It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Entertainment, wasted energy, and pollution

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
With all the talk about how the average person should be doing this or that to conserve energy, why has no one attacked the entertainment industry?

Stick with me for a moment. What I mean is the massive amount of fuel used in vehicle racing (worldwide), not to mention the parts that end up in dumps because they are unusable.

What about the movies that creates more pollution than the average family? Blowing things up, using fuel, wasting other natural resources, and the energy used to produce each work.
What about the music bands, groups, singers who tour using an enormous amount of fuel and energy in their transportation. Not to mention the energy used to power the lighting and sound systems.
What about the massive amount of waste created by the food and drinks consumed at any sporting/entertainment event?

With all of this demanding and babble about what the average person should do, why is it we are not seeing a decline in the entertainment industry? Why no outcry about the energy wasted and pollution caused by our own entertainments?

Even the money itself could be used to work toward a cleaner earth and helping to feed and clothe millions worldwide.

Could it be that the masses are simply being led astray kept in position with mind numbing entertainment while those with the means and power gain even more. Has the greed and self gratification completely taken hold and is destroying the average person from within?

Why do you not hear about protests being held at such events based solely on the greener earth idea?

Any thoughts on this?

Raist




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Yes you are right about that. We are more conserned about being entertained. But that is how the higher-ups want it, so we dont pay attention to what they are doing.

If the high-ups shut down the entertainment then there would be alot more resourses for the masses but our focus would shift to them for our entertainment.with the election this year i would call them all actors anyway.this election coverage seems more like a soap opera then anything.I say put a poor man in the presidency and we would have a honest president.He would be happy to do it for minimum wage just to have a job.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 

Simple answer: because those who want us (the average people) to conserve and ration are the same ones who make their living through the entertainment industry.

Of, course, they're allowed to burn things to the ground and waste resources. I understand they got a big carbon credit for making "An Inconvenient Truth"...

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Thanks for the input.

I would wager though that even a poor man put into office would not remain honest for long.

I have been thinking about this for some time though with the entertainment industries and energy wasted. I wonder why everyone is so taken with a green earth movement but nothing is said about the waste that goes on that is completely changeable. The amount of fuel that could be saved and pollution that could be avoided is unbelievable in my eyes.

Raist



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Bread and circuses, is that how it is in English? Nobody is stupid enough to mess with it. Not to mention that entertainment industry is not the most polluting one.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


That is probably truer than any of us would like to believe. It does seem at times that they control just as much as the drug industries control. Why else would so many of them be able to get away with things you and I could not (aside from the money in their pockets)?

I would like to have seen the amount of money wasted on that movie. I am sure it is more than they would actually let on. I would also like to know how much fuel was wasted in the making of that film.

I don’t care how energy efficient his mansion is before he or anyone else in his situation should tell me how to live they need to drop down to my level first.

Raist



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


I understand they are not the most polluting at least not broken down into the different sectors.

My question is why the waste on pointless stuff. Hollywood for instance, they destroy how much stuff each year? Meaning natural resources, the burning of things pollutes the air needlessly (meaning they are not making valuable goods that can be used), the destruction of wood made products has destroyed trees that since they were being cut down could have been used to create houses for those that would use them. Racing wastes huge amounts of fuel and tires, not to mention useless/damaged parts make their way to the dump.

While they may not be the biggest polluters so to speak they are polluting only for entertainment not production.

My point is that we are destroying the world for entertainment as well as greed. Nothing like loving (killing) that which supports your life eh?

Raist



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


I have no intention to defend them. I just noted that government will not criticize it due to mentioned "circuses" part, "Green" groups will not attack it because of fear to loose publicity, and also to relative low pollution level.
And just as any industry they will continue to provide the product as long as there is a market for it. Kind of hard to me to imagine Hollywood/other woods leaders waking up with an environment on they mind. Not a $. But it is in all industries.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It is interesting. I remember reading on here that golf courses need several billion(forget the exact number) gallons of water each year to be maintained. Lot of countries could use clean drinking water(hell we could be one of them), but apparently our golf courses are more important.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePiemaker
 


Excellent point.

Not sure how I forgot the super green expanses of perfectly trimmed grass.

They use countless gallons of water for nothing more than building a place where people can whack a little white ball around.

Also how much land is being used for that that could be used for planting crops to feed or to let nature take its normal course with? How many wetlands or forests have been destroyed for the purpose of a golf course?

Raist



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Also how much land is being used for that that could be used for planting crops to feed or to let nature take its normal course with? How many wetlands or forests have been destroyed for the purpose of a golf course?


There is a larger issue here. I live on the side of a mountain, completely surrounded on three sides by virgin forest. I know nature. It's not just a babbling brook of fresh clear water and a doe standing beside it with a young spirited fawn. Nature can be dirty too. It's dead, decaying trees, thorny brush so thick a man can't get through it without a good machete, stinging and biting insects... the list goes on and on.

I still think it's beautiful, but my point is that it is not what most of the environmentalists think it is. You can't walk along a manicured golf course and think you are experiencing nature, but that's what many people seem to think. Somehow I believe if most environmentalists were to spend a few days in my mountain (as I have done numerous times), they would find it dirty and repulsive.

Maybe some public education aimed at the enviro-wackos would be in order?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I agree. I grew up in a pretty heavily wooded area. Spent most every one of my childhood days playing in the woods. I seen the decay, and pests as well, Maybe I’m odd but I thought it was beautiful as well because it was nature at its fullest.

It if funny though that with all of the large animals roaming the land never once did I come across a carcass. Nature also cleans itself up rather quickly and far better than man can do.

Even if it is dirty I still enjoy it better than living in a highly populated area.

Raist



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 

I just reread my last post and it did sound a bit like I was calling nature dirty. You're right, it is beautiful, and I did not mean it that way. Thank you for reading between the lines there.

I once heard it said that when man recycles his waste, the result is so nasty we bury it underground. When nature recycles waste, we flock there in droves and call it a beach.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I wonder what the "footprint" of ATS users is? (the amount of time all the users computers being on put together) that would be neat.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePiemaker
It is interesting. I remember reading on here that golf courses need several billion(forget the exact number) gallons of water each year to be maintained. Lot of countries could use clean drinking water(hell we could be one of them), but apparently our golf courses are more important.


This might be true for some golf courses, but the ones I lived near in Arizona used re-claimed water. The water was used over, and over, and over.

Same goes for a lot of the car washes in Arizona as well.




top topics



 
1

log in

join