If This Is True, Why Do We Need NASA?

I used cloth diapers exclusively with out daughter. I found they were softer after about 5 or 6 times in the wash. and we went thru about 10 a day to avoid diaper rash on the little one.

I still have one as a memento. try that with a friggin cloth diaper.

I used cloth diapers exclusively with our daughter. I found they were softer after about 5 or 6 times in the wash. and we went thru about 10 a day to avoid diaper rash on the little one.

I still have one as a memento. try that with a friggin cloth diaper.

You used more energy and water than if you had used disposables, and you exposed your children to inadequately sterilized diapers.

Hmmm ... minivan ... diapers. Have you recently painted one of your bedrooms?

No.

When will they start adding up the Depends?

Disposable is the way to go. it helps the environment by making me less pissed off, the baby's ass less chaped and Jack's moustache twirlier.(methane and such)

Syncro

The United States of America has a land area of 9,631,420,000,000 m², so if we divide by 18,000,000,000 disposable diapers per year, we get one such disposable diaper per year per 535 m², or, taking the square root, for every 75 foot by 75 foot chunk of land.

Well, I'm sure we can find space, but that does seem a rather high figure, at least to the extent that it would probably be a good idea to try to ensure that said disposed diapers degrade well. I mean, if a disposable diaper rots away cleanly in three years, then all we've got to stash away net net at any given time is three disposable diapers per 535 m². Under ideal conditions, that's called fertilizer.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with re-usable cotton flannel underwear, but then, I don't shit my pants any more. The most important thing is that we don't go back to wool. Wool underwear sucks. That's where the Luddites have it all wrong.

By the way, did you know that Milton Friedman is dead. Last week, he wasn't dead, this week, he's dead. Life's like that. Milton Friedman was one of the great thinkers of the 20th century. Did you know that? Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. On government, that's it. When was the last time before them? Mister, do you know anything? Adam Smith, 1776, John Stuart Mill, 1859, is this so hard for you?

What, you don't believe me? Then get out. No, I kid you, do I look like a shmuck? Well, what can I say? Why don't you listen to Mr. Friedman's own words, on government, and hear what I mean. Where? Oy, do I have to tell you everything? Here:

youtube.com/watch?v=Se_TJzB9-z0

Speaking of economists, John Maynard Keynes had what I think is (quite literally) the last word on all our clever plans and scheming:

"In the long run, we're all dead."

Just last week I read somewhere that some pointy head environmentalist conceded that disposables and depends were causing global warming.

The Chinese (for the moment) have it right. Assless nappies - let the shit fall where it may.

take all "climatologist"s (new occupation invented for the 21st century) lay them end to end in a long row , leave them there.

"[T]ake all 'climatologist's' (new occupation invented for the 21st century) lay them end to end in a long row , leave them there."

That comment just begs for a great old Dorothy Parker line as a sequel:

"If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised."

This is a story you will not see in MSM these days:
check it out!
Particularly the cause of the African drought.

http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Funny one Kate,

Long live the PAMPERS SPACE PROGRAM.

Interesting, Disposable rockets again?

When will they start adding up the Depends?
Posted by: Some Poor Schmuck at November 18, 2006 03:32 AM

That's for when we want to go to Mars!

About the only advantage that cloth diapers have over disposables is that a cloth diaper, washed three times or so, is the perfect thing for polishing shoes. Ask any Marine.

According to the US census, there are just over 4 million berths per year in the US.

18,000,000,000/4,000,000 = 4500
4500/365 = 12.3

That's 3 diapers per child per day, for 4 years, with .3 left over. I don't know much about kids...is it normal for them to wear diapers for 4 years???

Less than 2 years , or the parents are remiss in their duties.

Poor me, my kids were all born before disposables were invented. But, diaper liners were available after the 4th arrived. Poor me, I had to haul water, heat it, use a washboard and wring out everything by hand. (anyone know what that is). Kids all survived, no diaper rash, lots of dusting rags. At least I didn't have to make my own soap. Anyone priced out a dozen cloth diapers lately, especially designer diapers. Just think how many would be in the pile if it wasn't for abortion.

