Typical libertarian, they think that the only reason for doing anything is the profit potential...NEWSFLASH - Profit is not the ONLY reason for taking action, sometimes it is worth improving the world even if it costs $8 billion to do it. Sometimes it is worth making an investment in our environment, even if it doesn't turn a profit.
It costs more sure. Thats not a problem. Its waste. Why throw away something that can be reused again simply because you dont want to pay more? We live on a small rock with limited recources. Recycling simply allows us to use what we have. Hopefully mankind has a long future infront of it and the longer we can stretch our recources the better. We could just burry the trash or burn it but thats just shortening what we can use in the future.
I dont understand, do americans just put their recycables outside their house, (as household trash) and let garbage men(recycle men?) get it? I could see how that would be expensive.. Why not put up stations with giant containers and have a truck pick it up when its full, would be much cheaper then having it go to every house once a week, like its done in Europe or atleast Sweden anyway..
@Ravenclth no your generalizing about america just like you did about europe. just like there we have mixed recycling methods - centers and house pickup...
@tasteflavored A generalization is a statment, I asked a question. Yes we do have house pickups here in Sweden, but that only household trash, such as discarded food, household paper and such. Everyone I know atleast recycles at stations and no-one throws it in general trash for household pickup.
@Ravenclth eh i didn't say it wasn't a statement.. not really sure what point your trying to make there. It's good you have patriotism, similar services being offered in America doesn't take away from that
@Ravenclth oh jeez.. okay you generalized your question based on a 30min program and then you went on to generalize that because things are offered in Sweden it is also offered across Europe. Not sure why your so hung up on this I simply attempting to answer your question and explain the misconception
So batteries, computers, biowaste and old furnature should just be thrown into the same pile? Hopefully this is not the case or idea.
Because Reuse of furnature and dumpin biowaste into other places than the normal trash DOES help the enviroment. Even if the other parts of nuts of BS :)
Instead of trying to figure out whether it's better to recycle or just throw stuff away, we should try to cut down on packaging so there's less crap to worry about in the first place.
I love these videos because it makes me think, however I will never agree that recycling is completely bad, instead of pointing out the faults of recycling why not find ways to make recycling more efficient. However I think thats suppose to be our job, penn and tellers job is to make us wake up and start thinking of ways to make this more efficient.
recycling is an invention so consumers don't worry or for guilty for pointless consumerism - think bottle water. only morons would buy what they can take from a tap. its a disgrace to create plastic waste instead of opening a tap.
Of course it is quicker and costs less to just throw trash away but you gotta understand that sometimes the easy way isn't the right way. Recycling is about saving the resources and reducing consumption. I love Penn and Teller but this time, i don't agree with them.
So why not burn PET bottles into energy? That would save some energy. And I think the products should recycle themselves. It may not be economical right now, but as technology advances I think in the near future everything we recyle nowe will be biodegradable.
the other materials are expensive to recycle, plus they loose quality, you can only recycle papper 7 times, and the last 3 of them are rally shity quality...
the only solution is to stop using plastic, or reducing its consumption...
Now, if you think about this in this context, then what he's saying ACTUALLY makes sense. As in, excepting situations like trying to jump start a green energy economy, or any other good thing that's just not not profitable yet. I'd say it's a *proper* use of the term "free market," as compared to Republican useage of the term, which is more improper. Kinda see what I'm getting at?
NOT exactly. Penn's a libertarian, *NOT* a Republican! And by "libertarian," I don't mean one of those Ron Paul style nuts, either. As in, Penn's not one of those Ron Paul style "libertarians" who live in their own perfect little fantasy worlds where their libertarian philosophies can actually WORK, Penn Gillette is one of those ACTUALLY "realistic" libertarians, you know what I mean? The kind who actually UNDERSTANDS the constitution and how it's supposed to work PRACTICALLY, IN
How can you actually *WATCH* the show and still _honestly_ say that??? Seriously, man, I mean, WOW! The ignorance you displayed! Just...DAMN. Do you even _KNOW_ who you're even talking about? I mean, the assertion that Penn Gillette "cares only about money" is LAUGHABLE...at *best*! lol
Facts are IT wint help this planet..its still going to die and YOU humans are still going to die off one by one like a bunch of ANTS! Recycling is stupid and NOT helping at all its a wastful BULLSHIT, fact is fact......earth still gonna go out with a BANG so are we so enough said..goodbye good luck with your lifes.
I think they make a good point about how recycling doesn't save money...but it still is saving raw resources by letting us reuse rather than produce from raw material new shit...am I wrong?
Woah woah woah hang on why should recycling cost less than landfill? It costs the same as landfill bar the massive cost to the earth. A fair tab to take up imo
So is it better to just throw everything away? Better to create everything from scratch? In the long run thats not worse than recycling? Let everything pile up until there is not enough room?
A study by the EPA in 1995 said that recycling paper
Reduces solid waste, energy cost, greenhouse gas emissions and other bad things. Penn and Teller's guest was using an outdated study. But they're right about it doing nothing to save trees.
Is reading the newspaper online better for the environment than buying one?
It seems to me that the difference in waste on natural resources between buying a paper and using the electricity etc. on a computer to go on the internet wouldn't be that great?
COMPOST your paper. And quit buying bottled water! I use an aqua sana filter that attaches right to the tap, and the water tastes great. It's actually easy to avoid a lot of packaging by using reusable shopping and produce bags, by and shopping in bulk (and way cheaper too). Oh, and learn how to actually COOK so that every meal you eat isn't coming out of a package/box/bag/can.
phew *dismounts off high horse*
Oh, and don't look to magicians for a balanced analysis of any issue. :)
"We have three times as many trees today as we did in 1920" --- a bullshit (but technically true) statistic often cited by the lumber companies. Akin to their "For every tree we cut down, we plant another in it's place" propaganda. You have to consider the fact that if they cut down a giant 500 year old redwood, they turn around and "replace" it with a 3-foot sapling and call it "Even Steven!"
@rockethearse That's why redwood is so expensive. Most lumber is pine. Trees are farmed, by tree farmers. Its the same thing as protesting corn farmers. "Save the corn!"
@pcfriedrich You make zero sense. No one is talking about tree farms. You will not find hundreds-of-years-old trees on a tree farm. I'm talking about forests. I'm sorry you believe there is no market for anything other than tree farm pine. And, if you don't believe that, what in the world is your point? Do you think lumber companies are referring to tree farms when they say, "For every tree we cut down, we plant one in it's place"?
@rockethearse I said that was the reason redwood was so expensive. of course that's what lumber companies are referring to, for the reason that environmentalist whackos protest tree far
@rockethearse how is that not even steven? thats like saying why do we harvest crops and only replace them with seeds...go do some research before you make uninformed opinionated posts. you obviously have no clue where resources actually come from and what we are doing to make resources like trees renewable. time to use some logic and reasoning my naive friend...time to wake up.
@rockethearse Paper has been made from genetically modified trees on tree farms for over 20 years now. The fibers of the trees were modified so that they grow faster, which also allows the fibers to bond easier during the process on converting pulp to paper. Trees for paper, only grow for a couple years before being cut down.
