Anyone here a greenie?

[red_dragoon]

I think it is important that we look after the environment and I have done a lot to change lately. For example, I never accept plastic bags anymore, at the shops, even take away places like subway. I just tell them I don't need a bag. I know it's not much but 1 less bag used is one less bag wasted that ends up polluting things.

So, if you have any tips that are easy to do that help the environment, post here!

PS: I also take a shower only once every 2 days. This is because I am lazy, but I am also saving water ;D

[mc2]

We definitely need more people like you on this planet

I on the other hand is a pretty big resource waster......i usually shower twice a day (feels so good!)
the only "green" thing i do is that i recycle a lot......i do use lots of plastic bags.........and fill up my car with petrol very often
my electricity bill is quite high too......so yeah

nice to see you doing something nice to the planet, i still have much to learn

[mc2]

i was thinking of getting a solar panel to run my hot water tank........
the hot water tank contributes to 70% of my total electricity bill....

yeah there are MANY areas i need to improve on when it comes to global warming.....but i have to drive.....u can't get anywhere in australia without a car.

[Bumbaloe]

My mom is the same. Except for the shower part. She showers everyday. Oh, and we have a compost pile. :D

[Fenix]

Heh, I wouldn't say I'm green by choice, just by culture. Electricity bills are extremely high where I live, so we shut down everything not needed, my state is constantly in drought, so we all don't shower everyday, there's not many trees (Yes, that makes a difference in price), so we use plastic bags and recycle them.

[hillzagold]

eh, my family uses plastic bags as trash bags.

[ZerglingRUSH]

eh, my family uses plastic bags as trash bags.



LOL That's not being a greenie. Everyone does that.

[hillzagold]

it's putting things to good use. what good is not taking it? it's already been made, and you aren't exactly damaging the production figures

[chainsoar]

Off topic slightly, but here's some information you might be interested in - globabl warming is a natural part of the earth's cycle of life. What do you think happened to the great glaciers that ocvered most of the world during the ice age? The planet's temperature rose by several degrees, and the ice melted.

We are currently in what is known by geologists as an "interglacial period" which means we are between the last glacial period and the next one. The planet's temperature may continue to rise still, even by as much as 4 degrees (which is a lot more than what it sounds in global terms) and then when this temperate period reaches an end, the temperature will drop again and the earth will enter a new ice age.

In my mind there is no theory or argument that can refute this idea, since it is indisputable that there was an ice age thousands of years ago, and it certainly wasn't greenhouse gases from cro-magnon and neanderthal man's campfires that melted the glaciers.

People are worrying about pollution for all the wrong reasons. We should pollute less not because it's causing global warming, but because we're poisoning the air, filling the water with chemical toxins, and killing off vast tracts of land that will now be unable to grow anything for years to come.

Just..think.

[mc2]

Yes global warming is a natural process, but since the industrial revolution, the RATE of earth's average temperature increased dramatically. Carbon dioxide from industrialization and urbanization and deforestation is trapping heat inside our atmosphere.

We need to slow down the RATE of melting of polar ice. If the ice keeps melting, the sea level would rise and flood MASSIVE amounts of land. Manhattan or Los Angeles or Tokyo or Shanghai would be completely in water if the polar ice keeps melting. Many of the people on Pacific islands would have their ENTIRE island flooded. Where will the millions of refugees go? Your house?

global warming / climate change has caused a 10 year long drought in Australia - which is where I live. Lots of farmers cannot grow or raise anything simply from a lack of rain water, 4 farmers are commiting suicide each week from financial difficulties caused by the drought. The famous, beautiful Great Barrier Reef are dying because sea temperature are also rising

We really need to decrease the rate of global warming now.

[markus]

Yeah, although the Earth is supposed to be heating up naturally, you cannot say that we have no part in the Earth's warming. We are making it heat up faster than it should be. All the greenhouse gases stuck in the atmosphere has SOMETHING to do with the earth heating up.