You used more energy and water than if you had used disposables, and you exposed your children to inadequately sterilized diapers.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at November 18, 2006 01:46 AM "

this is the laughable leftist logic bar none:

how much energy does it take to MANUFACTURE thousands of disposables as opposed to dunking the soiled cotton type in the toidy to get the majority of the 'contents' into the waste treatment system WHERE IT BELONGS, plus, no diaper is sterilized so that isnt an issue; cleanliness was maintained by far more frequent changes of the vastly cheaper cotton nappy.

p.s. to Alex: the disposables prevent the 'icky' feeling of soiled cotton, so the disposable kid doesnt learn faster the thing about toilet training, so it is conceivable choice for disposables drags that change out longer. thus increasing sales.... egad !!! a conspiracy !!!

mary T , you must be old , my sister who is 43 was occasionally diapered in disposables for travel. Me mudder had done the washboard ting for me wit the boiled water byjeezus,and da wringing ting. but den Id be more den 50 I wood.

our own spawn had cotton except for travel as well.

cal2: I have you beat in years by a couple of decades. As an aside, my grandmother, who died at age 97 in 1982 said she had lived thru a lot of things, from the telephone to a man on the moon, but in her opinion, the best invention was indoor plumbing and the hot water tank.

My wife tried to start a cotton diaper and accessory business about 15 years ago. It went bust rather quickly.

Cotton may be better for the kids and the environtment but nobody wants to scrape the crap out of them and then wash 'em. We could use a tax on baby turds. Where's Jack and Dalton when you need them?

My husband bought me a cappacino machine with which I made some soy lates. Absolutely the worst gas I (and my husband) ever experienced. And the soy curldles plugged up the cappacino maker. I'm sure all that gas burned a hole in the ozone layer, somewhere. The point I'm making is that all these environmentalists types are saying we have to go vegetarian, stop drinking milk, and stop doing this and stop from doing that if we're going to save this planet. Well, I tell them that they're contributing to global warming, too, after they drink one of those soy lates that they seem to enjoy so much. I say screw them.

...Oh, and furthermore to this global warming thing, 10000 years ago when the ice was starting to recede, Indians burning fires at the base of the glaciers must have thought that the ice was melting because of the heat generated by the camp fires. Makes as much sense as it does Al Gore proposing a tax on polluting volcanoes. Don't laugh...it could happen.

I laugh at those who think that disposables are the spawn of the devil...generally the crowd of people that encourage the purity of non-epidural childbirth and yearn to attend summer solstice hand holding ceremonies under halos of blue smoke.

Disposables work for us, no apologies offered. Our daughter's now just past two and nearly potty trained (sorry Cal2, our excuse is a late start). There's no question that we save time, mess and work by using disposables. But that just gives us more time and energy to continue the project of spoiling our child rotten with parental love. There's no much free time in our daily grind so we'll use products that help us keep more time for family. That may give the impression of laziness, but we are constantly working on our girl's toilet skills...just exercising our freedom of choice not to use cloth.

If someone wants to make diapers out of biodegradable palm leaves and dried grass, I'm happy they have the energy, time and initiative. We don't. But we will try to do the important thing right: raise strong independent moral individuals having desires to increase the good in their worlds by practical means.

“Hmmm ... minivan ... diapers. Have you recently painted one of your bedrooms?
No.”

Good thing too.

The dregs in the bottom of a paint can have an amazing ability to morph into toxic waste the moment you are through painting. The greenies insist that they be disposed of with only a little less caution than plutonium.

--------
“With current information, when determining the best diaper through an energy analysis, disposable diapers are preferred. However they produce substantially more solid waste. Cloth diapers produce half as much solid waste but use more water volume and produce more waterborne waste. Evaluating the best diaper depends on local conditions. If in a drought, it's best to use disposable diapers. If the area has landfill problems, it's best to use commercially laundered cloth diapers. If there are air pollution problems, resort to disposable diapers. The best diaper ultimately depends on the community's situation.”