If your "500 year old" slogan is in reference to construction material, then find a sawmill equipped to take a tree of that size. You wont find one.
So far the argument has focused largely on the economic effects. Compared to landfill, recycling (if more expensive) is surely (if nothing else) more useful. What are the benefits to landfill other than expense, I wonder.
The guy at 3:23 is a moron. He needs to learn what a logical fallacy is. He is saying that recycling is good because we do it. THAT IS BULLSHIT. You should do something because it's good, not the other way around.
May I also add that there are certain sections of forest in the US SPECIFICALLY sectioned off to be harvest, cut down, and grown ONLY for making paper and lumber. This is a fact.
Let's Look at paper recycling as one example. When private businesses recycle paper they make it into cardboard. They do this because it is the most efficient use of recycled paper. Cardboard doesn't have to be pretty and it doesn't have to have a nice smooth surface. It just has to be strong. The company saves money with cardboard, produces a needed product and lowers it's use of energy and produces less pollution. They also provide a cheaper product for consumers.
ok serioulsy, this is getting stupid. They arent making ONE SINGLE argument against recylicng. In fact, they are simply making arguments against money. Because yes, it may cost more to recycle then not to, so fucking what. THe point isnt ALWAYS to make money. If we simply burn everything we would run out of material. This is seriously a stupid episode, I cant believe they did this.
Its not only about energy, its about running out of material. If you just have everything in one dumb and simply burn it (which is the way they are kinda promoting here) you will run out of material.
The problem on the consumer end, I think, is that people forget that the three R's are listed in order of importance. You need to START by Reducing your consumption of wasteful packaging so less trash gets generated in the first place (e.g stop buying so much bottled water). NEXT, Reuse the packaging in any way that makes sense (e.g. refill water bottles multiple times). Then, and only then, should you even be thinking about Recycling. If you do it backwards, you might as well not do it at all.
@cyanmanta In Wales they started charging 5p fora plastic carrier bag fromthe shops (the money goes 2wards a charity of the shops choice). That 5p is quite a good incentive aspeople willtry and reuseold carrier bags/invest inmore permanent ones.
The 5p going 2 charity avoids the charge feeling like a 'tax' so the customer doesnt feel incriminated or taxed. Sensible people will realise its better off donating directly 2 charities than deliberately wanting bags from shops. Soit works out verywell.
The ONLY way to truly help the environment is to COMSUME LESS. Reduce your consumption. That's it. That's the answer.
Don't buy bottled water. Don't buy a TV/stereo/iPod. Don't read the paper. Don't buy a new car (especially don't be stupid enough to think that selling your old car and buying a Prius is a good idea.....fuck you Toyota).
@SCROGY Because I disagree so much with your statement, I'll buy ever single paper in the area and NOT recycle it. Hell, I won't even read it. I'll just throw it away.
@inrwizards I never TOLD anyone to do anything dude. I said the only way to truly reduce pollution was to USE LESS. Recycling IS BS because as long as you are consuming more resources each year you are not saving squat, you are simply consuming MORE at a slower rate. And Blankadoodledoo made the ridiculous assumption that consuming less means not having a life. I simply stated that having Xboxes and LCD TV's and new cars just means you are consuming and that you should get outside more.
@inrwizards Secondly, learn to debate in a civil fashion pal. If you want to resort to insults you WILL NOT WIN THAT BATTLE. Now, as far as the economy goes you can spend money on hobbies that don't require massive consumption of resources. And do not try to justify your materialism by pretending the economy will die if you don't buy the shit corporations are costantly trying to sell you. You don't need the latest fucking iPod/TV/games system. And I am certainly no environmentalist.......
@inrwizards .......in fact I hate them. But the facts are the facts. If we keep buying stupid shit we don't need because advertising has convinced us we can't live without them then recycling won't mean COCK SOUP. I am as guilty as many other people but I have decided that I am NOT going to own a cell phone or buy the latest fucking TV or iPod. FUCK Apple and Sony and Motorola. If they are going to die because I don't buy thier latest BS product, then let the fuckers die. FUCK 'em.
@kwang1imsa Yeah, because making the wealthy elite even wealthier is MUCH more important that having a safe planet 100 years from now right...............you genius.
I like Penn and Teller but I get a feeling this episode is bullshit. I don't recall learning in school that the point of recycling was to save energy and give the government money. I recall the point is that by recycling we're significantly reducing the amount of resources we extract from the Earth, namely trees and oil. I'd say it's worth the extra bit of effort and tax money.
Also what was the point of that recycling-bin prank?
@MrFreeGman The problem is A) Trees are RENEWABLE with proper management. And oil is not about to run out next tomorrow despite what the tree huggers tell you. That is a bunch of hype. The other problem is that it is taking MORE energy to recycle than make new products. Do you not see the problem? MORE ENERGY. You aren't saving anything.
The point of the prank is to show how easily people are sucked into believing in something that is bullshit. The fact that you missed that PROVES it.
You know what's even cheaper than picking up garbage? Just throwing it in the street and letting it sit there. And it's cheaper to just shit all over ourselves than have sewage.
Sometimes money and cost aren't the only thing to consider. Recycled paper avoids clearing forests. Not sure if you know, but plastics are made out of OIL, so recycled plastics avoid the need for oil.
Why bury junk in the ground when it can be re-used? Why have land fills? Heck, just use the paper for power plants.
@YTSparty didn't u hear what they said about more trees being grown especially for paper? but i agree with ur comment on saving oil, i think u will find that organic,biodegradable plastic substitutes are now a reality. biomatter like food scraps is worth seperating and collecting because after 2 years its compost and doesnt have to contribute to the stink at ever growing landfills. aluminum pays for itself obviously but its also one of the most abundant elements on earth, just tough to mine.
@YTSparty It's not so much the money, but that's part of it, but also the energy used to transport, clean, ect. We use more fossil fuel energy doing that than we do making more.
@YTSparty You're not getting it. Trees are a renewable resource for one. And all those trucks that are driving around, all those recycling stations that use energy to sort, all those machines that grind up the plastic/metal ARE USING ENERGY!!! Specifically oil and petrol. Recycling uses MORE oil/energy than creating a new bottle.
2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it.
@SCROGY Trucks come and pick up my garbage for a landfill. How is it different? How is it more energy to haul it to a recycle place than to haul it to a landfill? Sorting is done on a conveyor, a lot of garbage is actually incinerated, which do you think costs more in energy?
Google recycling and find the energy to create glass/plastics from scratch versus reusing. The majority of the info will show less energy for recycling. The problem is that the cost is already low.
@YTSparty Because it's what is done to the garbage afterwards that takes more energy. The plastic must then be sorted, ground up and then repackaged and shipped back to the customer that will turn it back into bottles. All of this requires MORE ENERGY than simply burying it and forgetting about it. And the problem with your links is exactly what P&T are talking about. You are being lied to by those people: the energy required to recycle IS greater. Those links are BS.
@zoltan6561 I don't know. You'd have to weigh the costs of recycling vs creating new cans. If the resource is expensive enough (usually due to rarity or the energy required to make it into a useable form) then I would say that recycling is beneficial.
