[Orion27]

Check this out the: No Impact
>The Year Without Toilet Paper - New York Times

Do you think this is extreme? What if we mandated these changes in your lifestyle?
O.K, we'll just eliminate the toilet paper and mandate composting.
How devout are you? At what point do you become politically incorrect by not following the No Impact lifestyle? What parts of the No Impact lifestyle should be mandated first?
I think our first mandate might impact on any Gore campaign strategy. Shake hands?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This jibes perfectly with the other alGore thread to illustrate an example that ISN’T hypocrisy. These people are actually practicing what they preach. No bullshit excuses and shuffling it off on everyone else. I commend them for it.

By all means, live this way, if that’s what you believe will “saaaave the planet.” It certainly won't hurt anything.

More power to them. (No pun intended).

Now, make no mistake: some political nitwit who expects to force me or anyone else to live like this against our will, and we’ve got a ‘til the death fight on our hands. But for people to take it upon themselves to do what they believe: go for it. Lead by example, not with bullshit.

[Zeeb]

I read the article and I didn't catch the part where the author or the subjects suggested their lifestyle should be imposed on others. On the contrary, I think people would read that article and be affirmed that "low-impact living" is entirely impractical except for wealthy urban types who always seem to do these kinds of things.

They could have kept the big screen TV, toilet paper, etc if they had employed the only low-impact strategy I think has a chance of working-that is, not having children who would consume more resources.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

More power to them. (No pun intended).

Har!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I read the article and I didn't catch the part where the author or the subjects suggested their lifestyle should be imposed on others. On the contrary, I think people would read that article and be affirmed that "low-impact living" is entirely impractical except for wealthy urban types who always seem to do these kinds of things.

They could have kept the big screen TV, toilet paper, etc if they had employed the only low-impact strategy I think has a chance of working-that is, not having children who would consume more resources.

If we base policy on Al Gore's belief we heading for an environmental armageddon their will be mandates to control and change our lifestyle. New York State already mandates how much water you can flush down the toilet. Never mind it takes two flushes to get the job done. If you believe Al Gore is a prophet and believe we should sign some sort of Kyoto type treaty, where should the mandates begin? We don't have much time left according to Gore followers so I expect No Impact politcal correctness coming soon.

[OldManMac]

I have to congratulate you, for not naming this thread Barrack's (sic) Brave New World, and for not pointing out that Gore isn't black.

Having said that, do you always jump to such reactionary and paranoid conclusions, or is this just something you've been working hard at lately? Take a deep breath, count to ten, and step back from the keyboard. Now, repeat after me, "No one is going to arrest me for flushing my toilet twice."

Good grief, man. Get a grip.

[besson3c]

I've decided never to flush my toilet again, I want to save the planet.

[tie]

I'm not sure what this has to do with Gore, but thanks for making the connection. Crash, no new nicknames from you? I'm disappointed. Oh well, I'm still hoping Buckaroo will make an appearance since he was so great in the last Gore thread.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Jon Stewart provided Gorenak the Magnificent and Gore-mer Vice President Al Gore.

OT: I read this article suggesting we could save lots of energy by keeping urine and feces separate in the sanitation process:
Pee-cycling - earth - 20 December 2006 - New Scientist Environment
riveting.

[peeb]

Well there are already a lot of limits on things that people are allowed to do on the grounds that it screws the world up for everyone else. Including the amount of water that toilets are allowed to use per flush. There are going to be more - the reality is in a finite resource world, we need to limit some freedoms in order to preserve others - for example, my freedom to pour mercury into reservoirs is limited in order to preserve your freedom to drink clean water.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I have bricks in my toilet bowl that limit the amount of water being flushed. It's easy, simple, and saves a lot of water (even though I live in Canada, which probably has the most water in the world). I don't think there's anything wrong with that – especially considering the hot topic of water usage in many parts of Canada and the US lately.

I love it when people get all up in arms about "controlling their water" or something like that. We North Americans so easily forget how precious a resource it is in many parts of the world. Running the hose for a couple hours on Sunday morning to wash the car and take frequent drinks is just another day.....

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I have bricks in my toilet bowl that limit the amount of water being flushed. It's easy, simple, and saves a lot of water (even though I live in Canada, which probably has the most water in the world). I don't think there's anything wrong with that – especially considering the hot topic of water usage in many parts of Canada and the US lately.

I love it when people get all up in arms about "controlling their water" or something like that. We North Americans so easily forget how precious a resource it is in many parts of the world. Running the hose for a couple hours on Sunday morning to wash the car and take frequent drinks is just another day.....

greg

If you were really serious and commited you would start composting or use an outhouse. You're still using toilet paper I presume. What about the forests? Do you burn wood or oil to stay warm in Alberta? There is movement here in the States to stop wood burning because of environmental concerns. When Kyoto is revised, I think we should add some wood burning restrictions on Canada. A wood burning carbon tax. Canadians have been burning up the forests for years now, burning carbon based fuels in their smoky inefficient stoves. We can use that money to transiton to composters in Alberta.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

I read the article and I didn't catch the part where the author or the subjects suggested their lifestyle should be imposed on others. On the contrary, I think people would read that article and be affirmed that "low-impact living" is entirely impractical except for wealthy urban types who always seem to do these kinds of things.

They could have kept the big screen TV, toilet paper, etc if they had employed the only low-impact strategy I think has a chance of working-that is, not having children who would consume more resources.

Well I also read the article and I'm puzzled where you get the idea that only wealthy urban types can do this. Why would that possibly be? These people must be saving thousands of dollors in the short term, while improving their diet with fresh produce is impacting their long term good health.

Just imagine, by using a little bit of creative thinking these people will avoid the fate of the majority of typical north americans who are obese, stuff their faces with junk food and high glucose snacks, and contract heart disease/diabetes by the time they are fifty. On the financial side, with the money they aren't spending, they will be able to do all the things in life they wish without putting themselves into debt (since as we all know, most north americans are horribly in debt).

But wait, your idea of telling people not to have children is so much more 'practical'