3W.ilea.org/lcas/franklin1992.html

mary T - add two more "best" inventions: window screens and painless dentistry. God made a bad design on human teeth and, anyone, what's the environmental plus for flies and mosquitos?

Wearing a burqa couldn't have been worse than that short period in my life when I did cloth diapers. Gag. I can still see them soaking in the toilet bowl.

I think bottled water is a bigger environmental nightmare than disposal diapers. Please. Is tap water really that bad? In NA filthy water isn't an issue. Get off your lazy butt, people, get a Brita filter, if you must, and a plastic thermos. Florida is awash in little plastic water bottles.

Martin B.: But we will try to do the important thing right: raise strong independent moral individuals having desires to increase the good in their worlds by practical means.

As long as those "practical means" do not involve making any personal sacrifices for the sake of the collective, long-term good (of which you and your family can also partake). Martin, have you considered the possibility that being a "moral individual" requires not only thinking of the consequences of one's actions for those immediate persons around you, but also the consequences for all those unseen persons, near and far, present and future, with whom we share the same small planet?

The tragedy of the commons, alive and well in the 21st century.

"A" : "practical means" do not involve making any personal sacrifices for the sake of the collective"...

You know me so well. Don't wait for me at the meeting, comrade. There's no future for any "collective" unless you've got functional individuals first. Gotta go, diaper duty calls...

We really don't need NASA.

So, A, is your little virtucratic indignation implying that disposable diapers are immoral, that if given the same choice those living in the "future" would make a differnet choice, that the future holds more moral humans than exist now?....basically, what the hell is your point?

....personal sacrifices for the sake of the collective?.....let's look at that and defer to the Russians, Eastern Europeans, the Chinese and every historic "collective" victim just how well that worked out for them? They sacrified their every lives in huge number.

The tragedy of the commons, alive and well in the 21st century.

Want to share with us that little probably undigested piece of rhetorical fluff?

Here's a little shock for you, but, with each generation our rivers, air and environment are measurably cleaner. We live healthier and longer lives. Global warming and ice ages come in natural cycles. Urban lefty hypocrites are bigger polluters than their rural counterpart. Ex-"collective" Russia and China are the world's worst polluters.

I think Martin has it figured out thoughtfulness. Have you?

When my oldest was a baby, I used cloth diapers. No matter how many times I rinsed them, he still developed the most horrendous diaper rash. The only way to get rid of it was to use disposables. My mother gave me all kinds of flack because "good mothers don't use paper diapers". My pediatrician finally stood along side of me and told her to mind her own business. When my daughter was born, I tried cloth again. They worked OK for her but when she got to the wiggly stage, I stabbed myself with a diaper pin, under the thumbnail all the way to the quick. The nerve from the thumb goes all the way up the arm and into the ear. It was a new experiance in pain. Worse was the thought that it could have been her that was stabbed. No more cloth diapers. Eventually I got over the environmental guilts by actually doing the math-energy to heat the water, run the machine, dry the diapers, etc. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

sorry Kate, who would have expected such a simple statement to raise so much $hit.

Penny: So, A, is your little virtucratic indignation implying that disposable diapers are immoral, that if given the same choice those living in the "future" would make a differnet choice, that the future holds more moral humans than exist now?....basically, what the hell is your point?

My point, Penny, is that Martin's comment unfortunately embodies quite well the sort of narrow, self-interested, short-term, me-and-mine-first attitude that hinders meaningful progress on issues of common public concern, such as the environment. I've no reason to suspect that he's anything but a decent, well-meaning person, and I'm sure he's as devoted to his family as the next guy, but I just happen to think he's completely misguiding in thinking that he's doing his children any favours by modelling a particular individualistic notion of civil responsibility. From a consumerist perspective, the great--indeed, often the only--benefit of any disposible item is that it's convenient for the individual consumer. Almost by definition, however, compared to their reusable variant, anything conveniently 'disposible' for the individual is less healthy for the environment.

How does the old Amish saying go? "We did not inherit this land from our fathers. We are borrowing it from our children."

let's look at that and defer to the Russians, Eastern Europeans, the Chinese and every historic "collective" victim just how well that worked out for them?

