Segway into Laziness

Are we getting more and more lazy?

Among us there are technological enthusiasts and technological detesters.  Yesterday, sometime around 4:20 pm I saw something that turned me from a technological enthusiast into a detester. That something is known as "THE SEGWAY".  Just like the able-bodied youngsters in the photo above, I saw a man with fully function-able legs cruising around on his new wheels.  An argument known as "the de-skilling of humanity " is commonly used by detesters of technology.  The de-skilling of humanity involves a technological takeover of our skills.  No longer do we have to know math if we know how to push buttons on a calculator.  No longer do we have to use our hands for product assembly if we know how to operate a machine.  No longer do we have to talk to a real person over the phone if an automated voice can tell us everything we need to know.  And apparently we no longer have to walk... even short distances.  

I am not actually a technological detester but seeing things such as "The Segway" reminds me that those detesters among us have legitimate concerns.  When technology turns from making life a little easier to making laziness a perfectly acceptable alternative, we have a problem.  When technology zaps the creativity that only humans can accomplish, we have a problem.  When the automated customer service rep cannot help you because your problem wasn't included in the, "push 1 for more options" list... we have a problem.  

Let's draw the line somewhere... new things are going to keep hitting the market.  It is up to the individual to draw their own line as to how far they are going to let technology consume their life.  Walking or riding my bike short distances is just one realm I am not willing to technologize with the newest Segway.    

Recycling

There are many arguments for and against recycling.  Those critics among us might say that recycling is a business that thrives on scare tactics (overhyping the severity of environmental damage that we are causing).  You might hear them say that any benefits we gain from recycling are cancelled out because of the energy required for the recycling process.  You might hear them say that recycling glass bottles is a lost cause due to the water necessary for maintaining their cleanliness.  You might hear them say that glass isn't going anywhere... that there is enough sand to provide the sufficient raw materials needed to meet the needs of glass production for ages.  

As someone who cares for the environment, and tries to lead a "green" lifestyle, I'd like to know that my recycling efforts are not in vain.  "Their" arguments range from ridiculous to correct.  I do not think we are in danger of depleting our raw materials (sand) necessary for glass production.  In fact it doesn't even sound too far fetched that the reusing of glass bottles results in increased water consumption (to maintain cleanliness).  There does seem to be logic behind this argument.  On the ridiculous side of their arguments is the obvious, "Recycling relies on scare tactics that overhype the severity of environmental problems".   Take a trip to Hong Kong or Los Angeles and look out of your hotel window to debunk that myth.  (Yes recycling can reduce carbon emissions... it takes a hell of a lot of gas to eradicate a forest, and just as much gas to transport all that lumber) 

While there may in fact be some legitimate arguments or critiques regarding recycling, there are many more benefits to recycling.  We are all familiar with the positive environmental impacts of recycling however, a less obvious one is the economic benefit of recycling.  In nearly all cases, it costs less to recycle than it does to throw away...A business can create revenue by recycling and greatly reduce waste expenses.  This is because companies are willing to buy recyclables.  If you are a big business, it costs a ton of money to throw your shit away.  

It is always important to look at "their" beliefs.  Sometimes "they" may even have some good points that cannot simply be discredited because they are "them".  Recycling may in fact have some less obvious negative consequences.  We should all continue to recycle, because nobody can argue that it does not save raw material such as trees which will become more and more scarce.  Nobody can argue that deforestation does not kill animal species.  Recycling does not solve this problem however it does slow it down; paper can only be recycled so many times before it is no longer re-usable.  This is all to say that recycling is not perfect and recycling is not a cure-all. 

What should we do?  I think the answer is: Use less... we don't need to be such over consumers.  A combination of using less and recycling is far more effective than only recycling.