What is Digg?342 Comments
- obliviousfool, on 07/03/2008, -35/+172I did not watch the video, but you should be aware that this series usually employs harsh editing, the cherry-picking of facts, unscientific experiments, and begging the question. These guys are magicians. They want to manipulate your beliefs. Teller has admitted that there is much ***** about the way that ***** is produced. In short, if your opinion about anything is swayed by any of their shows, you are a lemming.
- Phantom1045, on 07/02/2008, -30/+137The entire "*****" series is amazing.
- offput, on 07/03/2008, -12/+78Recycling isn't pointless, and in fact the show doesn't even make that claim. The title of the show is merely that: a title. Their arguments on non-pseudoscience topics are typically fairly nuanced, though "biased as *****" by their own admission.
1. Lots of cities do compost recycling which actually turns a profit because they can sell the compost to neighbouring farmland as fertilizer.
2. Aluminum cans are cost effective recycling and the show states this.
3. Recycling plastic bottles while not cost-effective is still a good idea given the limited resources we have and the ever-growing demand for plastics.
4. Their point regarding paper recycling is that we plant trees for the trees we cut down and that's a valid point (if all companies did that which they don't) but it doesn't change the fact that "old growth" forests have value that forests we create do not have. If we clear cut the rain forest and then fifty years from now replant it all we won't have any of the amazing undiscovered medical marvel herbs and plants. Not to mention the fact that it would make thousands of species extinct.
I really like Penn and Teller and the show in particular, but you can't just take what they say at face value. - Ceaser57, on 07/03/2008, -20/+79While much of this is accurate (like recycling costing more than producing from raw material, which I personally thought was obvious), the most important part, impact on the environment, of it is somewhat inaccurate. I was also a bit irritated at their comparison of trees to potatoes as if size and growth time were a non-factor. Sorry but just because we have "tree farms" doesn't change the fact that the percent of the earth covered by forest is being reduced at an ever increasing rate.
http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=62 - Ribbys, on 07/03/2008, -12/+70Reduce first, resuse next, then recycle. People dont try the first two, and then yeah call it *****. I call you *****.
- wezel, on 07/03/2008, -9/+57"The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…*****."
George Carlin R.I.P.
P.S. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are *****. - phreak79, on 07/03/2008, -17/+57I agree, lets all follow the magicians, they're authoritative sources on all matters science.
- conostrov, on 07/02/2008, -15/+42I love the ***** series, this is an important episode, however on this issue I have to be a little disappointed that this show doesn't lend itself to the possibilities of how recycling could be viable.
- leakus, on 07/03/2008, -9/+30I also enjoy watching Penn and Teller. But just because they say something, doesn't necessarily make it true. Some of their stuff isn't necessarily backed up with facts. I remember the "global warming" episode, all they proved to me was that you get some stoned hippies to sign stupid petitions. That global warming is caused by human beings is not as controversial in the scientific community as some people make you think.
And I second offput's post. - psevium, on 07/03/2008, -4/+25But those forests aren't used for paper (although it does suck about the logging)
- tama00, on 07/03/2008, -8/+27its amazing how a 28min video hits the front page and within 2 mins 20 comments spring up..
including my own because im not watching no 28min video. - Trigononamous, on 07/03/2008, -2/+21You know what's *****? Pennies.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -2/+21Perhaps they've already seen it, like myself?
- veijeri, on 07/03/2008, -1/+19I've long known that recycling paper was a massive waste; it's biodegradable and not bad for the environment, and easier on the environment to grow and process than to reprocess. I won't recycle it. Recycling plastic is a slightly more iffy point, if for no other reason that it is a mostly finite resource that is so widely used (and the less petroleum processed into plastics through recycling, the lower the cost of petroleum products such as gasoline); even if it costs less to drill and refine it to make plastic today, eventually we will be limited to recycled plastics or other, more expensive means of producing it. Aluminum straight up ought to be recycled. It costs much less than the energy it costs to mine, transport, and especially convert bauxite into useable metal.
So really, recycling isn't totally *****. Paper, yeah, *****. Plastic, in the long run, not so much, although many specialized plastics cannot be produced from recycled plastic. Aluminum not at all, a point they could have embellished more. Making recycling mandatory, however, is, and I totally agree. Especially if there's a market for it for the individual to enter of his own accord. To a large degree there already is. And somewhere down the line we'll be mining our landfills for raw materials, because it will be cheaper than getting it from what easier sources had been exhausted. There's a lot of oil and metals out there that isn't cheap to get to, and landfills are comparatively shallow.
