apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I'm all for car pooling and recycling our newspaper and plastic goods but I draw the line at composting my own poop.

Guy is a hack, he reproduced. Best way to save the environment is to not have children.

Did either of you actually read more than two sentences of his blog? If you had, you'd know that he wasn't proposing an all-or-nothing project, it's a process. It's actually quite intriguing. As for having a child making one a hack, let's all hope Holier than thou has not and will not procreate.

No toilet paper seems a bit excessive. Actually, correct that - it IS excessive. Composting toilets, on the other hand are hardly new and I've seen them in at least one home where the owner was trying to go as "green" as possible. I've used them at campsites as well - they are both chemical-free and, amazingly, don't really smell. Compost is a magical thing!

As for having babies - jeebus, what is it with the zero population growth enviro-nuts that they hate families so much? There is nothing - NOTHING - more natural and green than having children. Biologically speaking, its the ONLY reason we exist. Our entire existence as living organisms on this planet, just like every other organism, is to pass on our DNA. We are DNA-reproducing machines. Have been seen the first DNA molecule formed in the primordial ooze of the ancient ocenas. And in the case of Homo sapiens sapiens, the passing on of DNA takes the form of sexual reproduction, AKA makin' babies.

Dave - not to mention that if people stop making babies, that will REALLY be the end of us, whether the environment is in good shape or not!

I could be wrong but I think Mr or Ms Holier Than Thou's comments were supposed to be a little tongue in cheek.

--

When I first read about this site, I was so excited. Once I'm settled more in my new apartment, I had hoped to try to figure out how to live as green as urbanly possible, as well. But the fact that he has a book lined up and made an off hand comment about a movie deal made me think this is just another front runner publicity stunt.

While I'm sure he really is living the life (why is it called the No Impact Man, when he's living with two women who are also living no impact, hmph!!), I also think that he is probably getting a crap load of financial support through the publishing company who will do anything for a movie and major sales. I'm glad THEY are doing this because I'm sure the research will be really helpful and hopefully be eye opening, but I'm not sure how viable it is for a way of life for the general population considering the financial costs of going green.

And that breaks my heart :(

But I guess thats not really the point of the project anyway.

You know, it's funny. I went to the no-TP immediately when I read this article. However, it's not really excessive when you consider that much of the world uses water-only to clean after using the facilities. After cleaning with the water, it gets dumped into the privy. It's probably more effective than TP for reasons I won't describe but you can likely all picture...

It was only when I got sick did I find the true fun in these posts. Sitting in bed with my laptop and reading about No Impact Man makes the day go faster.

One thing I think is interesting about Mr. Man is that after the experience he will have a book and a movie. I have never researched this, but I think publishing books and making movies has a huge environmental impact, along with any other promotions or subsequent projects. I will be very curious to see if this is addressed. I am not trying to be critical of motives, just curious. After the year, will it then be okay to do anything at the expense of promoting No Impact Man? That said, I am having much joy at imagining someone in a 5th Avenue doorman building going through this process. What the neighbors must think!

So where's his food coming from and how is it being transported? He's not growing it. Assuming it is organic, still, how did it get to the store, solar-powered van?

I do like the concept and I'l have to think about how I would implement a similar idea for myself but food purchase/preperation is really stumping me.

I wish people would actually look at what they're commenting on...the blog is quite worthwhile and, had you read it, you'd not have left such a snarky comment with ridiculous questions.

hasn't 'ethical man' the BBC reporter already done this?
'no impact man' is selling a book and theres going to be a movie too?!
well of course all the money from these projects will be going to environmental causes?
hmmmmm

Dave--
Are you friggin' kidding me with the "reason we exist is to procreate"?

So, um, since I have NO desire to procreate, does that mean I have no reason to exist?!

I actually agree that at some point, global responsibility does indeed mean taking a look at why we *DO* have kids, and how many we are having, yet it NEVER gets factored into the enviro-discussion. But that is such a sacred, taboo subject that you can't bring it up without anyone slamming you into one of two extreme categories...

Yes patrick, that is exactly what I mean. Strictly speaking, from a biological perspective, the only reason we exist - the only reason ANY living organism on this planet exists - is to reproduce and pass on our genes. We are, at the end of the day, gene replicating machines.

Arguing that we should take a look at "why" we have kids or some other such nonsense is just complete horseshit. You might as well argue "why" we breathe or "why" we eat or "why" we defecate. Reproduction is a natural imperative - its THE natural imperative and drives practically everything else about us as a species. Why do you think we like to fuck so much? Why do you think we have orgasms? Because if it feels so good, we'll want to do it - a lot. And the more we do it, the more likely a pregnancy (or multiple pregancies) will occur and the more likely we will have successfully passed on our genes.

We exist to get to the point where our bodies have matured physically enough to be able to reproduce. Everything after that is irrelevant - we've served our purpose. We've passed on our genes.

The only point at which it becomes something to consider is whether our rate of reproduction combined with our resource usage is such that we are reaching (or have reached) the carrying capacity of our habitat, which in turn, may be negatively affecting our ability to continue to reproduce and pass on our genes. Whether Bambi has a place to frolic in the woods is completely fucking irrelevant, unless Bambi's frolicking bears some relationship to our ability to reproduce successfully.

I'm not saying that this is a moral good or not. I'm just saying that, from the perspective of evolutionary biology, its just the way things are.

Nature is a cruel bitch. There is no point pretending otherwise.

I get what patrick (the other one) is saying. Human beings *are* what consume the vast majority of the world's resources and create pollutive by-product. So by default, if we create fewer humans, that equals fewer consumers, which equals slower depletion of natural resources and less pollution. So yeah, I totally get that.

That being said, let's be clear that I'm not childfree because I want to be "green". I'm childfree because I don't want to be a mother. The green part is just a side benefit. :)
~Monica

When I wake up I not only have to feel bad about the fact the some dude on my fathers side had slaves and my mothers side is full of the evil of the world (jews). Now I can feel bad about how I clean myself after I go to the bathroom?
Fuck that, I am a bacon eatting jew who drives a truck that gets 12 miles to the gal., sometimes I go outside and start it up and just let it run in hopes it will kill everyone @ fox news who spills this crap into my life everyday even if I did not ask for it.
Eco-friendly is the new Willamsburg, I go to partys and people talk about this shit like its a new handbag. This whole thing is one step away form a baby on board sign, that is to say, good idea if people really did give a damn.

Hey P2 and Dave,

Technically speaking, from an evolutionary point of view, Dave is correct. DNA just uses us to make more copies of itself. But that is pure biology.

Luckily we humans are a bit more complicated and can make choices despite evolution and what DNA wants from us!

Dave--
Scary to me that YOU are contributing to the gene pool, and I am not.

Cruel bitch, indeed.

But you never answered my question... if I do NOT reproduce, does that make me worthless?

We're talking about being environmentally friendly here - not about what our purpose on this planet is - to be environmentally friendly we should NOT have children - the world population hit 6 billion several years ago and is still rising - we are no longer existing on this earth along with all the other organisms - we have become an infestation which is taking over - the majority of how we live in the developed world affects the earth adversely and if we really wanted the environment to be totally protected the best way would be for the human race to be wiped out entirely...

These people are millionaires, doing this all to make a movie, drum up interest in their movie and make MORE money.
How sad. How about quitting their corporate jobs (wife works at Business Week, where they do have air conditioning) and moving to the country to grow their own food? THEN i would be impressed.
Things they're doing like--not using public transportation that is already running, with or without them on it does not help the planet one bit.

I'd just like to add that No-impact Man has done a lot of research into printing techniques that are environmentally friendly. He certainly isn't taking anything lightly (although he does seem to be keeping a sense of humor about everything).

This is an amazing project and isn't about making the rest of us "feel bad" but rather exposing how all of our choices could be made more thoughtfully.