So while we should be polluting less to save our waterways, give us cleaner air, and reduce crap in our food, we should also be doing it less to reduce global warming. We should take responsibility for our own actions and not pretend that things were meant to happen because nature said so.

Every little bit counts, even reducing the rate at which the Earth warms up by 1% over the next 10 years is a difference we need to aim to make. And I am sure we have the ability to do so, it's only a question of if we will try.

[hillzagold]

Yeah, although the Earth is supposed to be heating up naturally, you cannot say that we have no part in the Earth's warming. We are making it heat up faster than it should be. All the greenhouse gases stuck in the atmosphere has SOMETHING to do with the earth heating up.what about cow farts? they do more then us

global warming / climate change has caused a 10 year long drought in Australia - which is where I live. Lots of farmers cannot grow or raise anything simply from a lack of rain water, 4 farmers are commiting suicide each week from financial difficulties caused by the drought. The famous, beautiful Great Barrier Reef are dying because sea temperature are also risinga real shame, honestly. but such things do happen, i can hardly imagine that australia hasn't had a drought before the industrial revolutionSo while we should be polluting less to save our waterways, give us cleaner air, and reduce crap in our food, we should also be doing it less to reduce global warming. We should take responsibility for our own actions and not pretend that things were meant to happen because nature said so. because humans are so all-powerful? there are things greater then mankind. if something was weird about the sun, then some people would say that that's our fault too

People are worrying about pollution for all the wrong reasons. We should pollute less not because it's causing global warming, but because we're poisoning the air, filling the water with chemical toxins, and killing off vast tracts of land that will now be unable to grow anything for years to come.heh heh, exactly

[Whatsifsowhatsit]

it's putting things to good use. what good is not taking it? it's already been made, and you aren't exactly damaging the production figures


Erhm you're not damaging them by yourself, but when more people do it, it helps. I think it's not cool to say you can't do much by yourself anyway, so you just don't do anything and/or leave it to others... I'm not saying you're saying that, just putting that in as additional info =P

[mc2]

The Aust government recently announced that we'll get a $AU8,000 ($US6,750) rebate for installing solar panels on our roof. I'm planning to take advantage of that :)

But is it true that solar panels have a use by date of approx 5 years? There are people complaining that theirs stopped working after 5 years.

[WaterGolem]

I don't see how that would help. What would we do with a bunch of cells on our roof producing glucose and adenosine triphosphate? Photosynthesis makes food, not electricity.

[mc2]

Artificial photosynthesis is going to be great for the atmosphere because absorbs CO2 and gives out O2.

We can also ferment the glucose to make ethanoal, then dehydrate it to make ethylene. Ethanol can be combusted for energy and and ethylene can be turned into just about anything ;)

[WaterGolem]

Nah just get real crunked on the ethanol

[Callex]

Heh, in the UK a greenie is when you cough up a ball of phlem :thumbup:

...I'm not implying anything, its just one of those amusing things ;).

[[LightMare]]

i am known as the hippie at my school. i diss all the politicians people and pro economy people. they don't realize, that without a stable and strong environment, then the hopes of human survival and lower than nothing, therefore, everything they have accomplished money wise will be gone, and in the poof of a cloud, human existance will be no more

[WaterGolem]

Come on now...we'd still exist. It might be a totally destroyed ecosystem, but as a species we are very adaptable. That's the only reason we're able to live in cold climates, and have spread all over the globe from Africa. And I think Starcraft refelects that very well; the terrans buildings don't need pylon or creep to be built, we can adapt to any new situation rather quickly

[[LightMare]]

we aren't buildings... what can we do without oxygen? try and breath through regulators with simulated oxygen for the rest of time?

[mc2]

Come on now...we'd still exist. It might be a totally destroyed ecosystem, but as a species we are very adaptable. That's the only reason we're able to live in cold climates, and have spread all over the globe from Africa.


