Philosophy of Trash

04 November 2017

How much of today’s treasure is destined to be tomorrow’s trash? Are growing piles of trash the price we pay for progress? Or do our trashy habits amount to ecological terrorism?

Here’s an astounding fact: the average American produces about four and a half pounds of trash a day. That’s an astounding eight tons of trash a year! Why so much? Is this simply the price we pay for progress? What was of use or value yesterday becomes trash tomorrow. We replace the old and useless with the new and shiny. Isn’t this just civilization works?

Perhaps it not so much how civilization works, but it is how capitalism works. Certainly, our propensity to keep wanting the latest new thing is extremely wasteful and is causing major ecological problems. So why do we continue to do it? Is it just human nature to want new things, better things, more efficient things? We are an innovative species, after all. If we weren’t, we’d still be living like it was the Stone Age.

But there’s also the influence of clever advertising and marketing. Decades ago, you’d buy a product and it could last a lifetime or beyond. It could be passed down from one generation to the next. But now products are designed to break down or become obsolete every other year. Just take the iPhone. Are we really supposed to believe it took them ten tries to get the design right?

Now, I don’t want to sound like I’m against innovation. I love new and shiny things as much as the next guy. But I am against the vicious cycle of pointless consumption. Businesses create new stuff and make us want it, so we buy the new stuff. Then they create more, slightly different, new stuff. We want that too. They get rich and the Earth gets destroyed. If we continue like this, the entire planet will eventually become one giant landfill. We’ve got to find a solution!

But how do we stop the pointless consumption without destroying the economy? And how do we continue to innovate without making products that are designed to become obsolete and destined for the trash heap within a few years? Some people might be happy to hold onto their older items, but some of us will always want the latest and the fastest. Regardless of our individual dispositions, we’ve got to think about our collective impact on the plant and its fragile ecosystem.

显然,回收和堆肥是解决方案的一部分。美国大约三分之一的垃圾被回收。但这还不够,尤其是当地球上的其他地方开始以我们的速度消费时。但是我们不能否认他们我们所享受的,特别是我们的消费是我们必须面对的生态问题的根源。因此,我们需要找到一种既能解决全球贫困问题,又不会破坏地球的方法。

When I was a kid, I loved my older brothers’ hand-me-downs. When my wife and I were grad students, we furnished our apartment with lots of cool used things we found for free. Now, I have to admit, I tend to want the latest and the fastest. But I’m willing to hand stuff down to others.

Maybe nobody wants my hand-me-downs, maybe they would consider it trash, but this is why we need a paradigm shift here. Instead of seeing old stuff as dirty, useless trash we throw away, we need to think of it as stuff you use for a while and then pass on to somebody else. So we need not just to recycle and compost, but to reuse and repurpose. Old and used doesn’t have to mean dirty trash. Perhaps what we really need is to trash the very concept of trash as we know it.

Comments(3)


Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Tuesday, November 7, 2017 -- 9:45 AM

There are numerous people who

事实上,有很多人都在贬低垃圾这个概念。我经常“减少、重用和重新定位”,并且知道其他人也在做同样的事情。我们有很多人,但和其他人相比,我们很少。这只是这个世界被它自己所吸收的一个方面:他们得到了;不知道的人就不知道。我也想对食物正义的事情发表评论,但似乎没有评论的渠道。现在回想起来,也许“粮食不安全”是大自然告诉我们人太多的一种方式。如果这听起来很冷酷,考虑一下大局,或者读一下肖恩·卡罗尔的同名书籍。抱歉,我们救不了所有人。有些垃圾就是垃圾。 And that is a bigger problem...

hiersd's picture

hiersd

Thursday, November 9, 2017 -- 9:46 PM

I recommend a closed-loop

I recommend a closed-loop system. If you sell a car, you must accept a waste car. If you sell food, you must accept food waste. Every link of the supply chain must provide a corresponding link in the waste chain.

Rob Allen's picture

Rob Allen

Thursday, November 9, 2017 -- 10:43 PM

IMHO the question of enough

IMHO the question of enough is a question of boundaries. Every one of us has to deal with the dilemmas of what enough is. What is enough food to eat at a meal? What is enough furniture in the living room? What is enough time spent on our hobbies, or for that matter on earning a living? So we each have boundaries of a so-big stomach and of how big our house/shelter is. We all have only the same number of minutes in a day but we have variable life expectancies, mostly related to our zipcodes!

As a clinical sexologist I have to help people who:
masturbate to the point that they rub their skin off
seek intensity from s/m untill they damage themselves
seek dominance untill they alienate the community

我们都擅长保持一些界限,但不擅长保持另一些界限。总的来说,“我们”就是社会。“我们”必须决定如何处理废水、洪水、旧建筑、书籍和其他一切。我认为纳西姆•塔勒布的“反脆弱性”概念在这里是有用的。We need a
更多的人以新的方式思考。新方法总会产生新的赢家和输家。但我认为这就引出了另一个话题。

Elizabeth Allen