I am not against recycling. I am against people being conned into believing something is beneficial when it is not, and the only thing it does is make a bunch of tree huggers feel like they are doing something worthwhile.
@zoltan6561 Don't rely on Wikipedia as an information source. Although this may be correct, did P&T not say that Aluminum was one resource that was worth recycling? I'm pretty sure they did.
@110437 Thanks for a civilized response, so many people on YouTube are overly hostile & just plain ignorant. About the absorbing of Co2, yes, trees do a great job of that when they are alive and fully mature. We give them Co2 and they give us oxygen. But, when a mature tree is cut down all it's absorbing of Co2 was in vain (unless it was near it's life's end, in that case cut away).... let me explain....
.... It takes a tree 20-30 years to mature, once it matures it then will absorb Co2 for 10s, 100s or even 1000s of years as in the case of a Redwood. Cutting a tree down right when it matures is like ending your life at 18... once again, we're being naive to think the tree did it's job and now it's time to become paper. By adding into the mix that loads of Co2 are released from the tree once it dies... well, I don't see any argument left. About the poisoning the lake comment well....
I had a lot of different analogies running through my head: commuting with a Hummer, etc. Maybe the one I used didn't explain what I really meant. Hemp paper is three times stronger and last longer than wood paper. It's also five times as cheap to make & produces far less pollutants in the actual paper making process. This is where I was going with my analogy. Trees for paper is just as idiotic as poisoning a lake to catch the fish. BUT, hemp is illegal so I guess I'm just wasting my breath.
In my country hemp is not illegal if you get proper license from the government and you only grow hemp cultivars that are selected to produce more fiber and only small amount of THC 0,3% that is not usable for drug production.
@zoltan6561 It's too bad the US gov. is completely brain dead. The DEA says cannabis & hemp look too similar & will encourage people to grow cannabis within the hemp fields. Now, if they knew anything about these two plants they would know this is completely ridiculous. 1st, they look nothing alike. A tall skinny plant vs a shorter fat plant. 2nd, & most important, the pollen from the hemp will prevent the cannabis plant from producing buds!!! No argument left! Fucking government!
just cause they found two dumb shits who would be willing to have half a dozen bins, doesn't mean that the entire thing is bs, i sure if you walked down my street and tried this "experiment" you'd fail miserably
Sólo en paises como en el suyo hay bosques creados especificamente para hacer papel, solo en su fucking country (ya q les gusta tanto la palabra-because you love that word)...en países como el mío si dejan montañas sin árboles, selvas sin árboles.....
Just because it's cheaper to dump my old motor oil into the local stream doesn't mean it's justified.
People have got to look beyond short term financial gain and more at long term human survival. Shitty water = shorter life ; shitty air = respiratory problems ; shitty soil = shitty/no food.
A mature tree can produce 48 pounds of oxygen per year and suck in approx 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. 20% of the breathable air is oxygen. 30% of our oxygen comes from trees. Growing a tree to produce oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide is a good thing, until it gets chopped down.
How about we just grow trees, leave them be and plant hemp? You can't get high from hemp and it produces paper 3x as strong and costs LESS. Cutting down trees for paper is like poisoning a lake to catch fish.
@TravisVadon I fail to see how growing trees for the purpose of making paper is like poisoning a lake to catch fish. From the moment a tree is planted till it is cut down its converting CD to oxygen, once a tree is cut down the oxygen it produced doesnt just dissapear, ever hear of ontological inertia? The "best" way to cut down on CD produced by people would be to cut the population, fewer people fewer resources consumed and fewer mouthbreathers wasting good air and polluting the environment
There are 4 R's. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Replace. Replace is by far the best. Replace an old technology with a new environmentally friendly one. Replacing is what we should focus on.
So paper=bad, aluminum=good, and plastic depends on whether the petroleum spent on new plastic outweighs the petroleum spent on the production, and also depends on a communities willingness to take an economic hit. Well, this is a multifaceted issue...
Man, Penn is very anti-government and seems to be quite the libertarian, except for his illogical and emotional anti-drug stance. I guess the government doesn't know best, except when it agrees with him.
@kiminokami In his personal videos he has uploaded onto Youtube he has spoke out against drug use. From his statements he was clearly not only against drug use but wanted to see it remain illegal. As he might put it he wants to government to restrict your ability to consume drugs by threat of force.
Agreed, it was designed to save time and money and of course energy, however, for example, recycling paper actually is more polluting to the environment with the chemicals they use to remove pen dye from paper. Also, as most of you probably notice, the "new" paper is cheap and you get those awesome eraser marks :D
If everything was about money, then whats to point of feeding the poor. Youre not getting any money back. Whats the point of the red cross, UNICEF etc. Then again, these guys are just idiot performers, so i dont expect them to think too much.
@rahmanroni Ok! So, let's say that what state does, robbing our money to give to other people that we don't wanna isn't IMORAL. Do you have heard about something about religion and their relation with charity? Or people who independently of government assault, contributes to foundations for poverty and other human problems (most of then created by governments)? UNICEF and red cross are just the state trying to heal what states creat with with they wars and violence. I don't need that at all...
@MikuXP oil is only considered non-renewable based on current consumption and the length of time that it takes to form. If you think of it that way then you can argue that any resource is non-renewable if your consumption greatly outweighs how quickly we can renew it. Control your consumption, come up with alternate sources of energy to take some stress off the oil requirements and you're fine.
But I didnt see what the govt was spending on war weapons compared to recycling in this clip? haha ignorance is bliss when you dont know the full picture, We have been so complacent with the system at this time for recycling, The real issue is the amount of crap that each person on this world consumes in a life time, recycling is only there to minimise the damage we are doing to the world. not to stop it,
@patuhenry - The problem is recycling actually creates more damage than it prevents. It consumes more energy, and resources than it creates, and it creates more expensive raw materials. The only real exception is aluminum, which is easier to recycle than it is to mine.
Comparing the budget for recycling with defense is a bad debate tactic. Are you really suggesting we increase recycling spending to 700 billion per year in the face of a 1.65 trillion dollar deficit? I really hope not.
@Slipknotyk06 Well I know that this war is doing more harm then good so why not? I didnt say we spend all the money on recycling, but I do think if you put more money into certain things you get more out of it, maybe education would be a good start in this area, I know they dont really teach you to become a recycling expert at school? so why not put money there, something that is actually worth fighting for.
Recycling expertise is such a subject to be quite trivial in comparison to Science, English and Math. Teaching this in K-12 is a waste of time and money. It's not worth fighting for. You're advocating heavy spending for your own pet cause. How do you think we got this debt? Everyone has their pet projects, and this fact has demolished the US economy. Hell, Federal subsidies keep solar panel prices artificially high, and are corporate welfare.
the only sensible thing I heard here was not to use soo much paper and they will not need to cut down so many trees, now just to find a computer company that will make a computer that can be upgraded and not need to be fixed within 50years, Dreaming I think? as all people care about today is profit:(
@patuhenry - The primary problem with computer technology is the rate of advancement. There is a limit to how much you can update and upgrade older computers. Trying to produce a computer with a shelf life of 50 years is a dream because it absolutely cannot be done. It's not about profit, it's quite literally an impossibility. If you've been alive 50 years, you realize that the processing power in a cheap cell phone 50 years ago used to take a massive computer at a university or military base.
