Todd Parr wrote:

stephen lowe wrote:... I think we can do better than pooping in drinking water.

I agree 100% IF you are on a city system and pumping waste to a giant chemical-laden processing plant, but what difference does it make if you are rural and have a well and a septic system?  Nothing involved, be it the waste or the water, leaves my land.  The only thing "wasted" is the amount of electricity it takes to pump the water, and unless you have all the carbon you need available, I doubt that is worse than the gas to get carbon material moved to my land.

I agree with this also. And granted if drinking water was rare, it might be different. But the truth is, my well fills up. If I use the water, it fills up again. I suspect that the "footprint" of the amount of electricity to pump enough water for a flush toilet in my system is probably quite a bit less than it takes for me to go buy bales of sawdust for $.80 a cubic foot (because my truck is broken and I can't get it delivered).

The water is going to come either way. If I don't use it, I don't use it, but using it doesn't create a shortage.

stephen lowe wrote:

Todd Parr wrote:

stephen lowe wrote:... I think we can do better than pooping in drinking water.

I agree 100% IF you are on a city system and pumping waste to a giant chemical-laden processing plant, but what difference does it make if you are rural and have a well and a septic system?  Nothing involved, be it the waste or the water, leaves my land.  The only thing "wasted" is the amount of electricity it takes to pump the water, and unless you have all the carbon you need available, I doubt that is worse than the gas to get carbon material moved to my land.

I can certainly see that perspective, to me it's more about restoring the respect for water as sacred. Instead of adding poop to it and making both substances less useful we can keep them separate and both can remain viable resources. Also, depending on where you live rurally water may be more or less scarce. But again, to me it is more about returning to a worldview where water is given it's rightful place as the source of life, not just the disposer of waste.

Believe me, as a mother of three kids I can confidently say it is possible to be both a source of life AND a disposer of waste

stephen lowe wrote:

Todd Parr wrote:

stephen lowe wrote:... I think we can do better than pooping in drinking water.

I agree 100% IF you are on a city system and pumping waste to a giant chemical-laden processing plant, but what difference does it make if you are rural and have a well and a septic system?  Nothing involved, be it the waste or the water, leaves my land.  The only thing "wasted" is the amount of electricity it takes to pump the water, and unless you have all the carbon you need available, I doubt that is worse than the gas to get carbon material moved to my land.

I can certainly see that perspective, to me it's more about restoring the respect for water as sacred. Instead of adding poop to it and making both substances less useful we can keep them separate and both can remain viable resources. Also, depending on where you live rurally water may be more or less scarce. But again, to me it is more about returning to a worldview where water is given it's rightful place as the source of life, not just the disposer of waste.

Hi Stephen,

Not to sound too flippant, but there's a lot of things defecating in natural water sources.  For the sake of brevity, I will only list the 300+ lifeforms that I've seen firsthand (just kidding).  But seriously,  I too feel that we should respect water for the life giver it is, but water takes many forms and is used by nature in many ways, and sometimes she uses it to clean things.  I'm not sure if you saw some of the early posts concerning normal toilets and septics, but much of that water is returned to nature and feeds plants.  You can almost always tell where a septic tank leach field is because of the lush plant growth.  

And yes, absolutely, in an arid environment where water is scarce, flushing half a gallon at a time would be foolish, but in areas where water is abundant, or has been collected on a large scale, I have to agree with Todd that there really isn't much of an ecological footprint.  I myself am so, so, so fortunate to have a spring in my back yard that runs year round.  I realize that, but I collect the water in a cistern and it stays at the same level regardless, this is what I pump out of.  I feel that the water that flows through my septic gets multiple uses and stays on my property longer than if it was used to water flowers in a planter.  It's almost like a key line system where the water works it way slowly through the soil.   I also collect roof runoff to supplement plant watering and I always have enough (and if the grid ever goes down permanently, I'll route the run off system to the toilet some of the time).  Until 15 years ago, my neighbors pull their water out of their man-made lake behind their house.  So there are many people that have a surplus of water thanks to luck, ingenuity, or a little of both.

I guess what I'm saying is that in certain situations, I see no karmic problems using water to recycle waste in the circle of life.  Just my thoughts.