Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Mr. Air on October 23, 2009, 03:05:09 PM
-
Here's one for your conscience.
It seems like we all suffer from GAS, except Dave who recently has been cured by buying every blue guitar in the Manchester area :P
But do you ever wonder how our hunger for new guitars, amps, cabs, straps, effects, strings, etc. fit in the global picture? Our lust for new equipment, which we essentially do not need, keeps the production rolling and takes it's toll on Mother Nature.
We spend huge amounts on gear and some of it we hardly ever use or we part with it very quickly. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the world and donate these money insteed of piling up for ourselves?
I'm looking forward to hear from you all.
-
**DO NOT LET PARTNERS SEE THIS THREAD** It will be ammo for them.
On another note, I agree that we should be more concerned with deforestation etc, although i think that there is more that can be done by large scale producers of guitars (Fender, Gibson etc) to ensure the sustainability of the woods that they are using. Build a 2 guitars and plant a tree? If toilet tissue makers can do it, so can they!
Now, back to looking at prices of Koa (if only i lived in Hawaii)
-
Ease your consience by buying quality and buying it once, everything has a real cost and you have to trust manufacturers to have some ethics, buying wood from sustainable sources and treating their workers good and paying them a fair amount.
I've only got 2 electric guitars but I've got 2 kids so I'm sure my envoronmental impact will be far greater than Dave and his blue guitars!
You also have to think about what we would be buying if it wasn't guitars...
-
Ease your consience by buying quality and buying it once,
Yes - my way of thinking
If you buy the cheap version - you'll only be spending out again later to get the one you really wanted.
May also be why I am broke
-
**DO NOT LET PARTNERS SEE THIS THREAD** It will be ammo for them.
Totally :lol:
-
Ease your consience by buying quality and buying it once, everything has a real cost and you have to trust manufacturers to have some ethics, buying wood from sustainable sources and treating their workers good and paying them a fair amount.
You also have to think about what we would be buying if it wasn't guitars...
yup, pretty much.
-
Shocking amount of reference to me in this thread :lol:
I'm going to come across as controversial here, but this is my take on the whole 'green' thing.
I have no interest in saving the world either now or for the future. I'm here and hopefully will be for another 50-60 years, and in that time I'll enjoy everything how I want. Guitars, electricity, cars, petrol etc.
I don't have kids, I don't want kids, and I'm not having kids. I have no interest in making a nicer future for my bloodline, as there won't be one. I'm not interested in the future of the earth and I'm just enjoying living right here, right now.
Incredibly selfish I know, but you get one shot at life and I'll be doing whatever I want with it.
-
I will inherit a wood.
I figure that makes me carbon neutral in the long term? :?
-
You wanna know what impact the production of musical instruments has on mother nature?
Negligible.
You wanna make your gear carbon neutral? Hold your breath for 20 seconds for every 100 quid of gear you own.
This has to be the stupidest thread I ever read here.
-
You wanna make your gear carbon neutral? Hold your breath for 20 seconds for every 100 quid of gear you own.
Or buy green guitars ;)
Everyone should remember that the world does change, I read that the temperature in the 1400s was 3C higher, and ice ages do happen...
What's meant to be, will be; if we die out then so be it
-
Shocking amount of reference to me in this thread :lol:
I'm even more shocked that I didn't reference you... :lol:
You wanna make your gear carbon neutral? Hold your breath for 20 seconds for every 100 quid of gear you own.
i know that's a joke, but I don't think that'd work. All that'd happen is that when you do exhale, your breath would have a higher concentration of carbon dioxide. I think.
-
This has to be the stupidest thread I ever read here.
Nope
That's the What's for dinner thread, but that's my fav
-
I've got a green guitar, surf green to be precise - and very nice it is too - I just bought a callaham trem block - but I intend on keeping the old hardware so that the value is retained if people want Fender's junk metal block in the future. Cuts down on landfill too. 8)
Seriously, in terms of greeness the tipping point has already come - not that should stop us doing more, we should do everything that it practicable - but for all the beer bottles, broken light bulbs and batteries we recycle the fact that the Westerners have shifted their (our) industrial production to China and India means that it means nothing. The everyday destruction in the rainforest caused by western needs causes more damage than a person buying a NOS Mullard tube and the fact that the rainforest countries were economically $%&#ed by 19th century Imperialist and post-Imperialist powers through the world bank in the 20th century means that they aint going put up much of a fight. All in all, buying a new Mesa Boogie isn't going to stop the structural problems caused by 200 years of European and American dominance of the world.
