine system at the spacecraft center in Houston [where my brother's lab was located.] My brother was one of the last left who understood and experienced the quarantine... information NASA saw as valuable for future missions to Mars. One of the interesting parts of the interview was how the Apollo scientists got data in and out of quarantine without PCs and cell phones. They rigged up a copy machine with the input inside quarantine and the output outside quarantine... then called [landline] someone outside quarantine to pick up the data.

.
 
Consumption of resources goes hand in hand with production. Unless one wants to return to a pre-industrial era, efficiency is the only practical way to manage resources.

Preaching efficiency here is preaching to the choir. For the most part members are very efficient otherwise they would not be on the path to or have reached FIRE.
 
Amen to that!! How I miss the days of my employer lacking the means to reach out and "touch me"!


I value my privacy. Most of the time I allow calls on my landline to go to voicemail.

However, tracking criminals via their cell phones is very helpful to law enforcement who also have access to text message records.

.
 
Using the trash volume indicator, it would take my wife and I well over a month, possibly two to fill the standard size Waste Management can. Many of my neighbors have trouble closing the lid each week, sheesh.
 
Agreed on all counts. Maybe a better way to view the 8 vs single elephant comparison would be to say that in developed nations we have an obligation to our brothers & sisters in less developed parts of the world to do what we can to eliminate the unnecessaries - i.e. wastefulness as other posters have suggested. Let's see if we can collectively reduce by a full elephant, or so. If we don't, and matters continue on its current pace related to consumption & worldwide population growth, it won't be long 'til we run out of enough "stuff" to sustain any elephants at all!

I don't see how you can say that "people in developed nations have an obligation to our brothers & sisters (people) in less developed parts of the world to do what we can to eliminate the unnecessaries".......I don't feel I do, and there is no basis that I know of that says we have any obligation to anyone in other nations, developed or otherwise, unless we have some sort of contractual agreement.
 
I don't see how you can say that "people in developed nations have an obligation to our brothers & sisters (people) in less developed parts of the world to do what we can to eliminate the unnecessaries".......I don't feel I do, and there is no basis that I know of that says we have any obligation to anyone in other nations, developed or otherwise, unless we have some sort of contractual agreement.


Amen

Jesus said it is not good to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

However, the dogs do eat the crumbs that fall from the table.

In other words, the whole world benefits from the overflow of abundance. It works on a similar principle as "a rising tide raises all ships."

.
 
Last edited:
.

The irony is... it was Judas who complained that a certain gift should be sold and the money given to the poor. But Judas, who kept the money bag, was not really interested in the poor. He was stealing from the money bag. That might explain why some charities have high overhead.

.
 
You wouldn't use so many elephants if you had to scoop up after them.

:D :LOL: Good one.

I found out that a 1999 Chevy Silverado could hold all the 'stuff'. Including a two drawer file cabinet with tax and DRIP 'stuff'. Courtesy Katrina.

heh heh heh - totally lost it since then. Farm action in the Spring. :greetings10: :rolleyes:
 
I don't see how you can say that "people in developed nations have an obligation to our brothers & sisters (people) in less developed parts of the world to do what we can to eliminate the unnecessaries".......I don't feel I do, and there is no basis that I know of that says we have any obligation to anyone in other nations, developed or otherwise, unless we have some sort of contractual agreement.
+1

I do not consider myself very frugal and such when it comes to things and material resources (for example: I hate to separate "recyclables" at home, I would prefer it was done centrally at the dump etc. and only do it under penalty of law in areas where it is enforced).
I guess I am when it comes to my money (because I save a lot so that we can be FIRED early) and I don't buy loads of things just because I can afford it? I do however buy things that I want, when I want (after I have satisfied myself that I can afford it without jeopardizing our FIRE goals).

I do not pay much (any?) real attention to what I have versus what significantly less someone else has, and I don't think I am the most charitable person on the planet....although I have not knowingly let someone starve because of my specific inaction.

Guess I am not the greatest person on the planet, but I seem to have no problem sleeping at night. :angel:
 
DH and I de-cluttered a year ago and I'm happy to say we haven't added much back but we've still got more than we need. I have mixed feelings abut the excess of "stuff" in this country. There's too much of it, of course, especially the cheap crap that wears out (or, to some, is out of style) and gets thrown out less than a year later. Ever go through a thrift shop and look at all the dust-collecting decorations and other merchandise? And that's after they're sorted through the trash bags of donations and pulled out the good stuff. If DH and I buy something, it's usually to replace something that's unwearable or un-fixable. (And don't get me started on how short a time it takes for that to happen with the Wal-Mart-ization of America.)

I do, however, realize that all those people buying stuff they don't need, buying food in bulk and throwing out what goes bad, buying new cars, etc. is good for the economy and, as a consequence, my investments. I feel mildly guilty about that.
 
Amen

Jesus said it is not good to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.

However, the dogs do eat the crumbs that fall from the table.

In other words, the whole world benefits from the overflow of abundance. It works on a similar principle as "a rising tide raises all ships."

.

Here is what I am getting at - This planet we live on has finite resources and we are consuming them at an unsustainable rate. As citizens of the world whose lives are interconnected with one another, all of us (IMO) have an obligation to do all we can so as not to waste our abundance and/or create an abundance of waste. This is what we owe ourselves, our neighbors, our progeny and others who must walk this earth.
 
Here is what I am getting at - This planet we live on has finite resources and we are consuming them at an unsustainable rate.

John Mccarthy, one of the founders of AI, inventor of lisp, and Stanford CS professor has an interesting counter argument that due to scientific progress notions of unsustainability are simply not true:

With the development of nuclear energy, it became possible to show that there are no apparent obstacles even to billion year sustainability.(1) . A billion years is unimaginably far in the future.

