Blatantly political rant

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm all in favor of recycling the materials. As mentioned, I just don't think it's economical to reuse the material in the new housing you are constructing.


They don't have to look too much the same, but if the goal is keeping costs down, there will be an incentive to standardize where possible.

The question is who will live in the new housing, and what they can afford to pay. If you can afford it, by all means, build something unlike anything else in the neighborhood. Most folks can't afford it, and will happily settle for a house of their own that they can afford, even if it does look just like the neighbor's.
______
Dennis

Yeah .... I hear you. Sometimes I forget that I live in an enclave of extremely rich people. And, in order to have recycling really work ... it has to be something that is done across the board.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Hey, I was asked what you do with an abandoned home. Supposedly, if it was still in usable shape, it wouldn't be abandoned...

Assuming, then, that the house as-is is not usable, recycling its materials into a new dwelling makes sense. And as I said, it might cost more to tear it apart, but as others have pointed out, it is a source of jobs. And I maintain that repurposing used materials is still better than mining and milling new materials.

Well, it was VR's doomsday scenario, not mine. My point is that to get rid of suburbs, you have to move the suburbanites, into a downsized, centrally planned, set of dwellings. This may solve the source of individual suburban fuel useage, but at the cost of scrapping a huge economic investment, that would dwarf the saving in fuel. Furthermore, I doubt if you would get much movement (some of course) from the suburbs to that small centrally planned housing. At least, not voluntarily. And to complete the thought chain, if it's a non-voluntary relocation, what do you do with all that wasted resource.

[Greg Anos]

On the other side of the housing debate. Check today's (7-18-08) back section. There is an article on high-density, small sq footage, housing in it, based on 1920's housing designs. We have a old name for them in Texas - Shotgun Shacks. $600,000 for a shotgun shack (AND it costs MORE that comparable modern housing nearby.)

And there's a waiting list.........words fail me....... (you can buy an original shotgun shack in East Dallas for $60K...)

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

On the other side of the housing debate. Check today's (7-18-08) back section. There is an article on high-density, small sq footage, housing in it, based on 1920's housing designs. We have a old name for them in Texas - Shotgun Shacks. $600,000 for a shotgun shack (AND it costs MORE that comparable modern housing nearby.)

And there's a waiting list.........words fail me....... (you can buy an original shotgun shack in East Dallas for $60K...)

Here in Surprise? They tried making a development with shared driveways. Common areas instead of yards. Very close together. "to promote community lifestyle." It was a big flop because people don't want to live close enough to a neighbor to hear them sneeze. They want their own 'space' and privacy. And another development was touted as the perfect place for 'low income' no fencing, no driveways or garages, dinky little houses. THAT developement has gone section 8. Welfare for those unfamiliar with the term. They've been having auctions weekly and still can't sell the houses. Took a great area of single family homes, and now we have our own little ghetto. Police presence constantly.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Here in Surprise? They tried making a development with shared driveways. Common areas instead of yards. Very close together. "to promote community lifestyle." It was a big flop because people don't want to live close enough to a neighbor to hear them sneeze. They want their own 'space' and privacy. And another development was touted as the perfect place for 'low income' no fencing, no driveways or garages, dinky little houses. THAT developement has gone section 8. Welfare for those unfamiliar with the term. They've been having auctions weekly and still can't sell the houses. Took a great area of single family homes, and now we have our own little ghetto. Police presence constantly.

I'm glad you clarified that. The only Section 8 I ever heard of was a military discharge on grounds of mental illness.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Here in Surprise? They tried making a development with shared driveways. Common areas instead of yards. Very close together. "to promote community lifestyle." It was a big flop because people don't want to live close enough to a neighbor to hear them sneeze. They want their own 'space' and privacy. And another development was touted as the perfect place for 'low income' no fencing, no driveways or garages, dinky little houses. THAT developement has gone section 8. Welfare for those unfamiliar with the term. They've been having auctions weekly and still can't sell the houses. Took a great area of single family homes, and now we have our own little ghetto. Police presence constantly.

My deepest sympathies, desertgrandma. I grew up in San Antonio, Texas, which (until the 1980's Texas bust) was a closed, old-money town. Out of state money did developement on the "wrong" side of town (where my parents moved, having gone bust in the 1950's drought), so in revenge, and to stop the developement, the successful neighborhoods on the "wrong" side were "blockbusted" by "235" developements, which were the precursor to the Section 8 housing. It wasn't pretty. (and I was on ground zero, so to speak).