-
A little tip for the Prius drivers:
Take out the batteries and electric motor/drivetrain.
It will decrease the weight of the car significantly. The engine will not have to work as hard hauling that extra weight and charging those batteries.
Your Prius will have better performance and fuel economy.
-
Shocking amount of reference to me in this thread :lol:
I'm going to come across as controversial here, but this is my take on the whole 'green' thing.
I have no interest in saving the world either now or for the future. I'm here and hopefully will be for another 50-60 years, and in that time I'll enjoy everything how I want. Guitars, electricity, cars, petrol etc.
I don't have kids, I don't want kids, and I'm not having kids. I have no interest in making a nicer future for my bloodline, as there won't be one. I'm not interested in the future of the earth and I'm just enjoying living right here, right now.
Incredibly selfish I know, but you get one shot at life and I'll be doing whatever I want with it.
You know what....
I TOTALLY agree with you... Well said mate!
-
Shocking amount of reference to me in this thread :lol:
I'm going to come across as controversial here, but this is my take on the whole 'green' thing.
I have no interest in saving the world either now or for the future. I'm here and hopefully will be for another 50-60 years, and in that time I'll enjoy everything how I want. Guitars, electricity, cars, petrol etc.
I don't have kids, I don't want kids, and I'm not having kids. I have no interest in making a nicer future for my bloodline, as there won't be one. I'm not interested in the future of the earth and I'm just enjoying living right here, right now.
Incredibly selfish I know, but you get one shot at life and I'll be doing whatever I want with it.
You know what....
I TOTALLY agree with you... Well said mate!
Don't agree AT ALL.... but what the hell, I'm in no mood for arguing. :wink:
-
i'm kinda half and half. i don't want to muck up the world or anything, but to really fix the environment we'd need to be doing a lot more than we're doing now, and these half-hearted environmental plans only really serve to make you feel like you're helping, by and large, while screwing over your life in the meantime. they're still polluting, just polluting a bit less... add to the fact that a lot of the supposed more environmental things don't work as well so you end up buying the original, non-green option later anyway and they're probably polluting more. :lol:
EDIT: i also completely disagree with things like green taxes etc. as they disproportionately hit the poor. if it's that bad, maybe it should be rationed. and i disagree with the kind of thinking that seems to suggest that if it's necessary (e.g. part of your job), that it's ok- e.g. businesspeople flying three times a week is ok, but you're evil if you want to fly for your annual holiday. Last time I checked the earth didn't differentiate between career-related and non-career related pollution...
EDIT: sorry for the rant. :lol:
-
Yeah - but those who donate to political parties do - so that's more important.
-
i also completely disagree with things like green taxes etc. as they disproportionately hit the poor. if it's that bad, maybe it should be rationed. and i disagree with the kind of thinking that seems to suggest that if it's necessary (e.g. part of your job), that it's ok- e.g. businesspeople flying three times a week is ok, but you're evil if you want to fly for your annual holiday. Last time I checked the earth didn't differentiate between career-related and non-career related pollution...
Yes. I believe we should all do what we reasonably can to be environmentally friendly.... but I also believe that "green" taxes are primarily just another form of stealth tax which, as you say, hit the poor disproportionately. All because, as usual, the government are afraid of taxing those who can most afford to pay - in this case (especially) large companies who do the most environmental damage.
It was bizarre how the term "carbon footprint" suddenly appeared in government-speak a couple of years ago, and before we even knew what it meant we were being beaten over the head and made to feel guilty about it, as if we were all personally responsible for destroying the rainforests and the ozone layer.
