whats up with these tiny houses? think they are just a temporary hipster fad or a viable solution for energy savings & the paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle.
threadkilla
Jun 10, 15 2:15 am
click the pic
Volunteer
Jun 10, 15 6:59 am
One of the promises of the Bauhaus movement was that it would provide quality housing for the masses. It never happened. Instead the mobile home movement, which provides crap design out of cheap materials sold to the gullible under the most shady, disreputable terms imaginable arose.
IamGray
Jun 10, 15 7:19 am
Not sure about 'tiny homes', but I think smaller apartments and houses will become more and more the norm in North America. The big / expensive centres like NYC, San Fran, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. have long since reached this point, but I think there's a growing market for more modestly sized homes in the smaller / secondary markets too.
Those little living-cubes, micro houses and the like will probably remain niche products for a very specific clientele (who are usually motivated by experiment/lifestyle than any real cost-savings), but I could certainly see more apartments in the 400-800sqft category (which isn't tiny by any means, but certainly smaller than the NA average).
dia
Jun 10, 15 7:23 am
I am not sure about the tiny house movement, but I am a big advocate and of micro-architecture as a forum for architectural innovation, to wit:
I've suffered through some of the tiny house shows on tv. The actual tiny houses, ones that are placed on a site, and actually placed on a site are far better than the mobile versions. All these monstrosities plopped onto a trailer frame are pointless. What are they? They're little more than an over-glorified RV. Most even come equipped with an RV toilet/shower system and hook up.
I am all for smaller houses. I am totally perplexed by the whole cracker box on wheels thing.
chigurh
Jun 10, 15 8:53 am
Tiny houses are cool, in theory, however, like all things that seem too good to be true, they usually are. To build one is not cheap, to service them with infrastructure (water, elect, sewer, septic, PV) also not cheap, and land. Trying to get one in an urban environment causes a whole host of other problems, land use related. You have to keep them "mobile" to get around zoning codes. When all is said an done, buying an off the shelf airstream would probably save time, money, and headache. I think it is a hipster fad, a romantic idea to live small and off the grid/traditional economy, nothing is immune to the machine.
Put it this way, I would like to have a tiny home as a second residence on a rural lot in a beautiful area. It would be fun to go there for a weekend. Miserable to live your day to day life in one of those things.
JLC-1
Jun 10, 15 10:41 am
the OP doesn't mention anything about mobility; and I assume by "tiny" he means below 2500 sq.ft., which is the average for today's homes. I believe the "movement" as it's called, is only another try to counter the ever expanding gluttony of the market, this market that sells us stuff we don't need and we pay with money we don't have.
mobile homes are made mobile not so they can be moved, but because it allows them to bypass certain codes and laws...the wheels make it a "vehicle" in the eyes of the law. It also affects financing...
geezertect
Jun 10, 15 6:26 pm
chigurh has it right. You can't live a half-way normal life in 300 s.f.
The real culprit in the housing affordability, particularly on the coasts, is the outlandish cost of a building site. The way to get rich easily in real estate is to buy the land and sit on it long enough.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 10, 15 6:57 pm
Downsizing is smart for so many reasons including resource use and maintenance. But many municipalities have minimum square footage requirements, ostensibly to protect the value of stupidity.
Volunteer
Jun 10, 15 7:00 pm
Another point to consider is that larger homes are more economical to heat and cool per unit volume of the house. Maybe the answer is to have several generations sharing a standard, or slightly larger home.
Sivad Bop
Jun 10, 15 8:39 pm
Tiny Home movement: (this is a thing, it's not just describing small homes)
25% sustained momentum from the "drop-out" 1970s ethos, courtesy of Lloyd Kahn
25% Young Libertarian, zoning-protest homesteading nostalgia
25% Small-batch bourgeois identity consumerism
25% DIY maker self-deterministic fantasy propagation
99% previously wealthy white men
geezertect
Jun 10, 15 9:22 pm
^ ostentatious aceticism
Peter Normand
Jun 11, 15 6:59 am
Tiny house movement is not all that new the Unisonian houses of FLW were small
In defense of trailer houses, they fill a need for affordable housing, they are mass produced with much less construction waist then the ones we see on tv.
Another point to consider is that larger homes are more economical to heat and cool per unit volume of the house.
A rather nonsensical justification at best. That is only one measure of resource use, the idea is negated by passive design, etc.
snooker-doodle-dandy
Jun 14, 15 6:23 pm
What is a tiny house? Something the rich can't live in, because it isn't a Mc Mansion?
