LILO Liveaboards' Gathering

[Grace and Favour]

>>Snippity

 

 

 

So then conversely, the logic of your argument would be that we should all have as many children as possible in order to increase the chances of that scientist being born?

 

There's no need to go that far - - - China and Africa will shortly provide an over-abundance of those scientists

[WJM]

just firing off platitudinous statements you might find different.

 

And your figures for relative insulation. They come from?

 

 

My findings are based on common sense and first hand experience - a heady old concept from days gone by! A draughty steel box lightly skinned with foam is a highly inefficient way to store warm air. And making electricity with an alternator attached to a non-moving road engine, and then storing it in lead acid batteries is also highly inefficient.

 

Sometimes you don't need research - the truth is right there in front of you!

 

I love living in a boat - I just wouldn't call it 'green'!

[cotswoldsman]

My findings are based on common sense and first hand experience - a heady old concept from days gone by! A draughty steel box lightly skinned with foam is a highly inefficient way to store warm air. And making electricity with an alternator attached to a non-moving road engine, and then storing it in lead acid batteries is also highly inefficient.

 

Sometimes you don't need research - the truth is right there in front of you!

 

I love living in a boat - I just wouldn't call it 'green'!

 

Please do not judge all boats by your own standards. Some of us have very good insulation including double glazing on large windows and portholes in areas where light is not that important. Solar panels give me nearly all the electricity I require, when I do run my engine this is easily compensated by the fact that I do not have a car.

[Chris Pink]

My findings are based on common sense and first hand experience - a heady old concept from days gone by! A draughty steel box lightly skinned with foam is a highly inefficient way to store warm air. And making electricity with an alternator attached to a non-moving road engine, and then storing it in lead acid batteries is also highly inefficient.

 

Sometimes you don't need research - the truth is right there in front of you!

 

I love living in a boat - I just wouldn't call it 'green'!

 

I think you'll find that cold stores, built for efficient insulation are insulated in exactly the same way as a narrow boat.

 

I never make electricity in the way you describe, for exactly those reasons.

 

Please change your statement to "the way I live on my boat isn't green or low impact"

[Dekazer]

Dunno about my actual consumption (haven't done the maths) but my awareness and habits have definitely changed.

 

Furthermore, some of my habits have changed. For example, I spend far less time in the shower and even *gasp* don't shower every day! Unthinkable when I lived in bricks. Since moving aboard, and possibly partly because of it, I have made other choices, such as starting to cycle instead of car/motorbike for my daily commute, putting on a jumper when I get cold, using hot water bottles, and numerous other bits and pieces. I use fewer chemical products, have stopped wearing make up, I buy much less rubbish!

 

Perhaps there's something about living on board that inspires some people to make more effort to live a lower impact lifestyle? being closer to nature perhaps.. Not to say we all couldn't improve further if we had some actual facts to hand

[WJM]

There must be 40 boats in my marina - one or two might possibly have the 'green' credentials that you boast. I was just being representative of the vast majority when I made my sweepingly general statement. I don't feel inclined to change it while it is still representative of the norm.

[blackrose]

No, just that the level of smugness should not be quite so high.

 

I wasn't being smug. You questioned AndyWatson's logic so I assumed you wouldn't mind having your own logic questioned?

 

Robust argument works both ways - nothing to do with smugness.

 

If you want to discuss the issue I'm quite happy for you to pull my argument apart, but let's stick to the issues.

Edited February 22, 2012 by blackrose

[carlt]

I wasn't being smug. You questioned AndyWatson's logic so I assumed you wouldn't mind having your own logic questioned?

 

Robust argument works both ways - nothing to do with smugness.

 

If you want to discuss the issue I'm quite happy for you to pull my argument apart, but let's stick to the issues.

You are not saving the world by not having kids, no more than the LILOs will be by recycling their Stella cans, though if its anything like the Green Gathering, in Galashiels, I was forced to attend the aftermath of, a few years ago, they'll just be dumped for the farmer to clear up.

 

I was discussing the issues but I see no reason why I should not comment on a post that seemed smug.

 

I'll shut up now because you are incapable of reasoned discussion.

[blackrose]

You are not saving the world by not having kids, no more than the LILOs will be by recycling their Stella cans, though if its anything like the Green Gathering, in Galashiels, I was forced to attend the aftermath of, a few years ago, they'll just be dumped for the farmer to clear up.

 

I was discussing the issues but I see no reason why I should not comment on a post that seemed smug.

 

I'll shut up now because you are incapable of reasoned discussion.

 

I never said I was trying to save the world - environmental scientists don't talk in those terms. We leave that to tree-huggers.

 

My post wasn't intended to be smug - I think it's just the way you're reading it. If my post questioning your logic was smug then surely your earlier response to AndyWatson was smug too?

 

I think I'm much more capable of reasoned discussion than you are Carl. The fact is that you can't help turning any discussion into a personal argument as soon as someone questions your views. You have done exactly the same thing here.

Edited February 22, 2012 by blackrose

[carlt]

My post wasn't intended to be smug - I think it's just the way you're reading it. If my post was smug then surely your earlier response to AndyWatson was smug too?

 

I was referring to Andy's "I've paid my environmental dues by not having a child." comment which is incredibly smug, in my opinion. I see he's edited it out now so I guess he saw something wrong with the statement, too.

 

You just joined in because of your eagerness to start yet another row with me. Pathetic!

[blackrose]

I was referring to Andy's "I've paid my environmental dues by not having a child." comment which is incredibly smug, in my opinion. I see he's edited it out now so I guess he saw something wrong with the statement, too.

 

You just joined in because of your eagerness to start yet another row with me. Pathetic!

 

So why did you quote me in reference to smugness? Perhaps it's just another misunderstanding?

 

I didn't join in this thread to have a row with you. I've been in this thread from the start if you care to read back.

 

I really think it's the other way around Carl. You seem incapable of staying on topic when I respond to your posts, preferring instead to make nasty personal comments, even though I'm just discussing the issues. It's as if you have some personal vendetta against me. Personally I'm not going to let it bother me. I lived in Asia for many years and I learned how to let go and not hang onto these petty animosities. I really think you could do with a little of that thinking.

[14skipper]

guessing its on the K & A and lo impact because most there don.t move / don,t wash

 

14skipper

[carlt]

I really think it's the other way around Carl. You seem incapable of staying on topic when I respond to your posts, preferring instead to make nasty personal comments, even though I'm just discussing the issues. It's as if you have some personal vendetta against me. Personally I'm not going to let it bother me. I lived in Asia for many years and I learned how to let go and not hang onto these petty animosities. I really think you could do with a little of that thinking.

It's funny how you say that yet the way I see it you jumped into an exchange I was having with Andy and asked me a question.

 

I answered that question assuming you were still referring to Andy's post.

 

You then twisted it round to me attacking you.

 

The world doesn't revolve around you, you know.

Edited February 22, 2012 by carlt

[blackrose]

It's funny how you say that yet the way I see it you jumped into an exchange I was having with Andy and asked me a question.

 

I answered that question assuming you were still referring Andy's post.

 

You then twisted it round to me attacking you.

 

The world doesn't revolve around you, you know.

 

I know the world doesn't revolve around me - neither does it revolve around you!

 

I didn't see the post that Andy deleted, but the forum isn't just about two people having a discussion - it's an open forum. I didn't twist anything around. All I saw was you quote me and talk about smugness. If you thought he was being smug then perhaps you should have quoted him?

 

Why do you object to me "jumping in" and making a reasonable point?

Edited February 22, 2012 by blackrose

[carlt]

 

Why do you object to me "jumping in" and making a reasonable point?

I didn't object.

 

I assumed, because you were referring to Andy's post, that you had actually read it.

 

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make so I made a reasonable response, based on that assumption.