Wow, they base their entire argument on the monetary gain of throwing shit into a landfill so that it pollutes groundwater,so sad. People are so concerned with how much money the criminal government makes from profit that they disregard their own health.
Cities make profit because of subsidies. Not because recycling is inherently profitable. And those saying it's not all about money, where do you think that money comes from? Money is just a paper symbol for work, energy, resources, etc. So wasting money on recycling is, in a very real way, a waste of resources. That money could be going toward curing cancer, a real problem.
The curbside recycling isn't good. But I think going to the bottle depot and doing your own sorting and then getting paid isn't a bad thing. Then again, there's the other energy that's spent.
Paper lead to the cutting of endangered forests. The government had to do something. The solution? Tree farms. This lead to the very nice result of being able to plant trees WHERE TREES NEVER GREW!
The need for paper and not recycling it IS EXACTLY what saved the enviroment.
Typical libertarian, they think that the only reason for doing anything is the profit potential...NEWSFLASH - Profit is not the ONLY reason for taking action, sometimes it is worth improving the world even if it costs $8 billion to do it. Sometimes it is worth making an investment in our environment, even if it doesn't turn a profit.
loveofphysics 2 days ago
It costs more sure. Thats not a problem. Its waste. Why throw away something that can be reused again simply because you dont want to pay more? We live on a small rock with limited recources. Recycling simply allows us to use what we have. Hopefully mankind has a long future infront of it and the longer we can stretch our recources the better. We could just burry the trash or burn it but thats just shortening what we can use in the future.
xXZeroClaymoreXx 3 days ago
I dont understand, do americans just put their recycables outside their house, (as household trash) and let garbage men(recycle men?) get it? I could see how that would be expensive.. Why not put up stations with giant containers and have a truck pick it up when its full, would be much cheaper then having it go to every house once a week, like its done in Europe or atleast Sweden anyway..
Ravenclth 2 weeks ago
@Ravenclth Forgot, then you wouldnt have to sort as much, which would cut cost. As in 1 container for colour glass, clear glass, metals, paper etc.
Ravenclth 2 weeks ago
@Ravenclth no your generalizing about america just like you did about europe. just like there we have mixed recycling methods - centers and house pickup...
tasteflavored 1 week ago
@tasteflavored A generalization is a statment, I asked a question. Yes we do have house pickups here in Sweden, but that only household trash, such as discarded food, household paper and such. Everyone I know atleast recycles at stations and no-one throws it in general trash for household pickup.
Ravenclth 1 week ago
@Ravenclth eh i didn't say it wasn't a statement.. not really sure what point your trying to make there. It's good you have patriotism, similar services being offered in America doesn't take away from that
tasteflavored 6 days ago
@tasteflavored You said I was generalizing, and a generalization is a statment, as in "all americans are fat" or "all swedes are blonde"
I asked a question about how it was done in America.
Ravenclth 6 days ago
@Ravenclth and then, uninformed, you went on to generalize about it, right. We just going to re-hash this whole thing?
tasteflavored 6 days ago
@tasteflavored Where were the generalizing part?
Ravenclth 6 days ago
@Ravenclth oh jeez.. okay you generalized your question based on a 30min program and then you went on to generalize that because things are offered in Sweden it is also offered across Europe. Not sure why your so hung up on this I simply attempting to answer your question and explain the misconception
tasteflavored 6 days ago
What's the ultimate environmental costs of not recycling? It's not all about money.
shoogie06 2 weeks ago
clowns whom stack decks and create illusions...
mogem 2 weeks ago
@mogem Fans of the Cato Institute too, so they're pretty much progaganda for them.
Waywardpaladin 2 weeks ago
@mogem sounds lie you talking about politicians.
Cogitatio023 2 weeks ago
I have so much rage right now.
atomicmrpelly 3 weeks ago
So batteries, computers, biowaste and old furnature should just be thrown into the same pile? Hopefully this is not the case or idea.
Because Reuse of furnature and dumpin biowaste into other places than the normal trash DOES help the enviroment. Even if the other parts of nuts of BS :)
Anuojat 1 month ago
Robotic Vagina
GoldsteinsBook 1 month ago 9
Instead of trying to figure out whether it's better to recycle or just throw stuff away, we should try to cut down on packaging so there's less crap to worry about in the first place.
shanghaisenator 1 month ago
Anyone else amazed by the paper hat? haha
jcbaseball99 1 month ago
I think they are running out of things to call bullshit, lol!
bradjbourgeois73 1 month ago
This man Penn talks rubbish. Why the fuck did I watch his BS for so long.
azzy314159 1 month ago
TREE FARMS? Total BULLSHIT
bammos21 1 month ago
@bammos21 too bad it's true
HeyHolypie 1 month ago
I love these videos because it makes me think, however I will never agree that recycling is completely bad, instead of pointing out the faults of recycling why not find ways to make recycling more efficient. However I think thats suppose to be our job, penn and tellers job is to make us wake up and start thinking of ways to make this more efficient.
gdogvibes1 1 month ago
recycling is an invention so consumers don't worry or for guilty for pointless consumerism - think bottle water. only morons would buy what they can take from a tap. its a disgrace to create plastic waste instead of opening a tap.
mPky1 1 month ago
Of course it is quicker and costs less to just throw trash away but you gotta understand that sometimes the easy way isn't the right way. Recycling is about saving the resources and reducing consumption. I love Penn and Teller but this time, i don't agree with them.
vilssonify 1 month ago
When talking about consuming resources the only effective measure is population control OR SCIENCE!
stevenjaeger69 1 month ago
So why not burn PET bottles into energy? That would save some energy. And I think the products should recycle themselves. It may not be economical right now, but as technology advances I think in the near future everything we recyle nowe will be biodegradable.
TheMalar 1 month ago
recycling only works for glass and aluminium.
the other materials are expensive to recycle, plus they loose quality, you can only recycle papper 7 times, and the last 3 of them are rally shity quality...
the only solution is to stop using plastic, or reducing its consumption...
maximilianitoaguirre 2 months ago
@turtleproof ...IN THE *REAL* WORLD!
Now, if you think about this in this context, then what he's saying ACTUALLY makes sense. As in, excepting situations like trying to jump start a green energy economy, or any other good thing that's just not not profitable yet. I'd say it's a *proper* use of the term "free market," as compared to Republican useage of the term, which is more improper. Kinda see what I'm getting at?
macgeek2004 2 months ago
@turtleproof
NOT exactly. Penn's a libertarian, *NOT* a Republican! And by "libertarian," I don't mean one of those Ron Paul style nuts, either. As in, Penn's not one of those Ron Paul style "libertarians" who live in their own perfect little fantasy worlds where their libertarian philosophies can actually WORK, Penn Gillette is one of those ACTUALLY "realistic" libertarians, you know what I mean? The kind who actually UNDERSTANDS the constitution and how it's supposed to work PRACTICALLY, IN
macgeek2004 2 months ago
@Cixdon
How can you actually *WATCH* the show and still _honestly_ say that??? Seriously, man, I mean, WOW! The ignorance you displayed! Just...DAMN. Do you even _KNOW_ who you're even talking about? I mean, the assertion that Penn Gillette "cares only about money" is LAUGHABLE...at *best*! lol
macgeek2004 2 months ago
so the money is the most important thing for these guys? this video is such bullshit, seriously.