Volunteer
Jun 22, 15 6:27 pm
So Al Gore can have more!
Miles Jaffe
Jun 22, 15 7:23 pm
So your children have half a chance.
Carrera
Jun 22, 15 10:32 pm
+++Miles
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 12:58 am
Are you off your medications?
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 1:05 am
You humans have become too complacent.
Because that's really sincere and heartfelt. So, what are you? Above or below the human species?
You really seem to learn nothing from your stay and short-termed "retirement" here.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 1:17 am
What argument? Fact is, you're privileged so none of this shit matters to you. You can hold whatever ideology and it wouldn't matter. Tides rise? Move inward. Energy costs soar? Whatever. Planet going to hell? Well, you're going to enjoy it while it lasts. Don't even lump yourself amongst average people, we are far too inferior.
Your access to wealth shields you from the underlying goal of this tiny house movement, however misguided and ambiguous the current interpretation may be. And you can do that because in whatever massive piece of shit property you imagine living on, the environmental consequences will be irrelevant since you fought for humans. Those savages who need to be saved by the great Kozumelle.
Carrera
Jun 23, 15 1:17 am
Just overheard my wife’s TV show where some “Housewife” is building a 22,000 SF house for 2….it’s those people that need to subscribe to Tiny House Magazine.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 1:36 am
Sorry for calling you a human, you behave rather like an animal. Scurry on now.
Oh, the ego is appearing. I'm going to keep on going.
It is about you. You and your proclamations. Your weird declarations about everyone else. Others might not care but as in your style, I can not give a hoot or put in a half-assed effort to belittle you. It's an experiment for me to see how far you're willing to stand behind each and every word uttered.
The fact that you assume I would bother to hate a moron is what you'd call "regressive primal instincts" and reserved only for inferior beings. I like that, let's keep this going.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 2:00 am
You left and came out of "retirement". Then complained that everyone around you has an ego. Ever mull over what group you belong to? Or are you always just better than everyone else (thus not fitting in anywhere) and see something the plebeians cannot?
I really have nothing against you, don't know jack shit about you. But when anyone throws around crap like "You humans have become too complacent.", I feel obligated to make noise on behalf of humans. Your real mistake just happened to be that person who made the dumb statements and had a shitty history here. And that you never develop hindsight.
Don't like my replies? Kick rocks. Fuck off into retirement again.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 2:28 am
Maybe I'm simply your alter-ego. The one you try to hide in a patronizing tone but slip out unconsciously. As much as you'd think I would chase you down, no, last time I checked I can freely comment in any section here.
Choosing to leave is entirely up to you. You stormed off once and I like to see how far you're willing to tolerate this before doing so again. It's fun to see you slowly unravel and lose it to petty remarks. As predicted, you didn't change at all from before so it's quite easy to set you off.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 2:47 am
Revisit what, how moronic you are? Don't think that's going to change at all.
I feel obligated to reply out of conversational norms. You on the other hand should take your own advice and stop responding. Ignore me. Unless your ego is unable to handle that.
Volunteer
Jun 23, 15 6:21 am
With the current political leadership you are asking your kids to live in a cramped hole while the president flies a 747 to California for golf, the "first lady" embarrasses the nation with spending worthy of Cleopatra, a presumptive Democratic candidate sells out our government for fund contributions while she held high office? The republicans are not any different. There is more than enough resources to house everyone decently, to feed everyone, and provide good medical care, as well as a good education and ensure our Constitutional rights to privacy and freedom are maintained But not under the current system of either party.
kickrocks
Jun 23, 15 7:50 am
There's enough resources to go around. The issue is allocation so that a minority isn't hogging it all while the majority receive nothing but poisoned lands, impoverished lives, and a middle finger because they can't afford anything they produce for insatiable consumers elsewhere. Plenty of wasted food, plenty of poorly managed stockpiles that go into making processed junk that only fatten the geese or squandered on stuff like ethanol that arguably should be ignored. It's not the future.
The important social benefits have been contested for as long as most people have been alive on here, obviously still headed in the wrong direction despite a few feeble attempts that ended up only appeasing gullible suckers. A collectivist system goes against the mythos of a self-sufficient American that scoffs at government-provided things like healthcare or safety nets or medical leave or vacation hours or a dignified wage. Some old dinosaur did it so why can't everyone else? From-the-bootstraps anecdotes rule the airwaves because everyone's picturing someone lazy or inept they hold a prejudice against and denying them progress. Deep down, many would rather die rich their time around than save another generation or two from the worst to come. If they're rich now, their own kin should be fine at the very least.
