PDA

View Full Version : Saving the World


PeterArnel
09-27-2005, 02:13 PM
Has the world gone mad, I heard today on BBC radio 4 (so it must be true) that soon we all will be given our own carbon omissions – which presumably we will be able to sell on eBay to the highest bidder – and where next for goodness sake, you can see the next step is giving us limits on the air we breath – well I suppose at least it would stop all these fit people jogging.

There is of course a simple way to save energy and that is to go back to the old imperial sizes. 10” x 8” (254 x 203) and use a slightly smaller type – or write less. The saving on paper alone would be nearly 2 trees in 10, the weight is nearly 20% less so saving in transport, postage costs etc would be incredible. Magazines and newspapers would of course have to delete two words in 10 – but I ask u who would notice.

This may seem slightly tongue in cheek but as I write this, I realise that the savings would be huge and question why we are not talking about it. When we are spending such a huge amount of resources in recycling paper which seems to be increasing as we move into a paperless society – why are we not even thinking about reducing the page size.

Peter Arnel

I will leave the debate about the page size of Toilet paper for another day

Michael Rowley
09-27-2005, 03:51 PM
Peter:

go back to the old imperial sizes

That doesn't mean we would choose quarto: A4 has almost eliminated foolscap. And as for lavatory paper, the British still use a large size (except in hotels) than is generally used on the European continent.

Robin Springall
09-27-2005, 03:57 PM
And as for lavatory paper...Clearly time for a members' poll: which country has the largest sheets? And why?

Richard Waller
09-28-2005, 12:18 AM
I worry about this recycling thing. By the time I have washed out the empty cans and bottles with hot water, and a special lorry has been round to collect them, and then the cost of sorting the stuff before it can be fed into a special machine, it must be less polluting to just put it all in the landfill.

Then they tell me that great areas of housing are in danger of flooding. Perhaps we ought to put several feet of landfill in these areas before we build housing there.

Or alternatively we could grow our own everything.

George
09-28-2005, 12:32 AM
Has the world gone mad, I heard today on BBC radio 4 (so it must be true)

By chance would this have anything to do with the Richard Rogers Partnership "Channel 4" building in London??? If so, then the answer is, no the world isn't going mad, but it has entered Post-Modernism. I'm told we will soon know what Post-Modernism is, and then we can all know exactly what we are supposed to do in life. Until then, I tell the Post-Modernists exactly what it is they should be doing. They can't tell the difference, but they just listen quietly. In the present confusion, if you just act like you know what you are talking about, everyone will believe you.

Regards,

Geroge

donmcc
09-28-2005, 04:56 AM
> why are we not even thinking about reducing the page size

Newspapers have been doing this for over 100 years. Almost every new press installed will print on a slightly smaller page than the last. Tabloids are more popular every year, and broadsheets keep gettting smaller (wasn't that mentioned in the discussion about the Guardian redesign).

As for letterhead size, in North America we still use Imperial, and the size is 8.5x11, not 8x10, which I think is slightly larger than A4. 8x10 is used primarily as a size for photo enlargements here.

Smaller pages will entail smaller type (although the reverse has occurred with the shrinking newspapers) and aging boomers wills require larger type for failing eyes.

Just some more random thoughts.

Don McCahill

ktinkel
09-28-2005, 05:46 AM
Has the world gone mad …What has happened to your type size? I can hardly read it, and just as you decided to be especially witty! <g>

ktinkel
09-28-2005, 05:48 AM
… no the world isn't going mad, but it has entered Post-Modernism.I think we are well past post-Modernism, into post-post-post-modernism, at the very least! <g>

George
09-28-2005, 09:26 AM
I think we are well past post-Modernism, into post-post-post-modernism, at the very least! <g>

You've got no argument from me. I'm at the point where I have to take a position on Post-Modernism. As I force myself to try to understand it and apply it to my own and everyday circumstances, I'm very much glad that I am doing so--as dispite all the confusion and lack of consesus, a force can be discerned to the movement, and it is where the world is going, so I'd rather be out front and in control. It's amazing how one's view changes of the world in dealing with Post-Modernism. And, that can very much apply to how this thread got started, or to whether pink hair and blue finger nails really do have any significance.

However, I'm probably going to say that Modernism is an industrial society's way of thinking, and Post-Modernism is a technological society's way of thinking--at least for a few weeks, maybe, I'll say that.

Regards,

George

Sturmella Carol Beaumont
01-10-2006, 05:34 AM
>>This may seem slightly tongue in cheek

ROFL!!! (Please adjust the visual to include a herniated disk further irritated with/by matters also relating to economics of the thread title.)

Sturmella Carol Beaumont
01-10-2006, 05:40 AM
I think we are well past post-Modernism, into post-post-post-modernism, at the very leas


Otherwise abbreviated PMS