Cixdon 3 months ago
At 5:08 I loled at the random guy sitting there and you can see from the look on his face he is thinking WTF.
avmf8 3 months ago
Maybe people aren't so good at deciding what is good for them...
chaosdeviant62 4 months ago
Facts are IT wint help this planet..its still going to die and YOU humans are still going to die off one by one like a bunch of ANTS! Recycling is stupid and NOT helping at all its a wastful BULLSHIT, fact is fact......earth still gonna go out with a BANG so are we so enough said..goodbye good luck with your lifes.
zeustruth 4 months ago
I think they make a good point about how recycling doesn't save money...but it still is saving raw resources by letting us reuse rather than produce from raw material new shit...am I wrong?
emixolydian 4 months ago
Of course!! Let's not recycle because it's too expensive for our society...
irishbboy 4 months ago
Woah woah woah hang on why should recycling cost less than landfill? It costs the same as landfill bar the massive cost to the earth. A fair tab to take up imo
macd4meire 5 months ago
@macd4meire What massive cost? Did you not watch the videos?
SCROGY 4 months ago
So is it better to just throw everything away? Better to create everything from scratch? In the long run thats not worse than recycling? Let everything pile up until there is not enough room?
PeterV89 5 months ago
All you fucking tree-hugging hippies and recyclers need to die.
murdock283 6 months ago
A study by the EPA in 1995 said that recycling paper
Reduces solid waste, energy cost, greenhouse gas emissions and other bad things. Penn and Teller's guest was using an outdated study. But they're right about it doing nothing to save trees.
FatherTime89 6 months ago
Is reading the newspaper online better for the environment than buying one?
It seems to me that the difference in waste on natural resources between buying a paper and using the electricity etc. on a computer to go on the internet wouldn't be that great?
vanessastansall 6 months ago
COMPOST your paper. And quit buying bottled water! I use an aqua sana filter that attaches right to the tap, and the water tastes great. It's actually easy to avoid a lot of packaging by using reusable shopping and produce bags, by and shopping in bulk (and way cheaper too). Oh, and learn how to actually COOK so that every meal you eat isn't coming out of a package/box/bag/can.
phew *dismounts off high horse*
Oh, and don't look to magicians for a balanced analysis of any issue. :)
RuinOrPeace 6 months ago
@RuinOrPeace yeah, and unlike you, i dont have no filter, i choose to have my iron, maganese, and other nutrients in my WELL WATER.
and these guys are a good analysis team, they brought on reliable guests, and made it fun to watch.
scoobydoorocks10 6 months ago
Grow hemp for pulp, not trees!
OAXM202 7 months ago
IM on my tenth bottle of bottled water! YUM
TheRealTaco87 7 months ago
@TheRealTaco87 I love you, man.
murdock283 6 months ago
"We have three times as many trees today as we did in 1920" --- a bullshit (but technically true) statistic often cited by the lumber companies. Akin to their "For every tree we cut down, we plant another in it's place" propaganda. You have to consider the fact that if they cut down a giant 500 year old redwood, they turn around and "replace" it with a 3-foot sapling and call it "Even Steven!"
rockethearse 7 months ago 11
@rockethearse All it takes is 100 years time. Plus with monetary value,more pro-forest people will bio-engineer trees that grow in 10 years probably.
quidnick 7 months ago
@rockethearse y r u and other tree hugging idiots watching this? self-torture?
inrwizards 5 months ago
@rockethearse fail bro, a trees a fucking tree. still produces oxygen, just like the old one. just give it a little time..
rdunbar003 3 months ago
@rdunbar003 Awesome logic. +1
rockethearse 3 months ago
@rockethearse That's why redwood is so expensive. Most lumber is pine. Trees are farmed, by tree farmers. Its the same thing as protesting corn farmers. "Save the corn!"
pcfriedrich 2 weeks ago
@pcfriedrich You make zero sense. No one is talking about tree farms. You will not find hundreds-of-years-old trees on a tree farm. I'm talking about forests. I'm sorry you believe there is no market for anything other than tree farm pine. And, if you don't believe that, what in the world is your point? Do you think lumber companies are referring to tree farms when they say, "For every tree we cut down, we plant one in it's place"?
rockethearse 2 weeks ago
@rockethearse I said that was the reason redwood was so expensive. of course that's what lumber companies are referring to, for the reason that environmentalist whackos protest tree far
pcfriedrich 2 weeks ago
@rockethearse farmers cutting down trees on their own private land.
pcfriedrich 2 weeks ago
@rockethearse how is that not even steven? thats like saying why do we harvest crops and only replace them with seeds...go do some research before you make uninformed opinionated posts. you obviously have no clue where resources actually come from and what we are doing to make resources like trees renewable. time to use some logic and reasoning my naive friend...time to wake up.
thecharliecollins 1 week ago
@thecharliecollins how much wood can you get from a 500 year old tree?
how much can you get from a 5 year old sapling?
planting crops is on a cycle that repeats yearly while a tree is on a century long cycle...
time to use some logic and reasoning
tsiglos 1 week ago
@rockethearse Paper has been made from genetically modified trees on tree farms for over 20 years now. The fibers of the trees were modified so that they grow faster, which also allows the fibers to bond easier during the process on converting pulp to paper. Trees for paper, only grow for a couple years before being cut down.
If your "500 year old" slogan is in reference to construction material, then find a sawmill equipped to take a tree of that size. You wont find one.
elfwall 1 week ago 4
@rockethearse psst trees grow, thats kinda their thing
tasteflavored 1 week ago
Comment removed
rockethearse 7 months ago
So far the argument has focused largely on the economic effects. Compared to landfill, recycling (if more expensive) is surely (if nothing else) more useful. What are the benefits to landfill other than expense, I wonder.
shimauma 7 months ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit 6
wow that (dumping recycle)should be a game in survivor
orleng97 7 months ago
the new york times is dog shit and these guys are pushing it like it's the new messiah. New Yorker infallibility should really go extinct.
baihbalm 7 months ago
The asshole actors that Penn & Teller hire should be oscar winners, seriously.
venticyanide 7 months ago
The guy at 3:23 is a moron. He needs to learn what a logical fallacy is. He is saying that recycling is good because we do it. THAT IS BULLSHIT. You should do something because it's good, not the other way around.
SCROGY 8 months ago
May I also add that there are certain sections of forest in the US SPECIFICALLY sectioned off to be harvest, cut down, and grown ONLY for making paper and lumber. This is a fact.
murdock283 8 months ago
they may be good magicians, but they can't explain how the world really works... too many logical flaws, tricks and deceptions...
aaarggh 8 months ago
all respect for those tortured people. recycling IS good...just not for your pocket.
