-- Posted by hotamalee at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Hmmm, just curious   -- Posted by eklipse at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Recycle and Reuse things. (: As well as combining most of those. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem. i.e. humanity. -- Posted by Poker Shark at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Living in a tree will definitely earn you some hippie cred :) -- Posted by Kaijuu at 9:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Bike -- Posted by sieeeeerra at 9:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Don't go outside. -- Posted by DaisyMontana at 9:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem. i.e. humanity. no because your family will hate you -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 9:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem. i.e. humanity. How cynical and stupid. -- Posted by Aria of Silence at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Any of those things really... -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem.    i.e. humanity. How cynical and stupid. Best way to save the environment is not removing the problematic factor altogether? Sure it's  not the most considerate to us, but for the environment, it's the best. -- Posted by the raven at 9:37 pm on July 3, 2009 reduce, reuse, recycle of course using alternative energy sources for large-scale projects, and new housing developments, would be a good idea too. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 9:37 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem.   i.e. humanity.    How cynical and stupid. Best way to save the environment is not removing the problematic factor altogether? Sure it's not the most considerate to us, but for the environment, it's the best. Humans, like every living thing, are not sources but reactants. In other words, humans respond to the environment, they do not cause problems within it, if they do it is out of response of another problem already in the environment. -- Posted by BREAKBOY at 9:37 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem.   i.e. humanity.    How cynical and stupid. Best way to save the environment is not removing the problematic factor altogether? Sure it's not the most considerate to us, but for the environment, it's the best. YOU ARE SO SMART. -- Posted by Millerr at 9:38 pm on July 3, 2009 live in a tree or wwf -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:38 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:37 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem.       i.e. humanity.   How cynical and stupid.    Best way to save the environment is not removing the problematic factor altogether?    Sure it's  not the most considerate to us, but for the environment, it's the best. Humans, like every living thing, are not sources but reactants. In other words, humans respond to the environment, they do not cause problems within it, if they do it is out of response of another problem already in the environment. Then the environment doesn't need saving to begin with does it? -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 9:40 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:38 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:37 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:36 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from Aimforthehead at 11:35 pm on July 3, 2009 Quote: from The Last Magister at 9:34 pm on July 3, 2009 Eliminating the problem.    i.e. humanity.       How cynical and stupid.   Best way to save the environment is not removing the problematic factor altogether?   Sure it's not the most considerate to us, but for the environment, it's the best.    Humans, like every living thing, are not sources but reactants. In other words, humans respond to the environment, they do not cause problems within it, if they do it is out of response of another problem already in the environment. Then the environment doesn't need saving to begin with does it? We're speaking about two different environments. I should have clarified. Humans respond to their environments, as in their experiences and perception of them. The planet is a more literal definition of the environment this topic is about. -- Posted by OodleNoodle at 9:41 pm on July 3, 2009 The first five, plus planting trees. But I have planted trees - my family planted 500 pine trees on our acreage. Plus, I use reusable grocery bags, recycle/compost/reuse everything I can (my town has an extremely effective recycling program) and all of our lightbulbs have been changed to the light-saving ones. Not to mention that we have water and energy-saving appliances, my family all walk to their job, when weather permits, plus we don't use air-conditioning or a dryer in the summer. And we grow almost all of our own vegetables. I guess we're a green family, but it's not a hard way to live, really. -- Posted by Amin mele lle at 9:55 am on July 5, 2009 They're all very good, however, recycling isn't a good thing.  The whole process uses up more energy just trying to reuse things.  However, don't stop recycling, because  you're wasting the system. -- Posted by Aimforthehead at 10:14 am on July 5, 2009 Quote: from Amin mele lle at 9:55 am on July 5, 2009 They're all very good, however, recycling isn't a good thing. The whole process uses up more energy just trying to reuse things. However, don't stop recycling, because you're wasting the system. Recycling for the most part is automated..