Anti-landfill propaganda? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anti-landfill propaganda exists in any capacity? I'm being totally sincere and I'm not angry at you whatsoever...this is just the first I have ever heard of anything like this.
It's not propaganda like the govt brainwashing citizens. There are a lot of modern green movements that not so subtly implore you to not throw things away. Maybe it sounds weird to have that stuff called propaganda, but it exists. There are billions and billions of dollars on the green movements and movements don't come without some propaganda.
Classic propaganda mantra. The term may have negative connotations to some people today, but if you're being technical the term is neutral. There is propaganda for bad things, and propaganda for good things. Consider that during WWII, both sides were producing unambiguous propaganda:
The last is obviously where the negative connotations for propaganda come from, but they certainly didn't invent it and the people who opposed them were using it too. Propaganda is just a tool, and like most tools, it's amoral. Neither moral nor immoral. What matters is what you use it for. A hammer is amoral, you could use it to build an orphanage or to hit an orphan.
Same thing happened at an office I worked in: removed personal bins from desks, then returned them after the bins in the kitchen and bathrooms were constantly overflowing.
I'm failing to see how this ideology has invoked any sort of propaganda to suit its goals? They seem like pretty decent goals, too- though my opinions on this aren't really relevant towards whether or not propaganda is being employed.
I can see where you're coming from and it is hard to distinguish from campaign and propaganda but are you genuinely and sincerely suggesting that suggesting that humans
"Reduce, reuse, and recycle"
Is propaganda? What is the opposite action of that? What is a negative thing one could do counter to reducing, reusing, and recycling? It seems to me that the only propaganda that could come about would be counter to those goals.
>Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.
Propaganda doesn't have to be negative, it just has to be influential.
The "negative thing" about "reduce reuse recycle" is the thing we're talking about here: "Hoarding". It encourages people to keep things they don't actually need or want, which has negative effects on their living conditions and psyches, which in turn can be negative for society in general.
I'm sure it's great for the environment, but it's less than great for the humans.
It's propaganda. The correct solution is for the state to tax the externalities and let the free market solve the problem, instead of hoping people will solve it out of ethical duty. "Reduce, reuse, and recycle" instead of taxing waste is just giving the sociopaths/psychopaths yet another advantage. With correctly priced externalities there would be no need for such slogans, because it would be in everybody's best interest to do the right thing.
Your link doesn't support your thesis, and I don't know of any place that have such policy, except probably shitty places that didn't have good services in the first place.
Austin, Vancouver, San Francisco, Boulder. Can personally confirm that it’s a big public propaganda and policy thing in SF. You get people spending time washing out their bottles like we’re running out of glass or a place to put it.
There's definitely stuff I don't throw out when that would be the easiest path because I feel bad about it going to the dump. A dead treadmill with a working industrial motor that I'm trying to find someone who can use the motor. The kids' old swing set with perfectly usable pressure treated pine. All manner of electronic detritus (anyone need a 25 foot VGA cable? How about a 35 foot HDMI cable that's not current spec? Old component cables? An old Dell minitower? Wall wart transformers? ...). Etc.
In the 80s and early 90s, prior to "climate change" pushing out every other environmental concern, there was a big push to recycle due to the "landfills filling up". Accompanying video would be of a bulldozer maneuvering over a field of garbage that extended as far as the eye could see, which wasn't all that far since there were so many piles of garbage. You'd get videos of cities filled with garbage (garbage service strikes were particularly helpful here), footage from the famous Gar-barge [1], and vague intimations that we're all going to be in garbage up to our knees if we didn't recycle more. Random dumping was also quite a bit more prevalent back then, and I recall walking through state forests and just coming across an impromptu trash dump by the locals, so that helped make it feel more pressing. In more modern times, see the movie Idiocracy or the beginning of Wall-E, both of which were at least visually pulling from images floating around in the 80s and 90s, albeit exaggerated.
It made for good rhetoric, but ultimately, it was pushed out in favor of the other things you may be familiar with because it's basically ludicrous nonsense. Yes, there are absolutely some tricks to building a safe landfill and it's not free, and the risks need to be accounted for and taken care of, but it's essentially inconceivable that the world could run out of landfill space. (By the time that could happen, the technological landscape must have changed so thoroughly that your other predictions about what could happen are just useless.) The threats basically abused people's inability to think volumetrically, which anybody who has done a pool-building project, or a significant concrete project, or significant landscaping project, or anything else that involves trying to think volumetrically. You learn there's always more volume than you think there is. It's true that if we had to store trash areally, we'd be in some trouble, but landfills are volumetric, and society needs a lot less than you might think as a result. Yes, we have some impressive trash piles here and there, but there isn't all that many of them, and there can't be, because even if we tried to generate enough trash to become a problem with landfills, we'd long since have strangled ourselves on the other problems that would produce. (That is, you think we've got a CO2 problem now, wait until we try to produce 1000x more "stuff". We wouldn't get far enough into that process for the landfills to be our biggest problem.)
Energy usage and the corresponding pollution, care about contamination of groundwater and such, and simply straight-up the economic advantages of efficiency are all much better reasons to take good care of our trash and try to extract as much value from every unit of resource we take from the ground via reduce, reuse, recycle before getting the next resource.
Hell they even had a song in a Rocko's Modern Life episode 21 years ago (and every single time someone says recycle my brain goes "r-e-c-y-c-l-e recycle"):
"R-E-C-Y-C-L-E recycle
C-O-N-S-E-R-V-E conserve
don't you P-O-L-L-U-T-E pollute the river, sky, or sea
or else you're gonna get what you deserve
The ozone is in horrible condition,
from fluorocarbons in our atmosphere.
they are too small to be seen by normal vision
but there's getting to be more of us each year
we come from a variety of places
like Styrofoam containers & aerosol cans
we love to eat the ozone it's our favorite dessert
and if you don't have an ozone then the sun can really hurt
I must admit we make a lot of garbage
this dump is filled up way above the brim
if we don't make an effort to recycle
the future could be looking mighty grim
someone's cutting down the O-town forest
it's not enough to sit around and grieve
if we don't protect our flora and our fauna
then we won't have the oxygen to breathe
R-E-C-Y-C-L-E recycle
C-O-N-S-E-R-V-E conserve
don't you P-O-L-L-U-T-E pollute the river sky or sea