And if "Eco-friendly is the new Williamsburg" let's hope it stays cool long enough for us to see positive impacts.

It's a 'project'. It's an 'experiment'. It only serves to make a wealthy family even MORE money, so how are we supposed to applaud him, when he goes back to his regular state of living when this is all over? People all over the world are doing their part (and then some) and aren't being written up in the Times. It's called: being money driven by the success of Supersize Me and An Inconvient Truth.
If this guy donates all the proceeds from his book/movie to environmental causes, THEN i'll eat my words.

To p2: Yes, from a purely biological perspective, if you aren't passing on your genes, you are kind of "worthless." Does that make you "worthless" from a social or moral or religious or cultural perspective - of course not. Although I don't know you personally, so I can't really make ANY judgment as to your worth from any of those perspectives. My point was that of a purely biological one. Which I think is relevant as the focus was on the environmental question, which at the end of the day, is a primarily biological question, if at the macro-level.

My only caveat is that your decision to not-have kids or your particular sexual orientation may serve a larger collective purpose at the species population level which, while resulting in you not passing on your genes, winds up increasing the likelihood that others will sucessfully do so(in particular those who have genes related to yours - i.e. your family). Of course, determining such a causal connection at the population is difficult. In addition, its also difficult to determine whether alleles express themselves at the population level as opposed to the level of the individual.

To answer those who think its environmentally friendly NOT to have kids. I think that's complete horseshit and betrays a complete lack of the ability to analyze...anything. There are 6 billion people existing on this planet and currently there is no indication that we have crossed the barrier of the carrying capacity of our habitat for our species. We'd know it if it was happening as it would most likely trigger a feedback cascade resulting in significant die-offs of our species until our population size reduced down significantly. You ever wonder why Easter Island was empty but obviously had people living on it once? The popluation on the island exceeded the island's carrying capacity (due to resource over-consumption) and they all died off.

The "environment" is not some holy thing to which we owe fealty. It has no feelings. It has no moral value, per se. You might as well talk about the morality of our actions on rocks or mud. It doesn't care if we live in "harmony" with it. Its a stupid question.

The only really relevant question is whether our actions are causing us to cross that carrying capacity threshold (or get dangerously close to it.) Because at that point, OUR species is threatened which affect MY life.

As for how close we are to that boundary, who knows. Keep in mind, that Paul Erhlich wrote The Population Bomb about this exact issue IN 1968. Of course, he's predictions were wildly wrong. His predictions in the End of Affluence were also wildly wrong. So much so that "zero poplution growth" is pretty much treated as an idiotic idea at this point. Especially when we have solid and growing evidence that continued development, urbanization, technological advance, etc. leads to LESS resource usage per capita and greater population stability (i.e. lower fertility rates.)

Mr. No Impact Man just looks like a publicity stunt to make himself some money. And, oh look, there is today in the NY Times.

I think I understand both sides of this "biological worth" discussion so far. (As a non-child-bearing adult woman by choice, I would serve as an example of this lack of biological worth.) However, I don't think the issue can be so particularly singular: we are more than just biological beings, on the whole. Part of the evolutionary process of Homo sapiens has included the development of group structures, which has contributed to our survival. Older group members have more experience than younger ones and can teach what is needed for survival, whether they are capable of reproducing or not.* Younger group members also require more care than older ones who can do more things for themselves, and someone needs to offer that care--whether they reproduce or not. The success of a species also depends on the survival of its offspring, is what I'm trying to say, and we don't have the ability to deliver one hundred offspring at a time (yikes!) to do succeed by virtue of sheer volume, like turtles or seahorses. Therefore, I hypothesise that human beings cannot simply be reduced to a simple definition of existence as a biological being without considering other, associated factors.

I say the previous having no scientific background whatsoever and base my comments solely on the premise that I and plenty of other (non-family) like to think I'm smart.

*I don't mean necessarily things that are only cultural or sociological in nature, but also things like "that big orange stripey cat thing has sharp teeth and can run faster than you, so don't poke at it or try to play with it".