-
^ yeah, it's definitely amazing how everyone suddenly just changes (i'd use the terms zeitgeist and paradigm shift but i'm not a pretentious tw@t :lol: ) and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon. It's also really annoying how we don't seem to be allowed to keep two things in our heads at the same time- for a while it was fair trade and helping the poor, now it's saving the planet regardless of the poor, and actually bringing in policies which screw over the poor. Grrr. there's some kind of hierarchy... :lol:
Yeah - but those who donate to political parties do - so that's more important.
hehe
-
I'm generally confused by the whole thing (as with much of life, unfortunately...)
To me, environmental problems are:
refuse/packaging etc
car/lorry fumes in built up areas
congestion on roads
use and depletion of fossil fuels (and the need for a decent alternative)
disproportional distribution of wealth and healthcare globally
over population
The bigger things, like global warming, I'm not so sure about. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that human behaviour is responsible for that. It still seems more likely that warming and cooling is just a natural part of our planets lifecycle and humankind (being what it is) wants to diagnose this and categorise it.
"Carbon footprint" makes no sense to me.
Mark.
-
I have to admit, well, I don't, but I'm going to anyway :lol: ... I'm in the same camp as Twinfan and Afghan Dave.
"We" (the human race) are not going to do anything that substantially reduces the "environmental problem" unless"we" recognise what that problem really is... and take, er, "suitable" remedial action. But "we" can't do that in any "logical" or "fair" way because it would not make any sense, to a human, for a species to do it to itself deliberately.
However, circumstances will eventually sort it all out, and what remains, if anything, will start again. I'm hoping I won't be around to be one of the ones that has to start again - that'll be tough - but if I am there, I'm sure I'll rise to the occasion, most of us would.
A successful species in a fixed location will use up all of its resources. If does not adapt or relocate, it will die out. That's it - bottom line. tw@tting about over carbon footprints/whatever is not going to change this.
The big picture is that we all die, sooner, or later... :D
-
I don't buy gear according to any real or supposed environmental impact-maybe I should but I don't really see we musicians as having much affect one way or the other. Besides, life can be drudgery and what the hell is wrong with lightening things up with a spot of guitar playing.
-
It's all about money.
So called environmentalists and climatologists that scream 'bloody murder' get more funding and keep their jobs.
Businesses say: "Buy new stuff because our new stuff is better for the environment."
Govts. use it as an excuse to get more tax money.
Remember the ozon layer? Turned out it was a natural phenomenon, influenced by the sun.
Remember acid rain? That was gone even before they found a sollution.
Remeber when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet.
Follow the money. Find out who finances certain reports. Find out who benefits.
It's so easy to manipulate research and steer it towards the outcome you want it to have.
-
Remember when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet.
I was born somewhere in the sixties, and I'm not 50 yet, so they could still be right.... :P
-
even if you think the green thing is a load of rubbish, it has increased investments in efficiency, ok so infrared solar panels, magnetic wind turbines are still in prototype stages but it's progress and by about 2025 all our energy saving light bulbs will get replaced with LED ones, and OAPs will still moan about them!
Dave I think you should have kids, they'll pay my state pension!
-
^ i never said environmentalism was a load of rubbish, i said a lot of the methods they're using are.
(a) Remember the ozon layer? Turned out it was a natural phenomenon, influenced by the sun.
(b) Remember acid rain? That was gone even before they found a sollution.
(c) Remeber when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet.
Follow the money. Find out who finances certain reports. Find out who benefits.
It's so easy to manipulate research and steer it towards the outcome you want it to have.
(a) wrong. uv light might be what catalyses it, but it's still CFCs and other free radical emitting compounds which are doing the damage- most of which are from human activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
(b) yeah, i think that's still a problem. :roll: or more accurately, what we did to fight it worked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States
(c) that's because we're finding more and more oil in more difficult to access places all the time, and coming up with better extraction techniques. and explain to me again how the oil companies, who stand to lose and gain the most of anyone, would benefit if oil ran out?
I'm sceptical of the green movement's methods too, but making stuff up is far, far worse.
