[barumi]

> A better model would really be a low-waste lifestyle and compostable packaging/materials.

Your suggestion only affects how much trash is generated, not the need to process the trash that's generated.

Unless your idealistic "low-waste lifestyle" is able to generate zero waste, the suggestion is pointless.

[giantg2]

How much trash is generated does substantially impact how we manage that trash. This would reduce the frequency of trash pickup, transport, and storage. If it's reduced sufficiently, then the idea about building and maintaining tube infrastructure would not make sense.

Some people reduce it to this [1]. Probably not achievable for most, but a 75% reduction would be significant [2].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/22/zero-was...

[2] https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/trash-americans-p...

[barumi]

> How much trash is generated does substantially impact how we manage that trash.

Volume has an impact on the throughout of the system,not the need to move trash from the producers to the consumers.

This thread is about a proposal for a new system to transport trash. Reducing the amount of trash produced per capita does not eliminate the need to transport trash.

[giantg2]

"Reducing the amount of trash produced per capita does not eliminate the need to transport trash."

But a significant reduction would make the proposed system meaningless from a cost benefit perspective. I already see this system as having no real benefit. Trash is $250/year and sewer is $1250/year, so this new sewer-like proposal will likely be more expensive than it is now.

This is just the systems thinking approach. Who cares about transporting trash if you still have all the other problems, like dumping it in landfills. It's better to think about the entire system and make changes that benefit us on multiple levels. If you aren't willing to talk about the entire problem space, then that tells me something about the quality of the proposal...