Actually humans are very not-adaptable to different enviornments. The reason that we can spread across to all corners of the planet is because we "change" the enviornment around us to suit what we are used to. Urbanization is a good example. Even in the primitive ages, humans constructed huts or live in caves that sheltered against harsh weather. If we keep destroying ecosystems, the Earth itself would go into some kind of turmoil. Like the climate change where last year in Melborune, Australia, there were snow in the middle of summer. Now that's a bit strange. Not to mention the lost of food stocks.

[WaterGolem]

Ok yeah...true that. Good point. I'm in no way endorsing ruining the world we live in...all I'm saying is that as the only (?) sentient organism on the planet, we have the ability to see ways of coping with particular kinds of scenarios. Ice-ages in the past, for example, led to the rise of mankind as we were able to change our way of living (by putting on more clothes, building huts, fire etc). But yeah, I do recognise the importance of being careful with the environment. Without other life to support us, we'd be screwed. All I was saying is that we're somewhat more adaptable than other species, just not necessarily biologically, more in a cultural / societal sense. Hope that made sense

[[LightMare]]

how do you want to fit 6-9 billion people (9 billion in 50 years at current rate) in the sub equator areas of the world? like 5/8 of the world's mass is above the equator

[hillzagold]

...

i am known as the hippie at my school. i diss all the politicians people and pro economy people. they don't realize, that without a stable and strong environment, then the hopes of human survival and lower than nothing, therefore, everything they have accomplished money wise will be gone, and in the poof of a cloud, human existance will be no more
how does russia get along?


we aren't buildings... what can we do without oxygen? try and breath through regulators with simulated oxygen for the rest of time?
...and how are we going to lose all of that oxygen?
how do you want to fit 6-9 billion people (9 billion in 50 years at current rate) in the sub equator areas of the world? like 5/8 of the world's mass is above the equator
half of the world population is in asia and india (or those and nearby areas). i think we could manage. and according to you, we'll be so screwed that there will be less people.

[mc2]

Well yes, it is true that it's very difficult to lose all of Earth's oxygen (1/5 of Earth's atmosphere), BUT, you need to remember that the concentration of oxygen on this planet need to remain stable. Or else many organisms that does not have features or adaptations to the decreasing [O2] will not survive very well. As many hectares of forest we cut down, we need to replace them somewhere, so we won't have ever rapid growing of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There's actually not enough fresh water supply to supply the entire Earth's population. Recycling water and desalination are what we'll soon all be relying on.

[hillzagold]

There's actually not enough fresh water supply to supply the entire Earth's population. Recycling water and desalination are what we'll soon all be relying on.
wait...what? there's not enough water for us all? so what have we been doing?


Well yes, it is true that it's very difficult to lose all of Earth's oxygen (1/5 of Earth's atmosphere), BUT, you need to remember that the concentration of oxygen on this planet need to remain stable. Or else many organisms that does not have features or adaptations to the decreasing [O2] will not survive very well. As many hectares of forest we cut down, we need to replace them somewhere, so we won't have ever rapid growing of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
i thought trees loved Co2?

[brc9210]

[/quote]

Actually humans are very not-adaptable to different enviornments. The reason that we can spread across to all corners of the planet is because we "change" the enviornment around us to suit what we are used to. Urbanization is a good example. Even in the primitive ages, humans constructed huts or live in caves that sheltered against harsh weather. If we keep destroying ecosystems, the Earth itself would go into some kind of turmoil. Like the climate change where last year in Melborune, Australia, there were snow in the middle of summer. Now that's a bit strange. Not to mention the lost of food stocks.
[/quote]
Umm hate to bust your bubble but that is what adaptability is. In the ancient world humans would take what the environment could give them and use it to the best of their advantage therefore making life easier for them adapting to their enviorment and thriving. Differing skin colors is an adaptation albeit a minor one as far as genetic coding is concerned. It helps people who are father away from the equator absorb more vitamin d from the sun because theirs not as much, but for people who are in more sub-tropical regions they need the darker color to block out more of the suns harmful rays. They get enough vitamin d because their is more sun coming at them.