Regardless, love these guys. They've said nothing contradicting this post specifically, but there emphasis was a tad off. - gregmo, on 07/03/2008, -3/+20i remember watching this awhile ago and please tell me if i'm wrong, but the point of recycling is using less than what it takes to create something new.
I know that they refute that creating new materials takes less energy than recycling, but I don't remember them taking into the account of the cost of limited resources. It may take more energy to recycle, but there's only a finite amount of material, so wouldn't that make recycling worth it despite it taking more energy? I mean that in that if I have a bottle made once, lets place its energy value at 1 bottle. If that bottle is recycled, it takes an energy value of 1.25 bottles to recycle to create 1 bottle. Wouldn't that be worth it in the end to use, because yes we could always create another bottle at an energy value of 1 bottle, but if there is only enough materials to create 1000 bottles, then it seems useful. I'm probably botching what I mean, so I hope someone sees my point.
I welcome any reaction, because I don't feel like rewatching the entire episode. - mtrip, on 07/03/2008, -7/+24The ultimate ***** show would be "***** is *****," and they could go into all the various ways past episodes have been *****. Huge fan of Penn & Teller btw, and the show.
- jaxter2010, on 06/17/2009, -2/+15Having just watched 1/2 hour of evidence laid out against recycling, you should include at least some evidence (not speculation) in your counter-argument.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13The show simply says that it's not economically advantageous to recycle plastic. It totally ignored the fact that plastics would survive literally millions of years underground, and, being petroleum products, there is a limited supply to be had. So it may be more expensive to recycle plastics, but that alone doesn't make it a bad idea.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -8/+21He specifically says that they're "biased as *****" on the show, but they "try to be fair."
And please keep in mind that it's a comedy show, first and foremost. - Dquinz63, on 07/03/2008, -2/+15responses to your responses
1. If you actually watch the show, the whole show, you know the one that is posted they talk about the fallacy of lack of landfill space.
2. Why is that hard to believe. Recycling just like original production is an industrial process. Recycling, however, has the extra step of breaking down a finished product into a form that can then be manufactured into something usable again. They go over in pretty good detail exactly why in many cases it is uses more energy to recycle than produce from abundant, and sometimes renewable, natural resources. So it seems that you did not watch the whole video, did not pay close enough attention, or could not find any logical grounds to refute the evidence they presented.
3. Transport costs are huge but you are right they could be reduced by having more localized recycling facilities. That would, however, mean an increased cost for the facilities, the machines in them and the power to run them. Also it would mean more industrial facilities polluting local environments.
4. The episode was about recycling not reducing or reusing. Reusing could be considered a synonym for recycling but you seem to mean reusing in the sense of buying second hand goods not recycling which is really re manufacturing. Reduce and reuse are great and the episode had nothing bad to say about them.
5. Green power/renewable energy is not feasible in most places yet, the only exceptions are the places that happen to be close to a source of hydro power, and there does not exist a perfect solution to that problem. The green forms of energy, again with the exception of hydro which is of limited supply and being used to capacity, can not provide a consistent base level of power that our civilization requires. Until a consistent source of green power is found coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power plants will continue to power most places because there is not viable alternative. So it is important to consider the realities of the current situation and not the hopes for the future when deciding what is a reasonable use for the power we generate. - cygnus2112, on 07/03/2008, -7/+19Or you can:
1. Lots of cities don't do compost recycling. Many that do only offer compost at certain, limited times of the year - when it's gone, it's gone. The plant can be at an inconvenient location.
2. Yes. And they state that aluminum recycling has value. Thanks for watching the video.
3. A better idea is to get away from the waste of buying bottled water. Again, their point is that recycling costs more than just burying it. This goes for most things that are recycled. The earth will do it's part, if we do ours.
4. I suggest you watch the episode of ***** about environmentalism with Patrick Moore, former founder of Greenpeace and the practical uses of the forestry industry. While I might agree with you that clearcutting the Amazon Forest may be bad - we only *really* affect what's done in North America. Responsible practices by the lumber industry will revive forests healthy and rejuvenated. Native Americans purposefully burned forests and lands for regrowth - somehow they weren't worried about the rare ring-tailed black-eyed Illinois chipmunk.
There's a difference between being responsible and conservationist versus being an extremist environmentalist. The key is finding a balance with the good earth, not ceasing all humanity to protect the chance of finding a marvel herb hiding under an aboriginal's ass. - zzmonki, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12This reminds me of the Toyota Prius nickel battery argument. It's hard to know which side is correct, but it does make you take a step back and consider the both sides of what was previously considered an understood truth.
