Environmental impact of sailing activities

[model 10]

[QUOTE=Exile;
Glad you brought that up. Another ideologically inspired rallying cry based on uninformed & misinformed, zero-sum assumptions. But it works because it feeds the guilt & self-torment!



I didn't know we were going religious. Surly that must be against forum rules?

[Exile]

[QUOTE=Ecos;2760566][QUOTE=Exile;
Glad you brought that up. Another ideologically inspired rallying cry based on uninformed & misinformed, zero-sum assumptions. But it works because it feeds the guilt & self-torment!



I didn't know we were going religious. Surly that must be against forum rules?[/QUOTE]

Missed any religious reference. Or is it just an opinion you happen to disagree with that you believe is against forum rules?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’m not sure how we got off the rails with this discussion. Actually, I do know , but regardless…

I didn’t interpret the OP’s piece as saying cruising or sailing has a large environmental impact. The piece just points out there IS an impact, and it’s likely larger than many (most?) people believe.

I didn’t address the OP’s analysis specifically b/c it’s too specific, while having plenty of assumptions worthy of dispute. But it does illustrate a way of thinking about ALL our activities, not just sailing.

To live is to have an impact on the environment. I don’t think any of us should apologize for this. I think those of us in the rich, developed world can and should do much more to reduce the amount of the planet we do consume to support our lifestyles. But we all gotta live somewhere, somehow. It’s hard not to have a large impact while living in a developed country.

Living on a smallish boat lends itself to this kind of smaller lifestyle. It doesn’t have to go this way. There are plenty of ways to make boat life MORE impacting on the environment. But a cruising boat can, and often is, set up to have a lower impact than, say, the typical urban land dwelling.

Mostly agree, except you seem to be implying that "any" impact by humans is necessarily a negative one. I thought the OP was suggesting this as well. Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It works because it fits. Cod fishery? Climate?

Another 1000 posts on debating "Tragedy of the Commons?" Really?? How about we leave it that you and I came away with different impressions about the logic & importance of that particular piece?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Another 1000 posts on debating "Tragedy of the Commons?" Really?? How about we leave it that you [together with most of the civilized world] and I came away with different impressions about the logic & importance of that particular piece?

...sure, if that's what you want.

[Bob Morane]

I wish people would stop using the debate/political technique which consists of voluntarily amplifying the noise of a vocal minority to invalidate an entire point of view.

The Left isn't represented by Antifa.
The Right isn't reprensented by Racists or Nazis.
The LGBQT community isn't represented by the 3 people in the world trying to legislate missgendering as an offense.

And no, related to this thread, people who care about the environment are not represented by the tiny minority of eco-terrorists who wants to see the civilization burn and babies die, eco-freaks or 3-SUVs preachers.

Believe it or not, most of the "greens" I know, which I am not even a part of, actually put actions behind their words and go clean up beaches, forests, volunteer in wildlife associations and try to educate people around them on their free time.

I understand that doing this is much easier than having an actual fact debate but that's intellectually dishonest.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

Mostly agree, except you seem to be implying that "any" impact by humans is necessarily a negative one. I thought the OP was suggesting this as well. Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here . . . .

That’s not my intention Ex. I don’t think I said that. I said we have an impact, just like all living creatures. To live is to draw from our ecosystem. I don’t call this negative. It just is.

I do think humanity is, as a species, having a negative impact on our ecosystem, which is now basically the global ecosystem. And by negative, I mean diminishment of the ecosystem to sustain a diversity of life. I do think this is driven by two factors: over-population and intensity of resource use.

This first factor is largely a problem in the underdeveloped nations of the world. The second is largely found in the developed countries. Both create the reality that homo sapiens are living out of balance with Nature.

Of course the planet (Nature) doesn’t care. It will go on just fine. We will be brought into balance one way or another. Which is where living on a smallish boat comes in; it is one way (not the only way) for those of us in the rich, developed world, to start living with less.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
Another 1000 posts on debating "Tragedy of the Commons?" Really?? How about we leave it that you [together with most of the civilized world] and I came away with different impressions about the logic & importance of that particular piece?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...sure, if that's what you want.