[hillzagold]

....he said nothing about humans being completely unadaptable, he just said we suck at it. skin and size changes are pretty much all we can manage to change in ourselves. everything else is changing the surroundings.

[josh]

okay here's a tip:

stop smoking weeds! save the plants! lol.

okay, here's my real tip:

high polluting industries should be banned from operating. this is just one of major contributors of pollution. the "NO LITTERING" thing is kinda old, but it still works. imagine all the worlds litter gathered in one place. it will be as big as a whole country!

There's actually not enough fresh water supply to supply the entire Earth's population. Recycling water and desalination are what we'll soon all be relying on.

i think there is only less than 1% of all the waters in the world that is fresh water. and yeah desalination will be great coz salt water is real abundant.

can i ask a question. how will fusion power affect the environment once its discovered a source of electricity?

[mc2]

OK this is an old thread, but I felt like I need to comment here again.

hillzagold, by understanding the science behind this issue, you'll realize that "trees love CO2" is not very correct. Yes trees need CO2 to do photosynthesis, in this process they make O2 and sugar for themselves, as well as releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Trees need O2 to respire to make energy for themselves, and all other respiring organism on this planet need those O2 to survive, trees are one of them.

Also, the changing concentration of CO2 and O2 will have an enormous impact on planet. A high [CO2] will decrease the pH of ocean and other bodies of water, some organisms will not be able to tolerate this changing pH. At the same time, by combusting fossil fuel (conventional power plants, vehicle engines, etc) releases other polluting gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides into the atmosphere, and it's directly harmful to human as well as causing indirect harm to lots and lots of other things on this planet.

OK, enough about the problems, now onto the solutions.....

What is the real solution here? Dramatically decrease the human population? Reverse the industrial revolution and go back to live in the middle ages? These solutions are very effective but totally not practical.

So far the most viable option is to switch to renewables on a large scale. In the old days, renewables are expensive compare to fossil fuel. But nowdays, fossil fuel are diminishing quickly, their prices are skyrocketing as demand rapidly overtakes supply. So now renewables are comparatively cheap.

[ijffdrie]

the most viable option to me seams a one-child per family law

[EonMaster]

Ya, look at China, that law seems to be working pretty well for them ::)

[mc2]

The One Child Policy is definitely needed in China. It's a very good idea for them to implement it. There aren't enough resources to support such a huge population. However, it is also creating certain problems. Such as the imbalanced male to female ratio. As well as the aging population (like the 4 - 2 - 1 problem in a family).

Now looking at the world as a whole. I think a better idea is to have a system where you need to obtain a "license" to have children, just like how you need a license to drive. The government department will assess the suitability of a family to have children, and those who aren't capable of raising kids should not have them. I mean, parenting is one of the most difficult and challenging job in the world. The current trend we are seeing is that rich couples would have little or no children because they are too occupied in their occupation. While poorer couples have multiple children without the financial ability to support them. This should be somehow changed.

[EonMaster]

However, I could easily see that a lot of people would have children in secret if the license rule was in place. Just like how people have children outside of marrages. This rule sounds good on paper, but I don't see human nature changing for a single rule that would be extremely hard to enforce. I could see this having the same effect probation had; people would begin to break the laws because it would be seen as cool and because people don't like having laws keeping them away from what they want.

Also, even with the one child law in China, there are still those families that try to hide their children so they can have more than one without the government stepping in and taking one child away.

[ijffdrie]

yes, but atleast the number will reduce a little

[Chax424]

Saving water and all is great, taking onl y a few shower I applauded, low flow toilets too, but how about those big ass green fields! Why do we need to use inefficientl sprinklers to water them, we should we water them at all. The world doesn't all have to look like California!
http://www.highrock.com/WashingtonDC/whitehouse_b.jpg

And those giant fountains? Why?!?!!!
http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-4/tunis-fountain-night.jpg
That it so much water!!!
That could keep someone hydrated for years!

yes...i am a greenie. I apologize for the rant, it had to be done....