Humanity has progressed over hundreds of thousands of years, but until about the seventeenth century, progress was a rare event. There were novelties, but a person would not expect a whole sequence of improvements in his lifetime. Since then scientific progress has been continual, and in the advanced parts of the world, there has also been continued technological progress. Therefore, people no longer expect the world to remain the same as it is. [Very likely, the greatest rate of progress for the average person occurred around the end of the 19th century when safe water supplies, telephones, automobiles, electric lighting, and home refrigeration came in short order.]

This page and its satellites will contain references to articles, my own and by others, explaining how humanity is likely to advance in the near future. In particular, we argue that the whole world can reach and maintain American standards of living with a population of even 15 billion. We also argue that maintaining material progress is the highest priority and the best way to ensure that population eventually stabilizes at a sustainable level with a standard of living above the present American level and continues to improve thereafter

See more at Sustainability of Human Progress

I've only skimmed this page and not followed through checking any of his arguments. I don't know if new information has come to light that would have changed any of the details. But it's an interesting argument to consider (Perhaps its only interesting to me due to McCarthy's career).
 
DH and I de-cluttered a year ago and I'm happy to say we haven't added much back but we've still got more than we need. I have mixed feelings abut the excess of "stuff" in this country. There's too much of it, of course, especially the cheap crap that wears out (or, to some, is out of style) and gets thrown out less than a year later. Ever go through a thrift shop and look at all the dust-collecting decorations and other merchandise? And that's after they're sorted through the trash bags of donations and pulled out the good stuff. If DH and I buy something, it's usually to replace something that's unwearable or un-fixable. (And don't get me started on how short a time it takes for that to happen with the Wal-Mart-ization of America.)

I do, however, realize that all those people buying stuff they don't need, buying food in bulk and throwing out what goes bad, buying new cars, etc. is good for the economy and, as a consequence, my investments. I feel mildly guilty about that.

Athena53, one thing to remember is that we, as humans, have figured out how to manufacture items faster than we can consume them. :D

It's a good thing we know how to recycle metals and other materials we manufacture from the earth or the piles would be bigger. :facepalm:
 
Here is what I am getting at - This planet we live on has finite resources and we are consuming them at an unsustainable rate. As citizens of the world whose lives are interconnected with one another, all of us (IMO) have an obligation to do all we can so as not to waste our abundance and/or create an abundance of waste. This is what we owe ourselves, our neighbors, our progeny and others who must walk this earth.

And though the 1st world countries are using more of the resources, they also do a far, far better job of using them.

Pollution control laws in 1st world countries are far stricter, and regularly enforced. I would not be surprised if many of our pollutants are produced at a far lower rate, enough to more than account for the increased consumption.

As an example, our modern US autos produced pollution levels that are literally thousands of times lower than what they were before pollution controls were used. Just one smoke belching vehicle in a third world country is probably hurting the environment more than several hundreds of our clean vehicles.

In fact, a big old pickup truck produces far less pollution than a little leaf blower:

Emissions Test: Car vs. Truck vs. Leaf Blower

The Raptor packs a 411-horsepower 6.2-liter V8, weighs more than 6,200 pounds and has the aerodynamics of Mount Rushmore. .... The two-stroke leaf blower ... generated 23 times the CO and nearly 300 times more NMHC than the crew cab pickup. Let's put that in perspective. To equal the hydrocarbon emissions of about a half-hour of yard work with this two-stroke leaf blower, you'd have to drive a Raptor for 3,887 miles, or the distance from Northern Texas to Anchorage, Alaska.

Those two stroke leaf blower engines are probably pretty similar to the engines used on the little scooters we see in less developed countries.

2011 Ford Raptor
2012 Fiat 500

Driving a modern car can actually clean the air!

When the Raptor (and the Fiat) was running Phase 2 of its tests on the dyno, it was cleaning the air of hydrocarbons. Yes, there were actually fewer hydrocarbons in the Raptor's exhaust than in the air it — and we — breathed. In the Raptor's case, the ambient air contained 2.821 ppm of total hydrocarbons, and the amount of total hydrocarbons coming out the Raptor's tailpipe measured 2.639 ppm.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall view, I just don't think it is as cut and dried as you see it.

-ERD50
 
Last edited:
Juliet Schor has a term she coined called "high tech self provisioning." I try to find products that fit into that mold like solar lights and our energy and water efficient washer.

I just like the idea of being self sufficient as much as we can and not adding to landfills. I do think it is better for the planet and it is sure better for our pocketbook to not buy a lot of disposable stuff and to buy used when we can. We don't do everything low consumption. We take the train into the city when we can but we also do a fair bit of driving. There's a lot of fun day trips near us and we wouldn't stop going to places like wine country or Yosemite just because we can't ride our bikes there or easily take public transportation.
 
Last edited:
I suppose like many others on this forum and elsewhere here are a few things DW & I do in an attempt to reduce our footprints:

- We've switched to vegetarian diets. The commercial raising of livestock consumes disproportionate amounts of the planet's resources for grazing and distribution. We aren't militant about our choice and will defer to whatever is being served food-wise when we are guests of others.
Actually there is an intermediate step switch from Beef to Chicken and reduce the feed needed per pound of meat by at least 50% Partly this is because of the much shorter life cycle of chickens compared to cattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio

Note Chicken is 1.6 lbs per pound of meat, pork is between 3.5 and 4 and beef is about 6, farm raised fish is about 1.5.
So you can have a affect by choosing the meats you eat. Note that the ratio for chicken has decreased by 250% over the last 50 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom