"green" lube
Lube without teflon and petrochemicals? Looks promising. Anyone use it?
http://www.green-oil.net/
article on what's in chain lube:
http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/269...
http://www.green-oil.net/
article on what's in chain lube:
http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/269...
Views: 1534
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Green Machine Cycles on
-
Talk to some prominent physicists and biologists. You'll find religion plays a much larger role in their lives and research than you might imagine. Most dedicated scientists are quite religious.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
I highlighted your word choice in bold because it betrays a vile element of the so-called "progressive" ideology; one of which you seem to be an adherent. Since you allege that the world is overpopulated, perhaps you might feel at liberty as to illustrate which specific segment of the world population is gratuitous and could be dispensed with?
Ezra Hozinsky said:We're all preaching, brother.
Me, from the pulpit encouraging an attitude of "let's scrutinize our behavior and choices and really think about the ways in which our ignorance, hubris, and myopia have fixed us with the environmental and social troubles we're in," and you, apparently from the one of "let's not shed our mantle of ignorance, hubris, or myopia lest we appear uncool, frantic, or progressive in our choices."
This discussion is about chain lube, a product that will likely have an incalculably small effect on things that make news, like climate change, ecological poisoning, failing school systems, famine and war, etc., yet you all now see how such a seemingly simple thing affects and influences many larger and more complex issues and the attitudes we hold about them.
I say that if you care enough about the chain lube you use on your bike to contribute to an online discussion about it, you should care about everything that goes into that lube and everything that influences its production, marketing and beyond. It's called "follow-thorough" and the world would be a better place if we all strove for more of it.
Michael Perz said:I somehow missed that the first time. Emphasis has now been added lest anyone mistake which pulpit you're preaching from.
Ezra Hozinsky said:Wow, that's a can of worms, considering the inextricable and intimate relationship between food production, petroleum, and world military power. Go feed the overpopulated world with that crude oil and soldier on, brother!
Michael Perz said:Until we reach an age when food riots are a distant memory and everyone around the world is finally enjoying a post-scarcity existence I'll happily continue using the nastiest, most Gaia-unfriendly chemicals to service my various modes of transportation. Sorry, but I just find the use of food products in this manner to be especially foul regardless of whether it fills a car fuel tank or lubricates a bicycle chain.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
Religion in a nutshell: The ability to believe with all your heart things that you have no proof for is the prerequisite to being able to disbelieve things when the all the evidence points to the fact that they are TRUE.
Self-delusion is self-delusion.
Ezra Hozinsky said:Talk to some prominent physicists and biologists. You'll find religion plays a much larger role in their lives and research than you might imagine. Most dedicated scientists are quite religious.
-
-
Remember, this discussion was about chain lube.
Don't insinuate "ideology" and political bias from a factual statement. The overpopulation comment is not social judgment, but is based on both a measurable and forecast-able imbalance in food "production" capacity (as you call it) and the number of calories the rapidly increasing world population needs to consume to survive. I'm not going to the trouble of sussing out a reductionist web-accessible graphical aid for you, as you seem adept enough at believing selectively, and then smugly re-posting on this forum, whatever trashy quips and snark you find compelling on the innerwebs.
I suppose you imagine I would dispense with the "less fortunate" among us, as in those who endure miserable living conditions, below average life expectancy, poor nutrition, lack of adequate health care and substandard education, enacting some convoluted, shoot-from-the-latte-drinking-ivy-league-educated-white-liberal-democrat-flag-waving-hip gaia-centric mandate, since those who pathetically cling to an animal-like, disease-addled and poverty-stricken life in some God forsaken low-lying desertified eastern land should really be put out of their misery for being such a drain on everyone who deserves to live. But you'd be wrong. If pressed, nay, coerced into making such a choice it would surely be to eradicate those among us *ahem* who find it intolerable that an educated-white-liberal-democratic-flag-waving-liberal might know something more about the interactivity of toxic chemicals, environmental degradation, and stochastic processes and reasoning than he does.
But who am I to deign to make such choices. That would surely be inconsistent with my status as a vile ideologue.
I do find it interesting that you don't also post a link to your Tea Party candidacy web site, as surely you have an agenda stronger than the dirt about which you accuse me of throwing. Perhaps you're one of those "SUV-driving mountain bikers" who substitutes a human powered form of guilt-ridden ego compensation for a petrol powered one.
Methinks you're on the wrong forum.
Best of luck in the apocalypse. And remember your sense of humor.
Michael Perz said:I highlighted your word choice in bold because it betrays a vile element of the so-called "progressive" ideology; one of which you seem to be an adherent. Since you allege that the world is overpopulated, perhaps you might feel at liberty as to illustrate which specific segment of the world population is gratuitous and could be dispensed with?
Ezra Hozinsky said:We're all preaching, brother.
Me, from the pulpit encouraging an attitude of "let's scrutinize our behavior and choices and really think about the ways in which our ignorance, hubris, and myopia have fixed us with the environmental and social troubles we're in," and you, apparently from the one of "let's not shed our mantle of ignorance, hubris, or myopia lest we appear uncool, frantic, or progressive in our choices."
This discussion is about chain lube, a product that will likely have an incalculably small effect on things that make news, like climate change, ecological poisoning, failing school systems, famine and war, etc., yet you all now see how such a seemingly simple thing affects and influences many larger and more complex issues and the attitudes we hold about them.
I say that if you care enough about the chain lube you use on your bike to contribute to an online discussion about it, you should care about everything that goes into that lube and everything that influences its production, marketing and beyond. It's called "follow-thorough" and the world would be a better place if we all strove for more of it.
Michael Perz said:I somehow missed that the first time. Emphasis has now been added lest anyone mistake which pulpit you're preaching from.
Ezra Hozinsky said:Wow, that's a can of worms, considering the inextricable and intimate relationship between food production, petroleum, and world military power. Go feed the overpopulated world with that crude oil and soldier on, brother!
Michael Perz said:Until we reach an age when food riots are a distant memory and everyone around the world is finally enjoying a post-scarcity existence I'll happily continue using the nastiest, most Gaia-unfriendly chemicals to service my various modes of transportation. Sorry, but I just find the use of food products in this manner to be especially foul regardless of whether it fills a car fuel tank or lubricates a bicycle chain.
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
Ezra Hozinsky said:But although I get your point, that our choice of chain lube doesn't matter at all, I think you'll agree that if we extend that attitude to all our choices and to everyone in the world, we would soon find ourselves in a very alien kind of society, one that has in the past led to the most despicable human behavior imaginable.
-
-
Though I'm not sure how this continues to relate to chain lube...
You are unclear on what constitutes religion and what constitutes science. If you believe blindly in science it's no different than if you believe blindly in religion.
Understand that science is the resolute pursuit of disprovable theories and the observations that can lead to their disproof with validity; religion is not the resolute pursuit of non-disprovable theories, however. It's a different animal, and the two are not constructed in co-oppositional tension. They can co-exist. It's not a one-camp-or-the-other proposition. Belief in God of some sort does not in any way impugn one's ability to be a good scientist. Good science is not based in ideology and zealotry any more than religion. What ignoramuses choose to do with the aims and results of science and religion is a different story. I don't need to cite examples here.
James Baum said:Religion in a nutshell: The ability to believe with all your heart things that you have no proof for is the prerequisite to being able to disbelieve things when the all the evidence points to the fact that they are TRUE.
Self-delusion is self-delusion.
Ezra Hozinsky said:Talk to some prominent physicists and biologists. You'll find religion plays a much larger role in their lives and research than you might imagine. Most dedicated scientists are quite religious.
-
-
I'd call it an admirable attempt at pigeonholing me, but that would be far too generous for such a half-assed, insincere attempt. I have no affiliation with any Tea Party or any incarnation thereof, I have no interest in becoming affiliated with the aforementioned as it offers precious nothing that might benefit me, nor do I own a motorized vehicle. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to any belief in the supernatural of any sort including, but not limited to, Judeo-Christianity and its various subsidiaries.
I do know, however, that people like you have been peddling the population-at-critical-mass bullshit for the better part of the past century and have been repeatedly and consistently been proven wrong. Don't let that dissuade you from trying though.