As for the only child spheal, no offense to only children, but I think having a sibling is an overall helpful experience. it teaches you go share, play well with others, and that there are others out there besides you.

[Wlck742]

I think being required to have a license to have kids is just a bad idea. To me it seems like an encroachment on private lives of people, telling people that "you can do this but you can't do this, you have to ask us if you want to do this and we'll have to decide for you because we don't think you're capable enough to handle this kind of situation" and to me, I think that's just wrong. Reproduction is a natural instinct of ours and governments shouldn't be allowed to put a limit on something that by definition living organisms. For countries like China that have huge populations I understand how the one child law would help, and I think that's a good thing. But forcing people to get a license before they have kids is going too far and it'll only create more problems. Before you know it we'll be worshiping a hooded and masked man known as Big Brother.

[ijffdrie]

@chax

i know how you feel, they use water cannons when we scholars go on a strike

[PreatorTengil]

Well, I bike every day, I donate money to green peace each month, and recycle my garbage as good as I can. I stopped smoking 3 years ago, and never litter the ground, and I never buy bottel water.. That's just baby steps, but steps nontheless..

[EonMaster]

You must not recycle too much since you spelled it wrong. Good steps, more than what I'm doing, I need to catch up. Also, I never smoke or use drugs(except medicine).

[PreatorTengil]

Now im recycling a whole lot, see :thumbup:?

And you could tell me in another tone, as english isn't my native language. So yeah, I get i few words wrong here and there, but i wouldn't bash u if you tried to learn swedish and spelled something wrong. Just letting you know

[EonMaster]

lol

I forgot, what's wrong with bottled water. As long as you recycle the plastic, I don't see the harm in buying it.

[PreatorTengil]

Well, I guess u are right on one part, but most people are lazy, and don't recycle+ they buy a lot of soda, wich you can't get from your tap at home. So bottled water adds up to the whole in the end that way. Buy it once and refill in the same bottle I mean

But of course if you do recycle, then you are right

[hillzagold]

a license to have children? what next? we send all our old people to the Near Death Star?

[BirdofPrey]

A liscense to have children makes alot of sense since it would prevent the spread of genetic disorders and would mean there would also be less children born to families who can't supportthem and thus there would be less starving/dead children because of it

[mc2]

I think being required to have a license to have kids is just a bad idea. To me it seems like an encroachment on private lives of people, telling people that "you can do this but you can't do this, you have to ask us if you want to do this and we'll have to decide for you because we don't think you're capable enough to handle this kind of situation" and to me, I think that's just wrong......Reproduction is a natural instinct of ours and governments shouldn't be allowed to put a limit on something that by definition living organisms.

Like the need to obtain a driving license before you drive. Imagine what would happen if people don't need to obtain a license for driving?

Like the need to check the person's credit history, income, etc before lending them money. The subprime crisis shows the result of not checking the person's capabilities to do certain things.

There's a lot of positive aspect about a liscense for having children. Like BirdofPrey said, at least running some "Background checks" on the couple would be highly beneficial. Recently here in Sydney, a 4 year old girl died from starvation, because her parents did not feed her. That says a lot

The part about the "natural instinct of ours" is highly debatable. Humans are naturally omnivores, that means we naturally have the desire to hunt, kill, and eat both animals and plants. But does that mean humans should kill and eat whales because it's our natural instinct?

[Inside Sin]

Nearly every thing that you buy at a Hungry Jacks take-away is Re-Cyclable.

I Re-cyle the lot.

[Itsmyship]

I don't mind green people...I just tend to find that most of them are so far up their own ass that they seem to have two heads. Ever seen the episode of South Park with the hybrid cars and people smelling their own farts? Yea...it's really not that fictional.

I have no problem being green, it saves us money, it helps out the environment, and it makes cities cleaner, I'm actually very big on conserving....just don't think you're better than anyone else because you do it though.

[Namor]

A license to have children makes alot of sense since it would prevent the spread of genetic disorders and would mean there would also be less children born to families who can't supportthem and thus there would be less starving/dead children because of it


I do totally agree, but i also think that such a license is needed only when a couple want moore than 1 child, then again for the second, and so on.... harder and harder to get.

