Superficially, yes, it’s true. They could blow a shitload of cash copying what we did in the 19th century. Or … they could do it properly, with the benefit of hindsight and an awareness of the world’s finite resources. I recall seeing an interview with a British water expert somewhere, who stated that “if we were installing a sewage system today, we wouldn’t do it the way we did it back then”. Or words to that effect. There are several better technologies for dealing with poo which are cheaper to build and operate, which don’t pollute the environment with toxic disinfectants, and which don’t flush valuable non-renewable material out to sea where it can never be recovered.
I’m afraid I’ve seen little evidence of that. They’re usually clever people, certainly, but they they’re not paid to think or come up with radical ideas. So they tend to just go by The Book, and The Book was written by Americans in 1920. Or, at least, by people with a less civilised view of the planet’s ecology than prevails today.
Hehe. Yes. Taiwan is a global hub for urban planners. Danes, Canadians, New Zealanders etc, fly into Taiwan and weep over the beauty of its traffic flow systems, sewage, and zoning laws in action.
If urban planners think it’s a clever idea to chuck raw sewage into waterways, I don’t think it’s arrogant to question their abilities.
There are thousands of people all over the world saying the exact same thing - urban planners, politicians, scientists, hydrologists, agriculturalists. There are also several countries successfully upgrading to next-generation technology (Sweden, for example, is big on composting toilets). I’m not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing out that most of the technology you take for granted simply doesn’t work that well, or doesn’t do what it purports to do. Including flush toilets and TP. OK, I get ermintrude’s point about TP and wimmin, but a bin full of slightly-soiled tissues is merely icky, not grossly unhygienic. You’re not going to catch the plague from it, and it can be properly recycled, ie., sent back to the land that grew the trees for the TP.
According to Merriam-Webster, the essential component of arrogance is presumption: assuming you’re right because, well, you’re right - you don’t have any actual backup for your assertion. I have at least attempted to explain why the flush-toilet system is a failure, and you’re at liberty to offer counterarguments. I say Westerners are/were arrogant in promoting their inventions because the salesmen and marketers who went off to make money from them didn’t really understand how they work or what their unintended side-effects are. There are still people promoting flush toilets in Africa, oblivious to the fact that Africa doesn’t have the money to waste on such boondoggles, and unaware that the main parts of Western sewage systems were built 100 years ago with the profits of empire (read up on the Great Stink for a primer on the chabuduo evolution of the UK version). What poor countries need is a solution that actually works, and doesn’t cost an arm and a leg so everyone can afford it.
My original point was that a lot of routine technology was developed first in the West and then eagerly adopted by others - often (not always of course) with disastrous results. The reason it appeared not-so-disastrous in the originating countries is that they were “rich”, and therefore more able to paper over the cracks; for example, Westerners are able to disguise the fact that disposal of human and animal sewage is a massive waste of resources by mining phosphorus, and they can afford the immense cost of processing combined sewage to make it safer (not safe) to dump into seas and rivers. I consider this arrogant because the technology is usually promoted by people who only dimly understand its wider consequences - or perhaps just don’t care about them.
The article-writer is simply repeating received wisdom about hygiene.[/quote]
Yes, we know your answer on everything. We get it. We (the world) is stupid and it needs to rebuild the entire infrastructure for basically everything.
Hehe. Yes. Taiwan is a global hub for urban planners. Danes, Canadians, New Zealanders etc, fly into Taiwan and weep over the beauty of its traffic flow systems, sewage, and zoning laws in action.[/quote]
What I meant but didn’t express well was that I don’t think they are blindly copying stuff because it is Western.
I think the Swedes have been doing that for years. I’m not saying that to dispute with you about anything; I’m just making an observation. I read also that some Swedes have what you might call high-tech wood stoves. I remember seeing an Ingmar Bergman flick in the 'seventies, set in then-recent times (maybe the 'sixties? 'fifties?), in which the lighting in one of the houses was provided by what appeared to be kerosene lamps.
It seems to me that Sweden is a special case, and that a country like the U. S. couldn’t very well imitate Sweden in any serious, substantial way if they tried with might and main. I could be wrong about that, though, and it certainly can’t hurt to look at what other societies are up to.
I think I read about that in the 'seventies, or maybe the 'eighties. The particular example used was a device that purportedly used burnt-out fluorescent lights to sanitize water. The name given to that sort of thing was “appropriate technology.” I haven’t heard much about that kind of thing since then, though.
In the John Horne Burns World War II novel The Gallery (actually it seems more like a collection of vignettes than a novel), there’s a scene in which some Neapolitans (Naples was devastated at the time) are discussing how much better the American (white) bread is than their own (probably whole-grain) bread.
I ain’t knockin’ what you propose to do, not at all; my point is, how you gonna go about doin’ it–you know, what with human beings being the way they are?
Wasn’t suggesting that. If you’re happy to never question any aspect of your culture or the things that make it operate, that’s fine. Personally I find it interesting that Taiwanese people have different toilet arrangements, to examine the reasons people do what they do, and to think about ways they might be done better. If we all just sit here nodding our heads and agreeing, “Yes! Those dirty Taiwanese people need to do things the way we civilised white men do it!”, that’s a pretty boring thread, right?
They have.