{sigh} It's a bit of an intellectually cheap conceit to dismiss any mention of "collective" interests as "communist" talk. Have you considered the possibility that the word can have meanings other than its relation to communism? That maybe I used the word to describe community interests, as distinct from (and sometimes in conflict with) individual interest, and that it's possible to do so without being a card-carrying Red? For a closer example of states whose policies embody the sort of "collective, long-term good" that I'm getting at, look to places like Scandinavia and Iceland rather than Russia or China.

Here's a little shock for you, but, with each generation our rivers, air and environment are measurably cleaner. We live healthier and longer lives.

All true. And how do you think we got that way? Our rivers, air and environment, though still unacceptably polluted, are cleaner because of the tireless advocacy work of the same tradition of environmentalists that you are now so eager to deride. And recall that the impetus for modern clean air and clean water legislation was because private industries during the 19th c. were unwilling to voluntarily curtail their own pollution outputs--that is, to reduce personal profits for the good of society.

Likewise, healthier, longer lives were achieved through the 19th and 20th centuries, not primarily through medical advances, public health practises, or even more hygienic individual behaviours, but primarily through the enactment of labour and occupational health policies, such as child labour laws and workplace safety regulations. Again, it was the efforts of progressive members of society, including the workers themselves (organized into unions), who ensure that these ideas became law, to the collective benefit of society (including you and yours, today).

Urban lefty hypocrites are bigger polluters than their rural counterpart.

I'm sorry, are you saying that all urbanites are left-wing, and all rural residents are right-wing? Or are you saying that only left-wing urbanites pollute, and right-wing urbanites do not? Oh, and regardless of what you meant, you're wrong to suggest that urbanites pollute more. On a per capita basis, urbanites generally pollute less than rural dwellers, due basically to economies of scale (an obvious example is public transit; another is the reduced per housing unit heating costs in high-rise apartments compared to single-family country homes).

Want to share with us that little probably undigested piece of rhetorical fluff?

For starters, search "tyranny of the commons" in wikipedia. Pay particular attention to the discussion on negative and positive externalities.

well I think 'A' took that round unanymously.

any rebuttal penny?

caution: your simplistic equating attention to 'common good' with 'cummuniiiiizm' is WORN OUT. and youre too late to join the joe mcarthy dream team.

china is a record polluter because the power bosses have decided the 'common good' takes a back seat to economics. kinda like n america in the early to mid stages of industrialization. interesting eh?

you really do need to brush up on externalities, free riders etc.

Ha url!

"Hmmm ... minivan ... diapers. Have you recently painted one of your bedrooms?"

Good call.

;-)

"A": "Martin's comment unfortunately embodies quite well the sort of narrow, self-interested, short-term, me-and-mine-first attitude"

Uh huh. You have no idea how narrow minded and self interested I am. Franklin Graham's organization is helping me re-think my beliefs on Santa Claus, however.

I'll stay with disposables until Red Canada saves us from ourselves. There's much more important things for me to consider, like making my daughter laugh from airplane rides. My kids are my future and because I value that more than anything, they'll be valuable to Canada's future too. Our future begins with the individual, not the collective. Democracy is about the individual too, Komrade (you can use that at the meeting I won't be attending...I've got kids to raise).

Qwerty,

You make me laugh. China is a record polluter because...they are by far the most populous country on the planet. If Canada was 1.3 Billion you think we'd pollute much less? People got to live and that has inevitable byproducts. Would you be happier if China was less populous? If so, how would you "encourage" China to reduce its' population (i.e. the Suzuki school of population management)?

I'm quite aware that China has been seriously pursuing ideas to make it's economy more sustainable and environmentally friendly for some time now. That's what wealth does, it frees up resources from daily survival so the future can be given consideration.

Here's a thought:
Make them bio-degradeable. Farmers could dump them by the truckload & plow 'em under. Sh*tty job, but think of the environmental benefits & the HUGE market possibilities. Hmmmmmmmmm.....
www.diaperdump.com anyone?

Why do we need NASA?

To nail up the far end, of course.