Ryagful 8 months ago
Let's Look at paper recycling as one example. When private businesses recycle paper they make it into cardboard. They do this because it is the most efficient use of recycled paper. Cardboard doesn't have to be pretty and it doesn't have to have a nice smooth surface. It just has to be strong. The company saves money with cardboard, produces a needed product and lowers it's use of energy and produces less pollution. They also provide a cheaper product for consumers.
Moh5Itachi1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Moh5Itachi1 8 months ago
Comment removed
Moh5Itachi1 8 months ago
ok serioulsy, this is getting stupid. They arent making ONE SINGLE argument against recylicng. In fact, they are simply making arguments against money. Because yes, it may cost more to recycle then not to, so fucking what. THe point isnt ALWAYS to make money. If we simply burn everything we would run out of material. This is seriously a stupid episode, I cant believe they did this.
gulbirk 8 months ago
the point is that recycling ends up consuming MORE resources than not recycling. in the end there really is no point to it.
DarkCrono100 7 months ago
Its not only about energy, its about running out of material. If you just have everything in one dumb and simply burn it (which is the way they are kinda promoting here) you will run out of material.
gulbirk 8 months ago
The problem on the consumer end, I think, is that people forget that the three R's are listed in order of importance. You need to START by Reducing your consumption of wasteful packaging so less trash gets generated in the first place (e.g stop buying so much bottled water). NEXT, Reuse the packaging in any way that makes sense (e.g. refill water bottles multiple times). Then, and only then, should you even be thinking about Recycling. If you do it backwards, you might as well not do it at all.
cyanmanta 8 months ago 71
@cyanmanta Exactly, there's much less need to recycle if you don't use as much in the first place.
SCROGY 6 months ago
@cyanmanta Rs, not R's
inrwizards 5 months ago
@cyanmanta Thank you!!! Agreed.
SCROGY 5 months ago
@cyanmanta Rather than be an intellectual extremist and throw out good ideas because it's "bullshit," do both.
When Penn Gilette used the phrase "the free market" without irony he has forfeited his brain.
Turtleproof 3 months ago
@cyanmanta In Wales they started charging 5p fora plastic carrier bag fromthe shops (the money goes 2wards a charity of the shops choice). That 5p is quite a good incentive aspeople willtry and reuseold carrier bags/invest inmore permanent ones.
The 5p going 2 charity avoids the charge feeling like a 'tax' so the customer doesnt feel incriminated or taxed. Sensible people will realise its better off donating directly 2 charities than deliberately wanting bags from shops. Soit works out verywell.
scw55 2 months ago
The ONLY way to truly help the environment is to COMSUME LESS. Reduce your consumption. That's it. That's the answer.
Don't buy bottled water. Don't buy a TV/stereo/iPod. Don't read the paper. Don't buy a new car (especially don't be stupid enough to think that selling your old car and buying a Prius is a good idea.....fuck you Toyota).
SCROGY 8 months ago 40
@SCROGY thats so true it hurts.
spensulord 8 months ago
@SCROGY Because I disagree so much with your statement, I'll buy ever single paper in the area and NOT recycle it. Hell, I won't even read it. I'll just throw it away.
murdock283 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@murdock283 You can disagree all you want to. Doesn't change the facts.
SCROGY 8 months ago
@SCROGY I don't agree with not buying a TV/stereo/iPod. I don't agree with not buying a new car. Prius is a pussy car. The paper is online.
GequalsZ 6 months ago
@SCROGY What are you supposed to do in your life, stay inside and sit on your hands?
BlankADoodleDoo 6 months ago
@BlankADoodleDoo No, try getting out and doing something that doesn't involve your PS3, Wii or Xbox 360.
SCROGY 6 months ago
@SCROGY who do u think u are telling ppl what 2 buy and what 2 do? u're just as bad the government.
inrwizards 5 months ago
@inrwizards I never TOLD anyone to do anything dude. I said the only way to truly reduce pollution was to USE LESS. Recycling IS BS because as long as you are consuming more resources each year you are not saving squat, you are simply consuming MORE at a slower rate. And Blankadoodledoo made the ridiculous assumption that consuming less means not having a life. I simply stated that having Xboxes and LCD TV's and new cars just means you are consuming and that you should get outside more.
SCROGY 5 months ago
@SCROGY sure, let's just say fuck the economy, @ least we have a nice planet 2 die in. idiot.
inrwizards 5 months ago
@inrwizards Secondly, learn to debate in a civil fashion pal. If you want to resort to insults you WILL NOT WIN THAT BATTLE. Now, as far as the economy goes you can spend money on hobbies that don't require massive consumption of resources. And do not try to justify your materialism by pretending the economy will die if you don't buy the shit corporations are costantly trying to sell you. You don't need the latest fucking iPod/TV/games system. And I am certainly no environmentalist.......
SCROGY 5 months ago
@inrwizards .......in fact I hate them. But the facts are the facts. If we keep buying stupid shit we don't need because advertising has convinced us we can't live without them then recycling won't mean COCK SOUP. I am as guilty as many other people but I have decided that I am NOT going to own a cell phone or buy the latest fucking TV or iPod. FUCK Apple and Sony and Motorola. If they are going to die because I don't buy thier latest BS product, then let the fuckers die. FUCK 'em.
SCROGY 5 months ago
@SCROGY yeah and you'll kill the economy in the meantime you genius.
kwang1imsa 4 months ago
@kwang1imsa Yeah, because making the wealthy elite even wealthier is MUCH more important that having a safe planet 100 years from now right...............you genius.
SCROGY 4 months ago
@SCROGY or just go kill alot of people, whatever works for you
Bass20HZobsession 3 months ago
Did the dipshit at 3:20 just try to make the totally illogical argument that if something simply exists it must exist because it's good?
What a fucking moron. Ok let me try:
If child molestation is wrong, why do we have so many child molesters in our society?
Fucking IDIOT!
SCROGY 9 months ago
I like Penn and Teller but I get a feeling this episode is bullshit. I don't recall learning in school that the point of recycling was to save energy and give the government money. I recall the point is that by recycling we're significantly reducing the amount of resources we extract from the Earth, namely trees and oil. I'd say it's worth the extra bit of effort and tax money.
Also what was the point of that recycling-bin prank?
MrFreeGman 9 months ago
@MrFreeGman The problem is A) Trees are RENEWABLE with proper management. And oil is not about to run out next tomorrow despite what the tree huggers tell you. That is a bunch of hype. The other problem is that it is taking MORE energy to recycle than make new products. Do you not see the problem? MORE ENERGY. You aren't saving anything.
The point of the prank is to show how easily people are sucked into believing in something that is bullshit. The fact that you missed that PROVES it.
SCROGY 9 months ago
Comment removed
FastANDBulbous117 9 months ago
You know what's even cheaper than picking up garbage? Just throwing it in the street and letting it sit there. And it's cheaper to just shit all over ourselves than have sewage.