[nekokami]

I saw a lot of buildings being demolished in China when I was there 8 years ago-- brick by brick, with the bricks being saved. I think it might depend what materials we're talking about when trying to determine their recycle value. And I don't recall anyone wanting to rebuild with the same materials on the same site, but maybe I missed that part.

I grew up in a suburb/rural setting, and thought that was the kind of house I would want to live in as an adult. But I live in a house like that now, and I still have noisy neighbors (it's amazing how far bass tones carry, even through woods) and I have no public transportation. Our choices were constrained in the last move when one deal fell through after we'd started the kids in that school district. We were trying to buy a prefab house in a community-owned development. I'm still rather sorry that deal didn't go through.

As far as individuating houses while still minimizing construction costs and resource use, it's amazing what can be done with panel construction these days.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I saw a lot of buildings being demolished in China when I was there 8 years ago-- brick by brick, with the bricks being saved. I think it might depend what materials we're talking about when trying to determine their recycle value. And I don't recall anyone wanting to rebuild with the same materials on the same site, but maybe I missed that part.

No surprise. While China is industrializing as fast as possible (with all the attendant problems that brings), it is still a developing country with an enormous land area, huge population, and low standard of living for many millions.

When you have a huge labor force for whom dollars a day might be a good wage, you can do things like take buildings apart, brick by brick, and save the bricks for reuse. The closest source of new bricks might be quite some distance away, and it may actually be more economical to reuse existing ones in construction relatively nearby.

It wouldn't work here because the economics are different.

I grew up in a suburb/rural setting, and thought that was the kind of house I would want to live in as an adult. But I live in a house like that now, and I still have noisy neighbors (it's amazing how far bass tones carry, even through woods)

I had a friend many years ago who shared a house with a friend of his, and half a mile between them and their nearest neighbors.

Just as well. Before moving to the east coast, Glen had lived in Chigago, where his family owned a manufacturing business. He had his own apartment in the family home, rent free, and managed a stereo store. He made good money, and had little to do with it but buy stereo gear, which moved east with him. Crown pre-amp, Phase Linear amp, Nakamichi tape deck, Thorens transcription turntable, Klipschhorn speakers... turn the volume knob to 3, and plaster would start rattling off the walls, with bass like a physical punch in the chest. But you didn't realize how loud it really was because the reproduction quality was so good. He once blew another friend's speaker trying to get the sound he was accustomed to at home, but the speaker blew before he could get it that loud. As he put it "I've got Klipsch adjusted ears!"
______
Dennis

[desertgrandma]

It wouldn't work here because the economics are different. (quote from D. McCunney)

It also has to do with the fact that the houses here are built with the very minimum standards allowable. Mine is a prime example. Built by a non-english speaking crew with one white foreman. They were putting hammers into any warm body, due to the building boom.....couldn't build houses fast enough. This was 5 yrs ago. No upgrades allowed, other than specified, even at additional cost. Electrical, insulation, plumbing sub standard to our way of thinking. My husband won't even allow me to mount a tv to the walls into a stud...he doesn't think the studs are any good. No choice at the time of buying this house. I love my home, but if you were to try and salvage anything you wolud be building yet another sub standard house. Cheap windows, little insulation, bowed walls, now multiply this by thousands. How do you recycle crap? And how do you build solid housing when dealing with greedy developers? I guarantee you the laborers didn't get rich.......

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

It wouldn't work here because the economics are different.

If by "here" you mean the US, I agree... currently. We'll see what happens to our own economy in the future.

I was just pointing out that when we discuss recycling building materials, etc., we might want to take a broader view and remember that not everywhere looks like the US... and the US hasn't always looked the way it has.

But as you pointed out earlier, there's a lot of "religion" in this thread, with people holding certain positions "just because." I'm still reading because of the occasional bits of new info and glimmers of reason.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

If by "here" you mean the US, I agree... currently. We'll see what happens to our own economy in the future.

Yes, I did mean the US, but the same comments would apply to any developed nation. The labor costs would be too great.

I was just pointing out that when we discuss recycling building materials, etc., we might want to take a broader view and remember that not everywhere looks like the US... and the US hasn't always looked the way it has.

Oh, agreed. And see Ricky's comment about the architectural antiques folks who will pay a lot of money for some bits of older construction.

I was quibbling with one particular use case, and not the general concept.