[andywatson]

I was referring to Andy's "I've paid my environmental dues by not having a child." comment which is incredibly smug, in my opinion. I see he's edited it out now so I guess he saw something wrong with the statement, too.

 

You just joined in because of your eagerness to start yet another row with me. Pathetic!

 

It was meant to be a light hearted statement* to finish my post which on reflection I thought could be taken the wrong way (it was) and could distract from the comparison between boats and houses.

I had edited it out within minutes and before you responded which might be why you could not quote it.

 

*ETA

For the record: What I actually said at the end of my post 36 at 1-49 where I presented energy figures supporting boats over houses was very close to:

 

I live in a house but I've not got kids.

 

I did not say "I have paid my environmental dues by not having a child"

 

Smug?

Edited February 23, 2012 by andywatson

[blackrose]

I didn't object.

 

I assumed, because you were referring to Andy's post, that you had actually read it.

 

I think that is a reasonable assumption to make so I made a reasonable response, based on that assumption.

 

Ok, let's forget it, this is getting ridiculous. I'm honestly not trying to pick fights with you Carl.

[carlt]

It was meant to be a light hearted statement to finish my post which on reflection I thought could be taken the wrong way (it was) and could distract from the comparison between boats and houses.

I had edited it out within minutes and before you responded which might be why you could not quote it.

Fair enough.

[matty40s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC-QG3EOKZI

leave em to it

[blackrose]

leave em to it

 

[carlt]

Ok, let's forget it, this is getting ridiculous. I'm honestly not trying to pick fights with you Carl.

I forget it immediately I log off.

 

I've got two beautiful kids and a gorgeous partner who show me how trivial all this is...and now our dinner is ready (mung bean sosidges and lentil fries...not!)

[smileypete]

Personally I've no idea whether my life onboard causes less damage to the environment than if I lived in a house or flat because I don't have the data to compare. However, I don't have kids so I haven't increased my impact on this planet exponentially, and in that respect everything else is largely irrelevant.

 

This guy sums it up nicely (contains language & views that may be offensive to some viewers!)

Yes, BUT... your parents (and Doug Stanhope's parents) had kids, right?

 

Now, if you really do think Doug Stanhope sums it up nicely, isn't there a chance you may have missed the point somewhat...?

 

cheers,

Pete.

[kiki]

"Embedded energy" is really only relevant to new builds, though.

 

Anyone who buys a second hand car, boat or house is stopping a new one being built.

 

In my opinion my 1950s boat and 1860s house have paid their dues, environmentally speaking.

 

Have a greenie for that one Carl - exactly what I was thinking.

[cereal tiller]

My findings are based on common sense and first hand experience - a heady old concept from days gone by! A draughty steel box lightly skinned with foam is a highly inefficient way to store warm air. And making electricity with an alternator attached to a non-moving road engine, and then storing it in lead acid batteries is also highly inefficient.

 

Sometimes you don't need research - the truth is right there in front of you!

 

I love living in a boat - I just wouldn't call it 'green'!

Agreed,a lot of boaters consider that they are morally superior to land dwellers.

 

boating is not especially green,it is just a different and enjoyable way of life.

 

speaking of green ,have a greenie from me!

[blackrose]

Yes, BUT... your parents (and Doug Stanhope's parents) had kids, right?

 

Now, if you really do think Doug Stanhope sums it up nicely, isn't there a chance you may have missed the point somewhat...?

 

cheers,

Pete.

 

The point being?

 

Yes, of course all of our parents had kids, but if we as a species think that we can continue to increasingly over-populate the planet as we are currently doing, then the future for the kids that we do have will be very dire indeed (not to mention the future for the other species that we share the planet with, many of which will be forced into extinction).

 

Do you think that Sir David Attenborough and the host of other acknowledged environmental scientists who have joined forces with the Optimum Population Trust have also missed the point?

 

There are clearly several key points here. I may have missed yours, but it seems to me that you're missing an important point too.

Edited February 23, 2012 by blackrose