- AustinMeoang, on 07/02/2008, -14/+26I love bacon.
- digggggggggg, on 07/03/2008, -1/+12It sounds like you're implying that paper is causing a lot of deforestation. This is not true at all. Almost all paper is made from trees specifically planted for the sake of making paper. After those are cut, new trees are grown in their place so as to produce more paper. According to http://ecology.com/features/paperchase/index.html , 91% of the trees used to make paper are specifically grown for that purpose. I simply fail to see why this is different from growing any crop. Now, don't get me wrong, I still think recycling is not a bad thing, but I don't think that paper is the primary reason why deforestation is happening.
I'd be more worried about the deforestation going on because the people in developing countries want arable land. The number one cause of the destruction of the Amazon rain forest in South America is so the growing population there has space to grow crops and raise livestock. The same is happening all over the world as the human population rises. - f3d0r0v, on 07/03/2008, -2/+13"They didn't consider metal and plastic"
Actually yeah, they did. Watch the video next time, *****. - mijelh, on 07/03/2008, -5/+15Furthermore, in this episode the guys forgot some very basic maths.
Landfills grow at 5% in the US (http://www.flclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O1 ... it means that their surface doubles every 14 years. Still thinking that's not so much? OK, let's view it from other perspective: During a human lifetime (70 years), they will grow by a factor of x32 (yes, they will occupy thirty-two times as much space as they do today). Do you think we can let landfills grow by a factor of 32 every generation? Of course it's just not possible. That's the reason why we are recycling in my country.
Just watch Dr.Bartlett's lecture on exponential grow for more info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature ... - PoonGnarfler, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Glass is actually one of the best to recycle, because while it isn't necessarily cost effective, all glass can be recycled in the same process, unlike plastics, of which the only truly recycled one is PET, and even PET isn't recycled almost a third of the time due to other additives or even just lazy people mixing non-recycled plastics with PET, which recycling companies will then simply discard as it is "too hard to differentiate". Plus glass doesn't have any negative components to add to groundwater, etc. unlike plastic which can add Bisphenol A and other toxins, depending on the type of plastic, and glass is almost 100% recyclable, whereas plastics can only be used a few times before degrading too much. Sorry for the lecture, but I just took a class about plastics. Pretty interesting, though.
- MiddleOfNowhere, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12Exactly.
I hate it when people throw their ***** away like it's someone else's problem.
But what I hate even more is people who feel like saints when they recycle CRAP THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It starts with bottled water (plastic bottles used to sell you something you can get for free) and ends with buying another ridiculously overpowered computer every year. People aren't aware how many resources go into information technology, because it all looks so neat and clean on your desktop.
Don't buy every ***** gadget because marketing tells you you're a subhuman if you don't.
Don't print out everything "in case you might need it" or to show it to the guy in the next room. Sending the URL will do.
Etc. etc.
It's not that hard. - BBWolf, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Um-mm, No, Paper is not made from 'old Growth' forests or trees, they are grown on farm, just like corn or wheat. It is a Totally renewable resource.
Total number of acres in the national Tree Farm System is nearly 87 million and the number of Tree Farms totals nearly 68,500. - badwithcomputer, on 07/02/2008, -4/+13yeah, just like homonyms...
- Liquidfire3240, on 07/03/2008, -1/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller:_Bullsh ...
Daniel K. Benjamin, "Eight Great Myths of Recycling"
Wow, all of 2 minutes of wikipedia, do your own research people (not just you, Chainheart) - xedd, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9I wonder why Penn and Teller completely ignored glass... Maybe it didn't fit into the "*****" category. They must have felt they had to at least admit that aluminum recycling was economically viable, but if they were to admit there were also other things like glass, and even hmmm, copper, steel, rubber etc... then their show begins to unravel...
- brok3nh3lix, on 07/03/2008, -6/+14while some good points, it still completely misses the point of conservation of resources beyond trees. and with the trees point, these tree farms reduce diversity as generally speaking the diverse forests they replace are re-planted with a single type of tree. how ever, plastics are made from oil, and while for the last century it has been a cheap and plentiful resource, that is quickly changing, and it is defiantly not a renewable one. in fact there is a large amount of small plastics companies going out of business now due to the increase in price of oil.