There's no one solution to any of this. I thought we learned to not buy into such simple binary thinking. It helps to first get everyone to admit that anthropogenic climate change is the real cause. But the US is dead last. How can English-speaking countries round out the bottom three? Even China, trying to prove itself by growing rapidly, knows it is somehow killing itself in the long-term. A cruel fate but there's not much denial about it.
anonitect
Jun 23, 15 9:25 am
There isn't enough to go around if all 7 billion people on the planet want to live like Americans.
Most people won't want to live in a tiny house, but maybe they'll decide that they like the idea, and will want to live in a modest, well designed bungalow instead of whatever-the-fuck-it-is the Toll Bros. are peddling now.
curtkram
Jun 23, 15 9:29 am
tiny house movement is like 300sf houses. it's not nice bungalows. you might be able to fit a bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom, but you'll be sitting on your bed to watch tv, and if you have a table saw there will be no place to put it.
Non Sequitur
Jun 23, 15 9:32 am
Curt, I love how that escalated.
One could use the table saw as a dinning table.
anonitect
Jun 23, 15 9:52 am
Yes, curt- my point was the the tiny house movement might inspire people to downsize- to live in a 1400 sq.ft. house instead thinking that they need 2600 sq.ft., or whatever the average size being built today is.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 23, 15 10:23 am
Try the footprint calculator. It tells you how many planet Earths we would need if everyone lived like you.
curtkram
Jun 23, 15 10:31 am
3.83
Volunteer
Jun 23, 15 10:50 am
The "footprint calculator" was designed by the World Wildlife Fund. Prince Charles is the head of the WWF in the UK. When is Fucking Prince Fucking Charles going to start reducing his carbon footprint? One time this idiot refused to take an airplane to his vacation spot; he went on a multi-million dollar motor yacht instead.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 23, 15 10:55 am
2.92
Wonder how Koz clocks in?
Non Sequitur
Jun 23, 15 11:00 am
2.92 as well.
Wilma Buttfit
Jun 23, 15 11:17 am
2.09.
I know people that either already are or are trying to get into tiny homes. Some are retired and want to travel and don't need a big house and garden sitting empty while they travel. I think that is a great reason to have a tiny home.
The others seem to be motivated to go against the tide of the 40 hour corporate cog lifestyle, I say good for them. They do volunteer work and don't want to work off a mortgage. They don't care to own much, choosing to forgo the acquisition of material possessions in order to connect deeply with their talents and aspirations, singing, writing, advocating, teaching... I think those are good reasons.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 23, 15 11:22 am
Koz, you're missing the point. It's not meant to be an accurate analysis of a very specific set of individual circumstances but rather a simplified broad spectrum relational comparison.
So if everyone on Earth lived to the same general standard as you we'd need another planet (which would be as filled as this one) or half of the Earth's population would have to be eliminated.
Wilma Buttfit
Jun 23, 15 11:30 am
It is rhetoric. Congrats on seeing through it, Koz.
curtkram
Jun 23, 15 11:47 am
If you have any pets, how much did you spend on their food, vet bills, kennels, etc in the last 12 months?
so do pets mean you have a better carbon footprint, or worse carbon footprint? my dogs are from a rescue. come on, i should get some credit for that. if i spent money on fish food, i'm hurting the environment? would it be better for the environment if i made a bunch of kids instead of taking care of dogs?
curtkram
Jun 23, 15 1:00 pm
growing your own vegetables won't help. it asks how many organic vegetables you buy, so you would have to let other people grow them, and you have to have enough money to pay the price premium
Miles Jaffe
Jun 23, 15 1:09 pm
Koz - Your takeaway should be that your choices have an impact on everything and everyone.
Whether you realize it or not.
anonitect
Jun 23, 15 1:18 pm
So what's the takeaway here? We should all strip naked and never use electricity and eat exclusively vegetables we grow? What is the end game here?
That we can all do a whole lot better than we are doing. If you're a well-off American, you can conserve, no question - ride your bike, compost, don't turn on the AC, all that shit. Don't focus so much on the specifics of the WWF quiz, look at the underlying point - that we waste way too much and can make painless changes that will slow the destruction of the planet. You spent 25,000 dollars on a PR consultant while you were in grad school, Koz, you aren't "the average poor schmuck." A lot of the blame for the situation CAN be placed squarely at the feet of entitled rich kids. (Myself included, but I'm trying to do all of the right things.)