But as you pointed out earlier, there's a lot of "religion" in this thread, with people holding certain positions "just because." I'm still reading because of the occasional bits of new info and glimmers of reason.

Belief is an emotional thing, and as Heinlein commented, "An emotional argument permits no response". My curiousity here is why particular opinions got embedded as that sort of belief to begin with.
______
Dennis

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Belief is an emotional thing, and as Heinlein commented, "An emotional argument permits no response". My curiousity here is why particular opinions got embedded as that sort of belief to begin with.
______
Dennis

I'll give it a go. (I did this strip-down analysis at age 14). Three base questions - 1. What is inanimate and what is animate? and 2. What is sentineal and what is non-sentineal? and 3. What are my privileges and responsibilities to each class.

If it not alive, it inanimate. I should have no concern about using, changing, shaping, molding, or even scrapping inanimate things. They don't feel, think or sense anything that occurs to them. They can be used anyway that need or expedience required. Misuse of inanimate items is a matter of inefficency, not immorality.

Animate (but not seniental) things are alive. I may breed them or kill them (when necessary), or even use them as tools, but I try do do so in a manner that is not cruel. To me, living beings deserve that. There is enough pain in the world without my cheerfully adding more, unneccessarily. (I'm not Paingod). Please note, I kill to live - all animals do - even Bambi. A plant is every bit as much alive as deer, and eating plants does not make you less of a killer of cells.

Finally, sentenial beings. Do I have the right to use self-aware beings like either inanimate or animate things? I came to the conclusion of No. If I want to have priviliges of being self-aware then I must grant the same priviliges to any other self aware beings. The most important of these is the right of choice. Without choice, you might as well be a tree. And using another sentineal being as a tool denies them choice. This is the main stumbling block of all political discourses. A large group say Yes, sentinial being can be used as tools. They think it is a matter of some form of superiority to be the a tool-user rather than a tool. But they see nothing wrong with using sentineal beings as tools, and are unconcerned about the results to the tools.

This is enough of a primer, i'll go into sentinal interactions another time.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If it not alive, it inanimate. I should have no concern about using, changing, shaping, molding, or even scrapping inanimate things. They don't feel, think or sense anything that occurs to them. They can be used anyway that need or expedience required. Misuse of inanimate items is a matter of inefficency, not immorality.

Well, deep ecologists would disagree. But suppose that we take a human-centred view. There's still a case for respecting plants, ecosystems and the like because we don't know how useful they might be in the future. The contraceptive pill was originally made from Amazonian yams. Yew trees are the source of anti-cancer drugs. Yet many rare plant species are threatened. We could yet regret this lack of forethought.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'll give it a go. (I did this strip-down analysis at age 14). Three base questions - 1. What is inanimate and what is animate? and 2. What is sentineal and what is non-sentineal? and 3. What are my privileges and responsibilities to each class.

If it not alive, it inanimate. I should have no concern about using, changing, shaping, molding, or even scrapping inanimate things. They don't feel, think or sense anything that occurs to them. They can be used anyway that need or expedience required. Misuse of inanimate items is a matter of inefficency, not immorality.

Animate (but not seniental) things are alive. I may breed them or kill them (when necessary), or even use them as tools, but I try do do so in a manner that is not cruel. To me, living beings deserve that. There is enough pain in the world without my cheerfully adding more, unneccessarily. (I'm not Paingod). Please note, I kill to live - all animals do - even Bambi. A plant is every bit as much alive as deer, and eating plants does not make you less of a killer of cells.

Finally, sentenial beings. Do I have the right to use self-aware beings like either inanimate or animate things? I came to the conclusion of No. If I want to have priviliges of being self-aware then I must grant the same priviliges to any other self aware beings. The most important of these is the right of choice. Without choice, you might as well be a tree. And using another sentineal being as a tool denies them choice. This is the main stumbling block of all political discourses. A large group say Yes, sentinial being can be used as tools. They think it is a matter of some form of superiority to be the a tool-user rather than a tool. But they see nothing wrong with using sentineal beings as tools, and are unconcerned about the results to the tools.

This is enough of a primer, i'll go into sentinal interactions another time.

Unfortunately my dictionary does not have the word "sentineal". Perhaps you meant "sentient" as it means what the context you use seems to indicate.

But who is to judge sentience? Is a dolphin sentient? A dog, horse, or cat? Is the world sentient, or the universe? Perhaps we, like the mayfly to us, live our lives so quickly that the world does not seem to be alive or sentient. However, some cultures would argue that the world is sentient and that perhaps humans are just "pests" irritating it the way a flea might irritate us.