Humanity has suffered 2 big blows in the past.

1. The earth is not flat, but round.
2. The earth is not the centre of the universe.

I am afraid humanity will suffer a third soon.

3. The earth is not infinite huge.

[EonMaster]

I agree with you Namor. People seem to treat the earth as if it would never end. Forests are cut down as if they don't end, look at the rain forests, losing miles of forests every day. Parts of the earth are protected against human expansion, but it's not enough. People need to learn that you don't need 3 kids to have a family, 1 or 2 is enough. Mind you, my family is huge: I have 2 sisters and my dad has over 200 cousins!

[Psionicz]

Putting a limit on reproduction is due to the fact we came away from living off the land like other animals, we have created new laws and rules within our societies, and these things make the Human race weaker every generation because in the wild a disfigured child or one that was mentally ill would not survive therefore eliminating the gene which causes it stopping another generation or group which surround the society to inherit those genes, therefor keeping numbers down. So by coming away from 'nature' we have basically messed things up for our selfs and eliminated the natural selection or survival of the fittest rule which all living things abide by and need in the long run for a successful future and a stronger gene pool.

As for being green, lol I use what is available but I don't smoke or drive, I turn lights off when they ain't needed. But my input will doubtfully help the world cuz once forests are gone we are basically gone, unless they invent some shxt to turn carbon dioxide and what ever energies they need to create oxygen, but then the production of such a device and the way it would have to be super mass produced would probably create more pollution.

But in the future hopefully they will be able to terra-form sleeping planets so that they are habitable (yes they have a project on this, mars is the objective and they want to turn it back into a earth-like planet) and the way they said they'll do it is increase Mars's heat levels and producing green-house gases to keep it constantly warm meaning the possibly underground frozen rivers/lakes/oceans melt and what not, then once there is some form of water they hope to put plants on the planet to suck up carbon dioxide from the air and produce oxygen so space suits and life support are no longer an issue. This process would take years upon years tho so we wouldn't be able to see this change in our life times if it even happens so hope for the best to future generations huh.

Hopefully they would have learned by then to work with the natural order and use its benefits without taking them away.

Lol my longest post ever

[LordKerwyn]

*Warning the following post may offend some people, if you feel like you cant read it with a clear mind, don't.*

As far is being green is concerned I agree we as a race could do better. (and thats all I really have to say on that topic)



Now for the license to have kids, it may sound good in theory it wont/cant work in practice without breaking a number of moral stabdards. First @BoP, doesn't preventing people from having kids because they have a genetic disoreder sound alot like a science from 1930's? What was it called? Oh, yeah Eugenics. Now who was a rather famous supporter of the this science? Oh, yeah Hitler. How many "impure" people did he kill? I would love for someone to tell me that his help in getting rid of genetic disorders was a good thing. (Now admitedly alot of other countries dabbled in the science as well, but I think the point stands)

Now how does requiring a license to have children equal killing people to prevent it? It doesnt, but the goal is the same. So how long would it take for more extreme methods besides licensing come along?

Ok now lets for a second imagine requiring licenseing wasnt stepping on any moral boundaries and it was implemented how would you decide how deserves a license and who doesnt? Whats your goal to make a good child is produced or to make sure the child has a good home? If its the first how the hell can you tell if a child will turn out to be a "good person" much less how would you define who a "good person". Lets take Einstein for example was he a good person because he tried to help society (In some contries) or was he a bad person for helping to design a weapon that killed 100,000 people with just 2 uses? Ok, lets now say that by some miracle we defined who a good person is, how do you tell if a person will come out good? Some of the best people in the world were born to scumbags and some of greatest scumbags in the world were born to good people.

Now as for the child being in a good home that is much easier to judge and yet harder to judge as well because, would be poeple who have lots of money have good homes because they can provide well? Or would it be people with less money who would care more about their children because of the fact they have less money?