But, by all means, we need to start electing politicians who will actually take these issues seriously.
Non Sequitur
Jun 23, 15 1:45 pm
Organic foods? What a marketing team they have. Koz, you should have hired them to give you that boost with the academic elites. Just look how many are easily convinced.
The power of branding.
x-jla
Jun 23, 15 1:45 pm
What the quiz is putting across is that humans are just viruses on the earth, nothing we do will be good enough.
YUP. We are more like a parasite technically.
Sorrowful Giuseppe
Jun 23, 15 1:46 pm
The only reason I started building my own cabin/tiny house was to not have a loan and be as minimal as one could be.
whats up with these tiny houses? think they are just a temporary hipster fad or a viable solution for energy savings & the paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle.
click the pic
One of the promises of the Bauhaus movement was that it would provide quality housing for the masses. It never happened. Instead the mobile home movement, which provides crap design out of cheap materials sold to the gullible under the most shady, disreputable terms imaginable arose.
Not sure about 'tiny homes', but I think smaller apartments and houses will become more and more the norm in North America. The big / expensive centres like NYC, San Fran, Toronto, Vancouver, etc. have long since reached this point, but I think there's a growing market for more modestly sized homes in the smaller / secondary markets too.
Those little living-cubes, micro houses and the like will probably remain niche products for a very specific clientele (who are usually motivated by experiment/lifestyle than any real cost-savings), but I could certainly see more apartments in the 400-800sqft category (which isn't tiny by any means, but certainly smaller than the NA average).
I am not sure about the tiny house movement, but I am a big advocate and of micro-architecture as a forum for architectural innovation, to wit:
http://imgur.com/a/ts5Uc
I've suffered through some of the tiny house shows on tv. The actual tiny houses, ones that are placed on a site, and actually placed on a site are far better than the mobile versions. All these monstrosities plopped onto a trailer frame are pointless. What are they? They're little more than an over-glorified RV. Most even come equipped with an RV toilet/shower system and hook up.
I am all for smaller houses. I am totally perplexed by the whole cracker box on wheels thing.
Tiny houses are cool, in theory, however, like all things that seem too good to be true, they usually are. To build one is not cheap, to service them with infrastructure (water, elect, sewer, septic, PV) also not cheap, and land. Trying to get one in an urban environment causes a whole host of other problems, land use related. You have to keep them "mobile" to get around zoning codes. When all is said an done, buying an off the shelf airstream would probably save time, money, and headache. I think it is a hipster fad, a romantic idea to live small and off the grid/traditional economy, nothing is immune to the machine.
Put it this way, I would like to have a tiny home as a second residence on a rural lot in a beautiful area. It would be fun to go there for a weekend. Miserable to live your day to day life in one of those things.
the OP doesn't mention anything about mobility; and I assume by "tiny" he means below 2500 sq.ft., which is the average for today's homes. I believe the "movement" as it's called, is only another try to counter the ever expanding gluttony of the market, this market that sells us stuff we don't need and we pay with money we don't have.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5525283
Maybe the OP wants to see more of these
http://archinect.com/news/article/128249171/this-bel-air-home-could-be-yours-for-a-mere-half-billion-dollars-yes-b-illion
IN addition to your 74000 sq ft house you will need one of these to get to the launch pad that will take you to the mars mcmansion colony
http://www.ripsawtank.com/
mobile homes are made mobile not so they can be moved, but because it allows them to bypass certain codes and laws...the wheels make it a "vehicle" in the eyes of the law. It also affects financing...
chigurh has it right. You can't live a half-way normal life in 300 s.f.
The real culprit in the housing affordability, particularly on the coasts, is the outlandish cost of a building site. The way to get rich easily in real estate is to buy the land and sit on it long enough.
Downsizing is smart for so many reasons including resource use and maintenance. But many municipalities have minimum square footage requirements, ostensibly to protect the value of stupidity.
Another point to consider is that larger homes are more economical to heat and cool per unit volume of the house. Maybe the answer is to have several generations sharing a standard, or slightly larger home.