-
-
Chain lube "theories" and religion have EVERYTHING to do with each other. And it's the way it has always been since WAY before Al Gore invented the internet.
-
Permalink Reply by Pablo on
-
How many chains could we lube with the oil that was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico?
-
-
Well, aren't you strong! Congratulations on admitting to everyone that you need nothing nor care for anything of this world except that which directly benefits you! A model citizen if I've ever seen one, so long as you're still in diapers.
Let's not forget that the only reason most people have eaten a morsel or two over the last century, during which people like me having unsuccessfully preached hellfire, damnation, warm fuzzies, hippie free love, arms-to-the-poor, free Golden Retriever puppies for everyone, and death to Republicans, ugly people and those without fashion sense, is because the petrochemical lobbies and Big Ag have nearly completely eradicated both independent farmers' ability to survive on farming, and the huge variety of foods people commonly ate before this lamentable century of bullshit-peddling. I suppose you're schooling your children or would-be children on the fallacies of the last hundred years and on how lucky they are to be inheriting the keys to this new age of enlightenment and a carefree (and perhaps soon but lamentably car-free) world. Could you spare just a little of the pocket change you'll be receiving in dividends from Monsanto and BP?
Speaking of which, in your current course of bullshit pedaling, similarly, it's no wonder you support and encourage the use of non-biodegradable chain lube, since you seem to revel in the gourmet joys of wolfing down platefuls of the stuff at every meal. It's your choice, of course, but unfortunately I'm not serving anything petrotarian at my Libertarian Green party apocalyptic bullshit-peddling campaign fundraiser. I assume you wouldn't attend anyway, so I'll save not only postage that I'll promptly spend on overpriced fair-trade organically grown coffee, petroleum-free non-BGh half and half, and slave labor-free locally produced sweetener, but also an insignificantly tiny scrap of recycled invitation paper and an envelope emblazoned with a pattern designed by underprivileged mentally marginal orphans living in an abused house pet refuge camp.
See you at Chicago Critical Mass tonight.
Michael Perz said:I'd call it an admirable attempt at pigeonholing me, but that would be far too generous for such a half-assed, insincere attempt. I have no affiliation with any Tea Party or any incarnation thereof, I have no interest in becoming affiliated with the aforementioned as it offers precious nothing that might benefit me, nor do I own a motorized vehicle. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to any belief in the supernatural of any sort including, but not limited to, Judeo-Christianity and its various subsidiaries.
I do know, however, that people like you have been peddling the population-at-critical-mass bullshit for the better part of the past century and have been repeatedly and consistently been proven wrong. Don't let that dissuade you from trying though.
-
-
Pablo said:How many chains could we lube with the oil that was spilled in the Gulf of Mexico?
I'll bite on that one.
I would imagine ALL of them. Every bike ever made from the day they were first invented until today -and even beyond that way out into the future.
How would you have liked being that guy who did the final "kill" of that well the other day? Dude was piloting a drill almost blind miles away from where he was controlling it and trying to hit a target the size of a dinner plate.
It would have sucked if it would have blown out again at that point -wouldn't it? Talk about the relief he must have felt (and everyone involved) knowing they succeeded instead of making things worse. Had they failed they'd have been the next great satan!
I don't think our civilization is going to get totally off of the need for petroleum to make things in the next thousand years -but it would be nice to cut our needs to something less than the limited amount that there is left... How we do that is the big question. I have to agree with that video in that chain oil isn't the problem -it's burning the stuff for fuel that is the problem. Our civilization needs an energy transport source to survive. Oil is the way we do it now and will be for a while until we find another way like nuclear or something like that in the future. So far wind/solar and all the other "renewable" sources are just round-about ways of burning fossil fuels. IMHO We'll never get enough energy out of these to ever recover the energy costs used to build and maintain them in the first place -much less fuel our society. We need something that gives us a better return on our resource investment.
-
-
Where did you find me copping to unabashed selfishness, you little turd? I recall stating nothing of the sort.
Ezra Hozinsky said:Well, aren't you strong! Congratulations on admitting to everyone that you need nothing nor care for anything of this world except that which directly benefits you! A model citizen if I've ever seen one, so long as you're still in diapers.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