I'll give them the points they make, in any debate there are arguments for both side, and they cherry picked their arguments like any good debater would do. how ever since they also have editorial control over the PRO side of the recycling debate, and what points they make, it is no longer really a debate now is it? its just a persuasive speech.
also the jobs argument was a weak point. so what if its not a glamorous jobs. its a freaking job. id rather work there than not work at all. its not like other jobs would magically be created if those jobs didn't exist, thats not the way it works. last i checked theres an abundance of workers to jobs in most fields, hence why you have to apply for a job and go through an interviewing process and such (yes, some fields its the other way around, but thats the exception, not the rule) so that point was moot on their part, it is still creating jobs, regardless of if by their argument that are unneeded. if those people didn't have those jobs, it would just be that many more people in the unemployment lines. they could have argued it better and made an actual point, but they didn't.
again, all good points, but its all one side (They didn't present all the points and facts from the other side) - inactive, on 07/02/2008, -32/+40Great TV series. When I first saw this, I was pretty shocked. Most things that ***** takes on are things I'm already aware of being ***** (religion, hypnosis, PETA). This was one that I wasn't expecting. I read up on it after seeing it and it turns out that Recycling is, indeed, *****.
I've never recycled since I live out in the country and we don't have recycling pickup. (Recyclers out here have to drive their own recyclables to a recycling plant about 15 miles away, which certainly kills the entire point. Hundreds of people driving their diesel trucks 30 miles isn't very environmentally friendly.) I was relieved when I found out that recycling is pointless, the guilt lifted off of my shoulders :) - Evdog, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8It's funny how much of a touchy subject Recyling is. And the environment for that matter. According to Mihaii questioning it makes you a "stupid retard".
Chill out Mihai. Question things.
That's a good nerd. - hnsez, on 07/03/2008, -10/+18Penn & Teller's are full of "*****!".
http://www.de-fact-o.com/fact_read.php?id=62 - Jacobshuf, on 07/03/2008, -7/+15They never talked about the joint cost of disposal and reproduction.
They said recycling plastic cost more than creating it.
They said recycling plastic cost more than disposing of it.
But what about both? For every plastic bottle you *reuse* (not recycle) you save the cost of both creation and disposal. - inactive, on 07/03/2008, -3/+10Someone didn't pay attention...
- MewTwo, on 07/03/2008, -17/+24Oh, thanks, Penn and Teller... Now a bunch of kids are going to watch this and take what you say at face value.
- daFilms, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7The Economists wrote a prominent report on the state of recycling a year ago "The Truth About Recycling"; the article itself has been dugg couple times already e.g. http://digg.com/world_news/The_Truth_About_Recycli ... and you can access the article directly here (premium membership only) http://www.economist.co.uk/displaystory.cfm?story_ ... check your local library or school (virtually works too) in getting full access to the article.
A quick review I found online: http://bexhuff.com/2007/06/truth-about-recycling otherwise there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling - badwithcomputer, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8weird...it loads fine for me.
- logload, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Maybe we're just faster than you.
- AngelBunny, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7i was waiting for someone to make a valid argument. they only talked about renewable resources in the ep which is flawed because metal and oil (plastic and cans) are not renewable. They obviously ignored this but regardless I doubt we will run out of oil and/or metal in the near future making it somewhat pointless. However, I still recycle plastic and metal as well as glass. *shrugs*
- inactive, on 07/02/2008, -1/+7Me too. jheimark is on shrooms, or something.
- SDeluxe, on 07/03/2008, -11/+17Have they done an episode on McCain yet?
- yuanzhoulu, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8@dcollins
i watched the video and don't consider it evidence. they cite no sources.
here are some sources that contradict what they said.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/rec ...
"A paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber."
yes, recycling has other byproducts but at the very least, you are *saving forest*, another key goal.
"Using recycled glass to make new glass products requires 40 percent less energy than making it from all new materials. It saves energy because crushed glass, called cullet, melts at a lower temperature than the raw materials used to make glass."
http://www.epa.gov/msw/faq.htm#5
"Recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite."
so, what gives? - greenamp, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7There are no virgin forests being cut down to make paper. Paper comes from pine tree pulp. A pine tree can grow from a seedling to harvestable in as little as 5 years. Paper mills maintain huge farms of pines trees that they grow themselves which are used to make the paper you use.
- CletusTSJY, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7It's true, they actually did.
- bxblox, on 07/03/2008, -5/+11"As for trees how does it not reduce the amount of trees getting cut? Makes no sense!"
I grow a melon, then I eat a melon. When I want another melon, I grow another one. No other melons are affected by my melon eating. Get it? - dkeck14, on 07/03/2008, -2/+7thanks for warning us on a video you haven't watched obliviousfool. I wouldn't want to be a lemming and just take things at face value and not find out for myself.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 345 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is