Sometimes money and cost aren't the only thing to consider. Recycled paper avoids clearing forests. Not sure if you know, but plastics are made out of OIL, so recycled plastics avoid the need for oil.
Why bury junk in the ground when it can be re-used? Why have land fills? Heck, just use the paper for power plants.
YTSparty 9 months ago 3
@YTSparty didn't u hear what they said about more trees being grown especially for paper? but i agree with ur comment on saving oil, i think u will find that organic,biodegradable plastic substitutes are now a reality. biomatter like food scraps is worth seperating and collecting because after 2 years its compost and doesnt have to contribute to the stink at ever growing landfills. aluminum pays for itself obviously but its also one of the most abundant elements on earth, just tough to mine.
exomorphe 9 months ago
@YTSparty It's not so much the money, but that's part of it, but also the energy used to transport, clean, ect. We use more fossil fuel energy doing that than we do making more.
goji2099 9 months ago
@YTSparty You're not getting it. Trees are a renewable resource for one. And all those trucks that are driving around, all those recycling stations that use energy to sort, all those machines that grind up the plastic/metal ARE USING ENERGY!!! Specifically oil and petrol. Recycling uses MORE oil/energy than creating a new bottle.
2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it.
Recycling >>>>energy than making new products.
SCROGY 9 months ago
@SCROGY Trucks come and pick up my garbage for a landfill. How is it different? How is it more energy to haul it to a recycle place than to haul it to a landfill? Sorting is done on a conveyor, a lot of garbage is actually incinerated, which do you think costs more in energy?
Google recycling and find the energy to create glass/plastics from scratch versus reusing. The majority of the info will show less energy for recycling. The problem is that the cost is already low.
YTSparty 8 months ago
@YTSparty Because it's what is done to the garbage afterwards that takes more energy. The plastic must then be sorted, ground up and then repackaged and shipped back to the customer that will turn it back into bottles. All of this requires MORE ENERGY than simply burying it and forgetting about it. And the problem with your links is exactly what P&T are talking about. You are being lied to by those people: the energy required to recycle IS greater. Those links are BS.
SCROGY 8 months ago
@SCROGY
What do you think about tin can recycling of tin cans ?
zoltan6561 7 months ago
@zoltan6561 I don't know. You'd have to weigh the costs of recycling vs creating new cans. If the resource is expensive enough (usually due to rarity or the energy required to make it into a useable form) then I would say that recycling is beneficial.
I am not against recycling. I am against people being conned into believing something is beneficial when it is not, and the only thing it does is make a bunch of tree huggers feel like they are doing something worthwhile.
SCROGY 7 months ago
@SCROGY
Wikipedia says that aluminium recycling uses only 5% of the energy used to produce aluminium from ore.
zoltan6561 7 months ago
@zoltan6561 Don't rely on Wikipedia as an information source. Although this may be correct, did P&T not say that Aluminum was one resource that was worth recycling? I'm pretty sure they did.
SCROGY 7 months ago
5:08
better than borat... lol
ragglefraggle09 10 months ago
@110437 Thanks for a civilized response, so many people on YouTube are overly hostile & just plain ignorant. About the absorbing of Co2, yes, trees do a great job of that when they are alive and fully mature. We give them Co2 and they give us oxygen. But, when a mature tree is cut down all it's absorbing of Co2 was in vain (unless it was near it's life's end, in that case cut away).... let me explain....
TravisVadon 10 months ago
.... It takes a tree 20-30 years to mature, once it matures it then will absorb Co2 for 10s, 100s or even 1000s of years as in the case of a Redwood. Cutting a tree down right when it matures is like ending your life at 18... once again, we're being naive to think the tree did it's job and now it's time to become paper. By adding into the mix that loads of Co2 are released from the tree once it dies... well, I don't see any argument left. About the poisoning the lake comment well....
TravisVadon 10 months ago
I had a lot of different analogies running through my head: commuting with a Hummer, etc. Maybe the one I used didn't explain what I really meant. Hemp paper is three times stronger and last longer than wood paper. It's also five times as cheap to make & produces far less pollutants in the actual paper making process. This is where I was going with my analogy. Trees for paper is just as idiotic as poisoning a lake to catch the fish. BUT, hemp is illegal so I guess I'm just wasting my breath.
TravisVadon 10 months ago
@TravisVadon
In my country hemp is not illegal if you get proper license from the government and you only grow hemp cultivars that are selected to produce more fiber and only small amount of THC 0,3% that is not usable for drug production.
zoltan6561 7 months ago
@zoltan6561 It's too bad the US gov. is completely brain dead. The DEA says cannabis & hemp look too similar & will encourage people to grow cannabis within the hemp fields. Now, if they knew anything about these two plants they would know this is completely ridiculous. 1st, they look nothing alike. A tall skinny plant vs a shorter fat plant. 2nd, & most important, the pollen from the hemp will prevent the cannabis plant from producing buds!!! No argument left! Fucking government!
TravisVadon 7 months ago
just cause they found two dumb shits who would be willing to have half a dozen bins, doesn't mean that the entire thing is bs, i sure if you walked down my street and tried this "experiment" you'd fail miserably
123456789impossible 10 months ago
@123456789impossible That's only because the people down your street are smart.
debluemonkey 9 months ago
Sólo en paises como en el suyo hay bosques creados especificamente para hacer papel, solo en su fucking country (ya q les gusta tanto la palabra-because you love that word)...en países como el mío si dejan montañas sin árboles, selvas sin árboles.....
PaholaGreen 10 months ago
Just because it's cheaper to dump my old motor oil into the local stream doesn't mean it's justified.
People have got to look beyond short term financial gain and more at long term human survival. Shitty water = shorter life ; shitty air = respiratory problems ; shitty soil = shitty/no food.
TravisVadon 10 months ago
A mature tree can produce 48 pounds of oxygen per year and suck in approx 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. 20% of the breathable air is oxygen. 30% of our oxygen comes from trees. Growing a tree to produce oxygen and get rid of carbon dioxide is a good thing, until it gets chopped down.
How about we just grow trees, leave them be and plant hemp? You can't get high from hemp and it produces paper 3x as strong and costs LESS. Cutting down trees for paper is like poisoning a lake to catch fish.
TravisVadon 10 months ago
@TravisVadon I fail to see how growing trees for the purpose of making paper is like poisoning a lake to catch fish. From the moment a tree is planted till it is cut down its converting CD to oxygen, once a tree is cut down the oxygen it produced doesnt just dissapear, ever hear of ontological inertia? The "best" way to cut down on CD produced by people would be to cut the population, fewer people fewer resources consumed and fewer mouthbreathers wasting good air and polluting the environment
110437 10 months ago
It's not about saving money you fat prick, it's about NOT putting crap into the ground.
MillaJoJo 10 months ago
Who cares if it's more expensive to recycle? That's the cost of keeping the shite you leave around, out of landfill. TOUGH!
MillaJoJo 10 months ago
There are 4 R's. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Replace. Replace is by far the best. Replace an old technology with a new environmentally friendly one. Replacing is what we should focus on.