Ok now for everyone that believes those situations wouldn't come to frutition because we would never have that strict of laws remember we as a race have a tendency to push the boundaries and we try to make the world see our perspective and agree with us.

So finally while requiring a license to have children may sound good in theory, who gets to be the judge? Who gets to play god? And how could they possibly make a decision thats fair to everyone? In the end requiring people to have a license to have children is simply a bad idea.

P.S. There is probably some points up there that dont have as much support as they could. So if more is needed ill happily provide if asked but I am currently stuffed up and dont feel like typing a 5 page essay if it isnt nessecary. Also if anyone feels like flaming please do it by PM it will make life easier.

[Psionicz]

Lol I know what you mean with the whole essay thing. But yup I couldn't of said it better my self.

But you could say Hitler is an example of natural selection but instead he acted upon his own personal views. (relate to my post)

[Namor]

I do agree in most of the thesises you posted LordKerwyn. None likes to have a government/state which interfere with your private life. And yes it gives a hell lot of a power to the persons who will have the possebility to "play God"....

Although, population control is something humanity must face sooner or later....

BTW: I feel that i have to protect Einstein.

He didn't invent the A-bomb, he did only theoretical prove that it was possible to make and so warned the USA president that Hitler could get such a weapon....

Anyway... I guess that I am the only person on earth that is glad the A-bomb was invented. (of course not for the use of it.... the great tragedy's at Hiroshima and Nagasaki)

The reason for that is, if USA and the CCCP (Soviet) didn't have enough A-bombs to completely destroy each other. There would have become a full scale third world war out of what only became the cold war.....

(OMG... I am going to get flamed for this.....)

[mc2]

Hmmm, interesting point.....because let's not continue with politics and get back to the environment.

About the fresh water shortage problem, who here supports using recycled water as drinking water? I personally do not like the idea. I mean, it's not a good idea to have 70% of your body to be composed of recycled sewage. Although I like having recycled water to water gardens, flush toilets, and for industrial uses.

My country is having a serious drought problem. The two main problems are:
1. Most rainfall only cling along the coastal areas. The inland regions, starting from about 20km from the coast, will very little, to absolutely no rain at all.
2. Australia is very flat, no tall mountains (the tallest mountain is only 2228m high), no deep valleys, very little big lakes, and the river systems have very little water in it to start with. That means finding a suitable location to construct a dam extremely hard.

The government is building a desalination plant about 10km from my house, and all the locals totally oppose it.

So we really need to find a way to control when and where rain would fall :P I know that shooting rockets containing silver iodide into the clouds will induce rain to fall......

[EonMaster]

lichking is right. All water is basically recycled water from waste, ect. Sewage is mostly water that eventually evaporates into the air or sinks into the ground. When this happens, the water then mixes with whatever water exists around it. Any waste water in the air then forms clouds along with the water around it. Thus when it rains, some of that water came from the waste water to begin with.

Nature does a very good job of recycleing. Through natural chemical processes, the waste water gets purified of any contaminates. Recycled water is doing the same thing, just at a faster rate. It's proven to be perfectly healthy for you and no documented bad side effects have occured because of it so far.

[WaterGolem]

@ mc2: I'd just like to point out that your entire body is composed of the "recycled" constituents of billions of years of life on this planet. It seems a bit paradoxical to fear recycled water being incorporated into your body.

[Shadowdragon]

My favorite kind of tree is on fire...so I guess I'm not much of a greenie!

[hillzagold]

animals drink water. animals take a piss. the water from the urine goes back into the rivers and clouds and oceans. and has been for some time.

[mc2]

Nature does an excellent job in recycling water (water cycle, tree roots absorbing excess nitrogen, etc). Our current technology is still not as effective as nature in recycling it.

[Wlck742]

I think if we modeled our technology on how nature works a bit more, it could be made much more efficient. I mean, your cells have many times more efficiency as the average hybrid car. Nature's still more advanced than us with all our technology in some aspects IMO.