Tiny Home movement: (this is a thing, it's not just describing small homes)
25% sustained momentum from the "drop-out" 1970s ethos, courtesy of Lloyd Kahn
25% Young Libertarian, zoning-protest homesteading nostalgia
25% Small-batch bourgeois identity consumerism
25% DIY maker self-deterministic fantasy propagation
99% previously wealthy white men
^ ostentatious aceticism
Tiny house movement is not all that new the Unisonian houses of FLW were small
In defense of trailer houses, they fill a need for affordable housing, they are mass produced with much less construction waist then the ones we see on tv.
now if we can just keep the tornadoes away
Over and OUT
Peter N
Peter, are/were these trailer houses?
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2011/before_after_beaverton.jpg
Another point to consider is that larger homes are more economical to heat and cool per unit volume of the house.
A rather nonsensical justification at best. That is only one measure of resource use, the idea is negated by passive design, etc.
What is a tiny house? Something the rich can't live in, because it isn't a Mc Mansion?
So Al Gore can have more!
So your children have half a chance.
+++Miles
Are you off your medications?
You humans have become too complacent.
Because that's really sincere and heartfelt. So, what are you? Above or below the human species?
You really seem to learn nothing from your stay and short-termed "retirement" here.
What argument? Fact is, you're privileged so none of this shit matters to you. You can hold whatever ideology and it wouldn't matter. Tides rise? Move inward. Energy costs soar? Whatever. Planet going to hell? Well, you're going to enjoy it while it lasts. Don't even lump yourself amongst average people, we are far too inferior.
Your access to wealth shields you from the underlying goal of this tiny house movement, however misguided and ambiguous the current interpretation may be. And you can do that because in whatever massive piece of shit property you imagine living on, the environmental consequences will be irrelevant since you fought for humans. Those savages who need to be saved by the great Kozumelle.
Just overheard my wife’s TV show where some “Housewife” is building a 22,000 SF house for 2….it’s those people that need to subscribe to Tiny House Magazine.
Sorry for calling you a human, you behave rather like an animal. Scurry on now.
Oh, the ego is appearing. I'm going to keep on going.
It is about you. You and your proclamations. Your weird declarations about everyone else. Others might not care but as in your style, I can not give a hoot or put in a half-assed effort to belittle you. It's an experiment for me to see how far you're willing to stand behind each and every word uttered.
The fact that you assume I would bother to hate a moron is what you'd call "regressive primal instincts" and reserved only for inferior beings. I like that, let's keep this going.
You left and came out of "retirement". Then complained that everyone around you has an ego. Ever mull over what group you belong to? Or are you always just better than everyone else (thus not fitting in anywhere) and see something the plebeians cannot?
I really have nothing against you, don't know jack shit about you. But when anyone throws around crap like "You humans have become too complacent.", I feel obligated to make noise on behalf of humans. Your real mistake just happened to be that person who made the dumb statements and had a shitty history here. And that you never develop hindsight.
Don't like my replies? Kick rocks. Fuck off into retirement again.
Maybe I'm simply your alter-ego. The one you try to hide in a patronizing tone but slip out unconsciously. As much as you'd think I would chase you down, no, last time I checked I can freely comment in any section here.
Choosing to leave is entirely up to you. You stormed off once and I like to see how far you're willing to tolerate this before doing so again. It's fun to see you slowly unravel and lose it to petty remarks. As predicted, you didn't change at all from before so it's quite easy to set you off.
Revisit what, how moronic you are? Don't think that's going to change at all.
I feel obligated to reply out of conversational norms. You on the other hand should take your own advice and stop responding. Ignore me. Unless your ego is unable to handle that.
With the current political leadership you are asking your kids to live in a cramped hole while the president flies a 747 to California for golf, the "first lady" embarrasses the nation with spending worthy of Cleopatra, a presumptive Democratic candidate sells out our government for fund contributions while she held high office? The republicans are not any different. There is more than enough resources to house everyone decently, to feed everyone, and provide good medical care, as well as a good education and ensure our Constitutional rights to privacy and freedom are maintained But not under the current system of either party.
There's enough resources to go around. The issue is allocation so that a minority isn't hogging it all while the majority receive nothing but poisoned lands, impoverished lives, and a middle finger because they can't afford anything they produce for insatiable consumers elsewhere. Plenty of wasted food, plenty of poorly managed stockpiles that go into making processed junk that only fatten the geese or squandered on stuff like ethanol that arguably should be ignored. It's not the future.