-
Referring to (c):
Surely the publicity of the 'limited supply' then that means the oil companies have better reason to extort (as if the tax on the stuff wasn't enough)
-
Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.
The human influence is minimal.
-
Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.
The human influence is minimal.
So what's the best source of information?
-
Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.
The human influence is minimal.
So what's the best source of information?
Wikipedia is usually pretty good for scientific articles. As long as it has cited reliable sources I have no reason to turn my nose up at Wikipedia.
Plus it's awesome to hear the phrase free radicals in a guitar forum. Woo for chemistry!
-
^ agreed. :)
Referring to (c):
Surely the publicity of the 'limited supply' then that means the oil companies have better reason to extort (as if the tax on the stuff wasn't enough)
not really, they already charge a pretty big price. Apart from anything opec etc. manipulates the price as it is, if there isn't a shortage they manufacture one to increase the prices.
Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.
The human influence is minimal.
wikipedia is fine for scientific articles. I knew what i was saying is right, i just used it to back up what i already know.
i'm pretty sure the human influence is not minimal, certainly in the ozone layer hole.
-
The problem with wikipedia is that many people have acces and can change the content. In some cases that's a good thing. In other cases it means it conforms to the general consensus.
-
i know exactly what the problem is. I know a little bit about chemistry (not as much as i should, but enough to know if someone knows what he/she is talking about), and any page about chemistry i've ever checked on wiki knew more than I did. I wouldn't be surprised if university lecturers are writing them, frankly, or at least university-educated people. That goes for pretty much most of the science I've seen on wiki.
Certain things are very unreliable on wiki- the kind of things that the average layman might edit for a laugh. I can see why editing e.g. mel gibson's page would be funny. I can't see too many people editing, say, the fluid dynamics page for a laugh.
-
someone needs to write a wiki page on BKP, can never have enough web 2.0 marketing, tim has a page on there
-
Remember An Inconvenient Truth?
It turned out that there was nothing truthfull in it. Everything was manipulated and exadurated. They should have called it A Convenient Lie.
If the message requires lies and manipulation there must be something wrong with the message.
Why is a lightbulb wrong and an electric car good?
-
OP:
You've got it all backwards.
Mature trees actually leak more carbon into the atmosphere than they remove.
Young, growing trees are excellent at removing carbon and turning it into wood.
Trees are carbon storage devices. Trees are a crop meant to be harvested.
No one says "Save The Corn!!" now do they?
The alleged carbon imbalance can be cured in short order if we harvest all the mature trees on the planet and replant as we go.
The answer is to use more forest products, paper packaging, books, etc, and less electricity.
Turn your computer off and read a book, it's better for the environment if you are so convicted.
The statement that companies make "We're GREEN because we send out all our statements electronically" is a massive lie.
All they are doing is transferring the cost of doing business to the consumer.
What is worse for the environment? An efficient printing press producing 100,000 statements or 100,000 customers firing up their PC's and ink jet printers and printing one sheet....
Interesting reading: http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm?msid=30&page=1
I believe that most of the current environmental movement trend is about governments taxing and enslaving the populance, and not about actually doing anything positive for the planet.
Go ahead and buy as many guitars as you can. Every tree harvested makes room for a carbon sucking sapling. You're doing more harm the planet by NOT buying guitars.
-
If the message requires lies and manipulation there must be something wrong with the message.
I think that gets to the heart of the problem. In this modern world of political spin, mass media manipulation, self-interest lobby groups, the (near) disappearance of investigative journalists and legal firms who misuse the law to restrict free-speech, how is the average citizen intended to deduct 'the truth'?
When I was a kid in the '70s, we were told the Earth was cooling and this could result in a new ice age. I can remember our school headmaster (an educated and wise man) giving a lecture about it :?
-
Remember An Inconvenient Truth?
It turned out that there was nothing truthfull in it. Everything was manipulated and exadurated. They should have called it A Convenient Lie.
If the message requires lies and manipulation there must be something wrong with the message.
Why is a lightbulb wrong and an electric car good?
everything has lies and manipulation. that channel 4 programme against global warming turned out to be completely made up, too.
that's why we need to get rid of politicians, lol.