Hi, Niels Reedijk wrote:
Good god, add that to the list of your wonderful false dilemmas.
It's kind of funny, because you say that I raise false dilemmas, but then you actually agree with me...
There is more than giving up technology/meat/computers entirely: you can also use it less. I support your point that for some reason computers have been cut slack when it comes to going green. I think they can get away with it because the harm mostly takes place in countries that we don't care about. I think we all go happy about exploiting poor factory workers in Asia, as well as that we don't care that the natural resources are exploited in a destructive way in Africa. [Those continents are being kept 'exploitable' by the same false dilemma you employ, by simply claiming that it is the way it is and the only alternative is to stop...].
You did not understand what I meant: the "how about we all give up using ours computer and all other electronic conveniences to save the earth?" question was actually to make the point that going to extremes -- which is what Alexandre would like to see, .i.e., replacing paper at conferences with an (unspecified) alternative -- is not viable. So, you see, we do actually agree.
The magical words are 'less' and more 'sustainable'. You are right, computing will never be environment-neutral. I guess that's one of the properties of life: you have an impact on the environment. What we can do is make wiser decisions, for example, when we only intend to do office stuff and web browsing, don't buy the most advanced computer. Instead of three computers running simultaneously, have only one. Instead of buying a new one every two years, buy one every three years. And to choose the greener option wherever possible. I guess that is just a difficult concept to grasp from someone living in the United States.
You are barking at the wrong tree: even if I live in the US, I don't fit your American "climate change denier" stereotype at all. I am actually from what you could call an 'exploitable' country, so I know at heart -- and not in theory -- how it feels when the very same rich countries that have recently started predicating environmentalism keep tainting our soil with their waste. I am also from a generation that lived in a world without computers and the many other power-hungry and e-waste generating appliances and gadgets that people nowadays take for granted and use in their daily lives without much consideration for the environment. I was in fact raised at a place and time where at home you were educated to be extremely conscious about the very few things that you had and to value them, mostly out of necessity (you see, we were poor). So, I am very conscious (somewhat paranoid, in fact) about saving not only electricity but just about anything else you could think of, and lead a quite eco-friendly life style for the most part.
We have to start somewhere, and by starting with discussing the things that have a direct impact, we can contribute to a better world. We do have to be careful that we don't let the little things mask the bigger picture as such that we don't realize that the real environmental damage is done by our technology, and that we at one day have to challenge that too...
The notion that preventing a minuscule group of 3 - 4 Haiku contributors from handing out fliers at a few conferences a year can actually help save the planet is just ridiculously naive. If you are that concerned about the environment -- which I think it's great -- and want to make a real difference, then you are at the wrong place taking the wrong approach. You might as well join one of many of the green movements instead.
Cheers! Jorge/aka Koki