The important social benefits have been contested for as long as most people have been alive on here, obviously still headed in the wrong direction despite a few feeble attempts that ended up only appeasing gullible suckers. A collectivist system goes against the mythos of a self-sufficient American that scoffs at government-provided things like healthcare or safety nets or medical leave or vacation hours or a dignified wage. Some old dinosaur did it so why can't everyone else? From-the-bootstraps anecdotes rule the airwaves because everyone's picturing someone lazy or inept they hold a prejudice against and denying them progress. Deep down, many would rather die rich their time around than save another generation or two from the worst to come. If they're rich now, their own kin should be fine at the very least.
There's no one solution to any of this. I thought we learned to not buy into such simple binary thinking. It helps to first get everyone to admit that anthropogenic climate change is the real cause. But the US is dead last. How can English-speaking countries round out the bottom three? Even China, trying to prove itself by growing rapidly, knows it is somehow killing itself in the long-term. A cruel fate but there's not much denial about it.
There isn't enough to go around if all 7 billion people on the planet want to live like Americans.
Most people won't want to live in a tiny house, but maybe they'll decide that they like the idea, and will want to live in a modest, well designed bungalow instead of whatever-the-fuck-it-is the Toll Bros. are peddling now.
tiny house movement is like 300sf houses. it's not nice bungalows. you might be able to fit a bathroom, kitchen, and bedroom, but you'll be sitting on your bed to watch tv, and if you have a table saw there will be no place to put it.
Curt, I love how that escalated.
One could use the table saw as a dinning table.
Yes, curt- my point was the the tiny house movement might inspire people to downsize- to live in a 1400 sq.ft. house instead thinking that they need 2600 sq.ft., or whatever the average size being built today is.
Try the footprint calculator. It tells you how many planet Earths we would need if everyone lived like you.
3.83
The "footprint calculator" was designed by the World Wildlife Fund. Prince Charles is the head of the WWF in the UK. When is Fucking Prince Fucking Charles going to start reducing his carbon footprint? One time this idiot refused to take an airplane to his vacation spot; he went on a multi-million dollar motor yacht instead.
2.92
Wonder how Koz clocks in?
2.92 as well.
2.09.
I know people that either already are or are trying to get into tiny homes. Some are retired and want to travel and don't need a big house and garden sitting empty while they travel. I think that is a great reason to have a tiny home.
The others seem to be motivated to go against the tide of the 40 hour corporate cog lifestyle, I say good for them. They do volunteer work and don't want to work off a mortgage. They don't care to own much, choosing to forgo the acquisition of material possessions in order to connect deeply with their talents and aspirations, singing, writing, advocating, teaching... I think those are good reasons.
Koz, you're missing the point. It's not meant to be an accurate analysis of a very specific set of individual circumstances but rather a simplified broad spectrum relational comparison.
So if everyone on Earth lived to the same general standard as you we'd need another planet (which would be as filled as this one) or half of the Earth's population would have to be eliminated.
It is rhetoric. Congrats on seeing through it, Koz.
If you have any pets, how much did you spend on their food, vet bills, kennels, etc in the last 12 months?
so do pets mean you have a better carbon footprint, or worse carbon footprint? my dogs are from a rescue. come on, i should get some credit for that. if i spent money on fish food, i'm hurting the environment? would it be better for the environment if i made a bunch of kids instead of taking care of dogs?
growing your own vegetables won't help. it asks how many organic vegetables you buy, so you would have to let other people grow them, and you have to have enough money to pay the price premium
Koz - Your takeaway should be that your choices have an impact on everything and everyone.
Whether you realize it or not.
So what's the takeaway here? We should all strip naked and never use electricity and eat exclusively vegetables we grow? What is the end game here?
That we can all do a whole lot better than we are doing. If you're a well-off American, you can conserve, no question - ride your bike, compost, don't turn on the AC, all that shit. Don't focus so much on the specifics of the WWF quiz, look at the underlying point - that we waste way too much and can make painless changes that will slow the destruction of the planet. You spent 25,000 dollars on a PR consultant while you were in grad school, Koz, you aren't "the average poor schmuck." A lot of the blame for the situation CAN be placed squarely at the feet of entitled rich kids. (Myself included, but I'm trying to do all of the right things.)
But, by all means, we need to start electing politicians who will actually take these issues seriously.
Organic foods? What a marketing team they have. Koz, you should have hired them to give you that boost with the academic elites. Just look how many are easily convinced.
The power of branding.
What the quiz is putting across is that humans are just viruses on the earth, nothing we do will be good enough.
YUP. We are more like a parasite technically.
The only reason I started building my own cabin/tiny house was to not have a loan and be as minimal as one could be.
It only cost $12000 for me.