I was originally pointing out that most technologies don’t travel well; so they could be a special case. OTOH, some work well when tweaked for local conditions. But yes, all I was saying is that it’s worth objectively examining other people’s solutions, and comparing with our own, before touting what we do as the best. Abacus is unable to explain why TP-and-flush-toilets is the dog’s bollocks. It just is, because that’s what he grew up with.
My take on the matter is that people vote with their wallets, especially in cash-strapped countries. Offer something that delivers civilised results at one-tenth of the price, and you’ll get customers. Sure, you can get the UN to subsidize the expensive technology, but that’s inherently self-limiting.
In a ‘normal’ country a bin in a ladies toilet, restroom is for the monthly hygiene attributes to be deposited and not flushed … that can block the sewer. Or elephant crap could be blocking it too.
[quote=“finley”]There’s nothing ‘civilised’ about dumping your shit in the river. Halfwitted humans have been doing this since the beginning of time. Just because they’ve invented a shiny porcelain thing that makes it look civilized doesn’t make it so.
It sounds like Taiwan’s sewage system still can’t cope with toilet paper, principally because there isn’t a sewage system. I’ve long suspected most of it gets dumped untreated into the waterways, but this is the first time I’ve seen actual confirmation in print.
Most people in the world don’t use toilet paper. They wash instead. A lot of Taiwanese people seem to do the same (hence the fully-tiled bathrooms and ‘open’ showers). This seems a much more genteel arrangement than smearing shit around your ringpiece with a bit of tissue paper. Frankly, it’s a bit arrogant for Westerners to go around the world trumpeting about their great “solutions” for things when most of what we’ve got only appears to work because we throw huge amounts of money at it to keep it working, or to hide the fact that it doesn’t.
What’s sad is that foreigners actually take notice when we go around spreading our stupid memes. So now we’ve got a world full of pollution, cars, processed food, and flush toilets, leaving the scientists and engineers to try to figure out a way to mitigate the consequences.[/quote]
Italians use a ‘bidet’ to clean their back outlet and think that northern Europeans are filthy bastards just wiping it with with paper.
I guess 'jungle 'people use leaves or their hands, or have it licked by some animal, just leave it where it drops … it’s fertilizer for the next endangered tree … and for the monthly visit of auntie rosy women use nothing …
[quote=“finley”]I won’t claim to be an expert on Taiwanese ass-wiping habits, but I don’t think it’s an either-or. A lot of bathrooms have one of those little water jet thingies installed beside (or in) the toilet; they’re even more common in other Asian countries - or, alternatively, a bucket of water and a plastic ladle. TP seems to be in common use because it’s “modern” (and for public toilets it’s definitely more convenient), but there’s a general recognition that it doesn’t actually get you clean.
I was addressing the question as originally framed. The fact that flush toilets are inherently wasteful, expensive and polluting doesn’t negate the fact that TP is also a dumb solution to a simple problem.[/quote]
A plastic ladle to scrape the shit off?
My original point was that a lot of routine technology was developed first in the West and then eagerly adopted by others - often (not always of course) with disastrous results. The reason it appeared not-so-disastrous in the originating countries is that they were “rich”, and therefore more able to paper over the cracks; for example, Westerners are able to disguise the fact that disposal of human and animal sewage is a massive waste of resources by mining phosphorus, and they can afford the immense cost of processing combined sewage to make it safer (not safe) to dump into seas and rivers. I consider this arrogant because the technology is usually promoted by people who only dimly understand its wider consequences - or perhaps just don’t care about them.
The article-writer is simply repeating received wisdom about hygiene.[/quote]
There are ‘no flush’ fertilizer (composting) toilets that have some moving parts to transport the ‘dry’ part … the urine is used for other purposes. But it reeks somewhat.
Apparently the Romans used a communal sponge on a stick. If that was the Taiwanese method, I’d be arguing in favour of TP
Those are, technically, dessicating toilets, not composters. A true composter uses a composting substrate - which can be made with a pretty wide range of ingredients, including paper, wood waste, green waste, kitchen waste, agricultural waste, or plants grown specifically for the purpose. This is added to the, um, deposits from the users in a ratio of at least 3:1 (typically 5:1). There is no urine separation, and you can throw in other stuff that might block a toilet (sanitary towels etc) as long as it’s biodegradable. They shouldn’t stink - if they do, it means the composting process isn’t working. Better designs have an “exhaust” and a filter (typically above roof level) that maintains negative pressure through the system, pulling air through the toilet and composting chamber. This keeps the aerobic decomposition process working full steam ahead.
Apparently the Romans used a communal sponge on a stick. If that was the Taiwanese method, I’d be arguing in favour of TP
Those are, technically, dessicating toilets, not composters. A true composter uses a composting substrate - which can be made with a pretty wide range of ingredients, including paper, wood waste, green waste, kitchen waste, agricultural waste, or plants grown specifically for the purpose. This is added to the, um, deposits from the users in a ratio of at least 3:1 (typically 5:1). There is no urine separation, and you can throw in other stuff that might block a toilet (sanitary towels etc) as long as it’s biodegradable. They shouldn’t stink - if they do, it means the composting process isn’t working. Better designs have an “exhaust” and a filter (typically above roof level) that maintains negative pressure through the system, pulling air through the toilet and composting chamber. This keeps the aerobic decomposition process working full steam ahead.[/quote]
I’ve been in a public dessicating,/composting one in France … it reeked.
) we are talking about you!!!
If urban planners think it’s a clever idea to chuck raw sewage into waterways, I don’t think it’s arrogant to question their abilities.
