Evolution of the Revolution
by Matt DeNoto
Before the Industrial Revolution, travel was slow and dangerous. Goods were made by hand. Everything took much, much longer.
And that’s because there was a limiting factor to all human endeavors. Back then the limiting factor was power. The only means we had to affect change were our own hands or the animals we domesticated.
So we did the smart thing. We found a better source of power. At first it was steam. Over time we discovered oil. Suddenly power was, for the most part, no longer part of the equation. Human productivity flourished. We were able to make more food, stronger shelters, and faster modes of transportation and communication.
Today there are new limiting factors to our endeavors. These new limiting factors include the dwindling supply of natural materials, the buildup of waste, and the strains of urban populations.
Now we must do the smart thing again. We must find better ways of using what we have. That’s what the Green Revolution really is. A smart reaction to our problems.
I imagine that one of the reasons the Green Revolution is so polarizing is because it is a response to problems that we ourselves caused. We chose to use a limited resource that causes pollution when we burn it for power. We chose to bury our trash in the ground, rather than find ways of re-incorporating it into the flow of goods. We chose to allow cities to become clogged beyond their reasonable capacities.
Why didn’t we see it earlier? Why have we not been self-correcting all along?
For one thing, we didn’t have the information. Sure, burning oil churns out nasty-smelling fumes, but the fumes dissipate and then they’re gone. As far as we knew, trash buried was gone for good and would never bother anyone again.
It’s only over the past couple of decades that our collective consciousness has really started putting the pieces together. And a lot of that has to do with a technology that simply didn’t exist previously. Computers.
The ability to store and manipulate huge amounts of data has finally shown us the consequences of our choices. Computer models are what tell us that the climate changes we’re seeing now do not line up with nature. They tell us when we can expect every oil well to run dry.
And just as computers were able to show us the problem, they are now being utilized to formulate the solutions. They are modeling more efficient batteries and cities. They are finding the ideal placement for solar arrays and wind turbines. Perhaps even more significantly, the internet has allowed like-minded individuals to come together and form plans of action.
Just as railroads and the telegraph helped speed up the Industrial Revolution, so our modern means of communication are building the momentum of the Green Revolution.
I guess the point I’m getting at is that the Green Revolution is not terribly revolutionary. And that’s a good thing. We’ve been through this before. It should be a comforting thought to those who believe we as a people don’t have a capacity for change, and it should be a wake-up call for those who don’t want to.
At the same time, there are those who feel we are not moving fast enough. It can be hard to look at the huge problems facing humanity in the future and not feel frustrated with it for the slow pace of change. To those people, I hope this little meditation has a calming effect. It’s only been a relatively small amount of time that we’ve known enough to see the problems we’re causing.
It will take time, but we’re now doing the smart thing.
opinion: why trash matters
The reason it seems so odd is that nothing else in nature works this way. From the shed skin of a snake to the discarded egg of a tadpole, nothing in nature is wasted. The waste of one process is always the food for another. It’s a lesson humans desperately need to relearn. Especially in America, where each person generates twice as much trash as in other advanced countries.
What is needed is to go back to the start and recreate our products with the end in mind. So that when we’re done with a product it can either be remade into something of equal value or become the raw material for something else. This process of design is called ‘Cradle To Cradle,’ a term coined by architect Walter R. Stahel in the 1970s.disposal or dispose
September 30, 2008 by cshells58
Filed under Uncategorized
Really interesting quandry posted on Slate today…. to disposal or dispose? What is better for the environment?
click HERE for the summary. But, here is the conclusion:
The research is unambiguous about one point, though: Under normal circumstances, you should always compost if you can. Otherwise, go ahead and use your garbage disposal if the following conditions are met: First, make sure that your community isn’t running low on water. (To check your local status, click here.) Don’t put anything that is greasy or fatty in the disposal. And find out whether your local water-treatment plant captures methane to produce energy. If it doesn’t—and your local landfill does—you may be better off tossing those mashed potatoes in the trash.
Los Angeles….WE ARE IN A DROUGHT!!
filed under: this is just ridiculous
September 19, 2008 by admin
Filed under Bisphenol-A & Phthalates, politics
I’m going to guess that people are starting to wisen up and not drink from water bottles as much as they have in the past. Why do I guess this? Because of THIS.
I have a feeling that the revenue these companies have seen in the past is dropping, which is why they have launched a PR campaign to show that drinking from a water bottle isn’t all that bad. I really, really cannot wait for the ads that somehow disprove that Bisphenol-A is bad for you, as shown HERE. Or that plastic filling our landfills is somehow not hurting the environment, despite the fact that it is non-biodegradable. My favorite will be how they are going to prove that spending $1.99 on a bottle of Evian is somehow better than just turning on your tap and filling a glass.