For me, life is what I call a horse trade. I may plant vegetables in my garden and tenderly care for them in order to harvest the fruits. The same with certain animals. Like you, I try not to be cruel but that also includes the world and the universe.

Several years ago while renting a house, I planted a tree in the yard (with the owner's permission). When my wife pointed out that we would only be there a year, I replied that perhaps someone was planting a tree for me somewhere.

In a horse trade, we each "use" the other as a "tool" and are in turn used as a "tool". But we both agree, within our own capacities, to the trade. We each feel we get the advantage at the time. That's why some animals can not be domesticated because they don't agree to the trade we ask of them.

OK enough of my "high horse" (aka rant). Sorry.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'll give it a go. (I did this strip-down analysis at age 14). Three base questions - 1. What is inanimate and what is animate? and 2. What is sentineal and what is non-sentineal? and 3. What are my privileges and responsibilities to each class..

I think you mean sentient ... as in able to think. There is no word "sentineal" (that I can find anyway).

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If it not alive, it inanimate. I should have no concern about using, changing, shaping, molding, or even scrapping inanimate things. They don't feel, think or sense anything that occurs to them. They can be used anyway that need or expedience required. Misuse of inanimate items is a matter of inefficency, not immorality.

If it is not alive it is inanimate. I'll give you that. But that is not proof that the reverse is true. That merely because it is inanimate, it is not "alive." One premise does not necessarily flow from the other.

Therefore, you should have concern about things that are inanimate, but might just be alive. For all you know, the thing is animate, but on a different time scale. People used to think of the continents as inanimate ... we now know they are anything but. And, since they are animate ... are they alive?? Probably not, but who am I to say?

Now, morality is entirely subjective. What may be moral in your (Christian??) framework of beliefs may be immoral in mine (Buddhist). There are really few rules of "morality" on which all cultures and faiths can agree.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Animate (but not seniental) things are alive. I may breed them or kill them (when necessary), or even use them as tools, but I try do do so in a manner that is not cruel. To me, living beings deserve that. There is enough pain in the world without my cheerfully adding more, unneccessarily. (I'm not Paingod). Please note, I kill to live - all animals do - even Bambi. A plant is every bit as much alive as deer, and eating plants does not make you less of a killer of cells.

OK ... animate, but not sentient things are alive. So, the continents are alive? I doubt it .... but even if I were to agree that all animate objects are alive ... where do you draw the line at what is or is not sentient?? I've seen animals figure out some fairly complex problems ... I would think that means they are sentient. My own observations are being borne out every day by respected men and women of science. So, if they are shown to be sentient ... then shall we all then stop breeding them or killing them?? I rather think not ... most of the time we can't even stop killing each other.

Do you really "kill to live"?? Are you personally out there every day hunting and gathering your own food?? If so, I salute you. Most of us are just too damn lazy. We go to the grocery store and leave the dirty work to someone else.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Finally, sentenial beings. Do I have the right to use self-aware beings like either inanimate or animate things? I came to the conclusion of No. If I want to have priviliges of being self-aware then I must grant the same priviliges to any other self aware beings. The most important of these is the right of choice. Without choice, you might as well be a tree. And using another sentineal being as a tool denies them choice. This is the main stumbling block of all political discourses. A large group say Yes, sentinial being can be used as tools. They think it is a matter of some form of superiority to be the a tool-user rather than a tool. But they see nothing wrong with using sentineal beings as tools, and are unconcerned about the results to the tools.

In which case, as we find out that more and more animals are sentient, and fully self-aware, then I suppose more people will have to consider turning to vegetarianism. I mean .... how could I possibly think that an ape who can feel sorry for a horse (that had a bit in its mouth) and express the fact that it thought the horse "is sad ... mouth hurts" is not self-aware?? The ability to feel empathy is a primary part of being self aware.

As for using sentient beings as "tools" ... yes, people have espoused that belief before, and sadly, still do and I'm sure they will (probably for all time). In the pre-Civil War South, and much of the world today it was (and is) called slavery. There may come a time when we recognize the treatment of some animals as just another form of slavery. I doubt it .... but I'd like to think it's possible. Although, as much as I try, I don't think I'll ever be able to pass up a good steak.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is enough of a primer, i'll go into sentinal interactions another time.

Well, as a primer, it just doesn't seem logical to me. Although, it's certainly an interesting viewpoint.