By "most of the civilized world," I assume you mean all those millions if not billions of people who rely on a writing from 1833, that was resuscitated in 1968, and is often cited in modern times to advance personal political opinions under the transparent guise of trendy environmental issues? If that's who you mean you are talking about a minority view that hardly represents "most of the civilized world." Or do you believe civilization ends just outside your own clubhouse? Toronto's city limits perhaps?

Nice try, but I doubt anyone else wants to turn this into yet another CC thread. I don't think you really do either, but wouldn't mind I'm sure if the mods closed this particular thread. That's the idea, right?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nice try, but I doubt anyone else wants to turn this into yet another CC thread. I don't think you really do either, but wouldn't mind I'm sure if the mods closed this particular thread. That's the idea, right?

It's a very rational concept and applicable to many situations. Outside of Ayn Rand groupies and you apparently, it's not that much in dispute that unmanaged consumption of finite shared resources is Not A Good Thing.


Of course no single aphorism is the complete and total answer to a complex problem.


btw, if you don't want to see this devolve into a CC free-for-all, why did you come out swingin'?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Plants consume CO2. Plants love airplanes because they “ inject tons of CO2” into the atmosphere. Plants are a part of the environment. Airplanes are good for the environment.

Plants turn CO2 into O2. O2 makes up a very small part of the atmosphere. Animals breathe O2. Without plants converting CO2 into O2, animals would die. People are animals. Without plants, People would die.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

cc debate in 3... 2 ... 1...

You were right!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You were right!

After I saw you lay some kindling, I knew someone would show up with a match.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's a very rational concept and applicable to many situations. Outside of Ayn Rand groupies and you apparently, it's not that much in dispute that unmanaged consumption of finite shared resources is Not A Good Thing.


Of course no single aphorism is the complete and total answer to a complex problem.


btw, if you don't want to see this devolve into a CC free-for-all, why did you come out swingin'?

I never came out swinging for another thread on CC. Never even whispered it. Why are you still so interested in pursuing it? Surely there must be other forums . . . .

Congrats on uncovering the 1968 resuscitation of the 1833 article. I'm impressed that your takeaway is "unmanaged consumption of finite shared resources is Not A Good Thing." In fact, I would go further and say that unmanaged consumption of finite shared resources can actually be a Bad Thing. Or how about unmanaged consumption of infinite shared resources could be Worse! I surely hope Ayn Rand wasn't a drinker.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

I never came out swinging for another thread on CC.

Beware . . . that last, simple piece of reality may subject you to all sorts of scorn. To cite but a few of the more notable examples . . . that you personally don't care about the environment, are an "anti-environmentalist," and that you are all too willing to let "others" clean up your mess for you. Should you persist you may be accused of driving a gas guzzler, not properly sorting your trash & recycling, and . . . heaven forbid, not voting for the "correct" politicians & initiatives at the ballot box.
...

All too many of the eco-warriors (as opposed to actual environmentalists) are themselves creating the same adverse impacts as anyone else, yet they rely on assuaging their own guilt and need for high-minded sanctimony when they accuse others. The worst are those, like the example cited in the recent post, who are wealthy enough to afford all the latest tech in "alternative energy" for their homes & vehicles, but fly off once per month for whatever reasons. Then they make themselves feel better by dictating or legislating to the rest of us. It's all the "environmentalism" one can afford, regardless of the cost to ordinary people.
...
Guilt & self-torment are purely self-centered and thus selfish reasons for otherwise noble concerns about the environment. "Environmentalism" -- at least in developed countries -- has long since become very much mainstream. Unfortunately, the more extreme elements of the movement, and particularly those who use it to try & affect fundamental sociopolitical change, are alienating otherwise well-intentioned adherents.

Ah. My mistake. It was just another nonspecific rant against environmental advocacy. Comment about cc is withdrawn.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah. My mistake. It was just another nonspecific rant against environmental advocacy. Comment about cc is withdrawn.

You just substituted one mistake for another, but I doubt you'll be doubly kind in withdrawing this one too. I support responsible environmental policies; it's only the useless ones advocated by uninformed pseudo-environmentalists that erode the public's confidence.

Soooo . . . how about the environmental impact of sailing activities? I think we're probably all pooped out (pun intended) from the last such thread, but maybe you can find some add'l environmental insults being inflicted by some wealthy big boat owners you can enlighten us about.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

...QED