Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisCat 
Yeah, but if these people lobbied for change and lots of places started donating stuff to people who actually needed it rather then tossing it in the dumpster, then their steady supply of free stuff would dry up. How would they then display how radically alternative and morally superior they are by not buying into the system? Their supposed goals are at odds with each other.
|
Oh, once you stick an "ism" at the end, of course it becomes more of a self-advertisement thing than a true philosophy of life, but c'est la vie.
And actually, at the place I linked to, cart'm, you COULD get a lot of stuff for free, especially tires and bubble paper and stuff that was of such low value it cost more to sell than they got from it.
Other stuff was sold at a percentage of the retail cost, and that funded actual jobs.
And all of this was going on in a community that actually produced a lot of food for sale, as well as other services such as tourism.
So I do not think that a zero-waste or nearly zero-waste economy is at odds with sustainability. Some people will live more frugally and others will end up donating more than they sell and buying more than they need, but it doesn't mean that there must be excess.
We don't toss anything except very little food waste and wrappers of dairy. If we could live on free land (legally, paying for utilities), we would (of course, that's not happening because of the high value of land, which we recognize).
I do NOT think that means that we somehow need the economy to be wasteful. Far from it: the less waste, the cheaper things will become. It will never be perfect, but it could be a lot better and we don't need trash to make stuff cheaper.