PicklesRTasty 10 months ago
So paper=bad, aluminum=good, and plastic depends on whether the petroleum spent on new plastic outweighs the petroleum spent on the production, and also depends on a communities willingness to take an economic hit. Well, this is a multifaceted issue...
darkalleyheroes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Externalities?
I like how the experts who back up Penn are a think-tank for "free markets and limited governments."
xbadbmx 11 months ago
Comment removed
xbadbmx 11 months ago
Comment removed
xbadbmx 11 months ago
Man, Penn is very anti-government and seems to be quite the libertarian, except for his illogical and emotional anti-drug stance. I guess the government doesn't know best, except when it agrees with him.
mygaffer 11 months ago
@mygaffer Where is his anti-drug platform?
kiminokami 10 months ago
@kiminokami In his personal videos he has uploaded onto Youtube he has spoke out against drug use. From his statements he was clearly not only against drug use but wanted to see it remain illegal. As he might put it he wants to government to restrict your ability to consume drugs by threat of force.
mygaffer 10 months ago
@mygaffer Interesting. Thanks.
kiminokami 10 months ago
@lupischuckle, there isn't a single video on this site where random people haven't just started conversations with each other. That's the damn point.
loudestsndInvrhrd21 11 months ago
Agreed, it was designed to save time and money and of course energy, however, for example, recycling paper actually is more polluting to the environment with the chemicals they use to remove pen dye from paper. Also, as most of you probably notice, the "new" paper is cheap and you get those awesome eraser marks :D
loudestsndInvrhrd21 11 months ago
If everything was about money, then whats to point of feeding the poor. Youre not getting any money back. Whats the point of the red cross, UNICEF etc. Then again, these guys are just idiot performers, so i dont expect them to think too much.
rahmanroni 11 months ago
@rahmanroni Ok! So, let's say that what state does, robbing our money to give to other people that we don't wanna isn't IMORAL. Do you have heard about something about religion and their relation with charity? Or people who independently of government assault, contributes to foundations for poverty and other human problems (most of then created by governments)? UNICEF and red cross are just the state trying to heal what states creat with with they wars and violence. I don't need that at all...
AngeloNoel 10 months ago
Oil.
Currently a non-renewable recourse.
MikuXP 1 year ago
@MikuXP oil is only considered non-renewable based on current consumption and the length of time that it takes to form. If you think of it that way then you can argue that any resource is non-renewable if your consumption greatly outweighs how quickly we can renew it. Control your consumption, come up with alternate sources of energy to take some stress off the oil requirements and you're fine.
mmddkk 1 year ago
@DanteMcSparda dont get your comment????
patuhenry 1 year ago
Burn a tree, save a book! Wait...
Maddin1313 1 year ago
So I think I need to go to the next clip as my time is running out and I have to go back and study:(
patuhenry 1 year ago
But I didnt see what the govt was spending on war weapons compared to recycling in this clip? haha ignorance is bliss when you dont know the full picture, We have been so complacent with the system at this time for recycling, The real issue is the amount of crap that each person on this world consumes in a life time, recycling is only there to minimise the damage we are doing to the world. not to stop it,
patuhenry 1 year ago
@patuhenry - The problem is recycling actually creates more damage than it prevents. It consumes more energy, and resources than it creates, and it creates more expensive raw materials. The only real exception is aluminum, which is easier to recycle than it is to mine.
Comparing the budget for recycling with defense is a bad debate tactic. Are you really suggesting we increase recycling spending to 700 billion per year in the face of a 1.65 trillion dollar deficit? I really hope not.
Slipknotyk06 11 months ago
@Slipknotyk06 Well I know that this war is doing more harm then good so why not? I didnt say we spend all the money on recycling, but I do think if you put more money into certain things you get more out of it, maybe education would be a good start in this area, I know they dont really teach you to become a recycling expert at school? so why not put money there, something that is actually worth fighting for.
patuhenry 11 months ago
@patuhenry - So 8 billion a year isn't enough?
Recycling expertise is such a subject to be quite trivial in comparison to Science, English and Math. Teaching this in K-12 is a waste of time and money. It's not worth fighting for. You're advocating heavy spending for your own pet cause. How do you think we got this debt? Everyone has their pet projects, and this fact has demolished the US economy. Hell, Federal subsidies keep solar panel prices artificially high, and are corporate welfare.
Slipknotyk06 11 months ago
the only sensible thing I heard here was not to use soo much paper and they will not need to cut down so many trees, now just to find a computer company that will make a computer that can be upgraded and not need to be fixed within 50years, Dreaming I think? as all people care about today is profit:(
patuhenry 1 year ago
@patuhenry - The primary problem with computer technology is the rate of advancement. There is a limit to how much you can update and upgrade older computers. Trying to produce a computer with a shelf life of 50 years is a dream because it absolutely cannot be done. It's not about profit, it's quite literally an impossibility. If you've been alive 50 years, you realize that the processing power in a cheap cell phone 50 years ago used to take a massive computer at a university or military base.
Slipknotyk06 11 months ago
Wow, they base their entire argument on the monetary gain of throwing shit into a landfill so that it pollutes groundwater,so sad. People are so concerned with how much money the criminal government makes from profit that they disregard their own health.
fakeham 1 year ago
Cities make profit because of subsidies. Not because recycling is inherently profitable. And those saying it's not all about money, where do you think that money comes from? Money is just a paper symbol for work, energy, resources, etc. So wasting money on recycling is, in a very real way, a waste of resources. That money could be going toward curing cancer, a real problem.
icntsywhtiwnt2 1 year ago
I recycle cus.. where the fuck am I supposed to put all the bottles? :S
im4everskilled 1 year ago
...Just because it's wasting money?
Eventually we ARE going to run out of space and resources.
GreenGearMood 1 year ago
@GreenGearMood -- If we keep wasting resources on inefficient things like paper recycling, then yes, we will run out of space and resources.
Gondring 1 year ago
libertarian cunts
fabienporay 1 year ago
@fabienporay statist dick
bigheb774 1 year ago
how did he make that hat?!
darthrubberchicken 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't believe this shit hahaha!
talayuma 1 year ago
Haha, I love the guy standing around at 5:06 with a look on his face like "WTF are you tardballs doing??"
DroverChicago 1 year ago
I love penn & teller thanks for posting the vids...
sterlingisithesht 1 year ago
The curbside recycling isn't good. But I think going to the bottle depot and doing your own sorting and then getting paid isn't a bad thing. Then again, there's the other energy that's spent.
AngryRantingNerd 1 year ago
More trees are around now than 1920? use more paper if you want to save more trees?
Wow, I sure learned something.
StratoCesar 1 year ago
@StratoCesar It's really not that hard.
Paper lead to the cutting of endangered forests. The government had to do something. The solution? Tree farms. This lead to the very nice result of being able to plant trees WHERE TREES NEVER GREW!
The need for paper and not recycling it IS EXACTLY what saved the enviroment.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
Eventually our planet will be depleted of its materials you ignorant sloths....then what???
Arizonatoymachine 1 year ago
@Arizonatoymachine -- Where will it all go? Into landfills, which can then be mined.
Gondring 1 year ago