5 ms·

Not so much an objection, but more of a line of inquiry on tactics. Why try to make something illegal? Why not make something legal? Like instead of 'No Plastic

Not so much an objection, but more of a line of inquiry on tactics. Why try to make something illegal? Why not make something legal? Like instead of 'No Plastic', bonus for Plastic01 and 02. Plastic, like guns and cars and markets, are inherently useful. It is the production, use, and misuse that is the problem. On a legislative level, I feel it is a mistake to always use the limitation of action as an agent for change. Any time there is a problem, people demand a law be made, and Law makers make some action punishable or unavailable. In some cases, this makes sense (drinking and driving), at least initially. But on balance, drinking and driving opens up so many areas for innovation and profit when you factor in self driving vehicles and on demand car services. The problem is going to be how long it will take to alter the Open Container laws. It is hard to undo legislation in my country (USA). I wish people would think to create motivators for desired behavior instead of consequences for undesired behavior.

justifier 11y ago
as much as i like your sentiment: motivators stead limitators; we're talking about a mature industry causing a great deal of harm already yesterday and somehow managing to offload responsibility, using lobbying, onto the consumer subsidising a shift in production interests is a great idea, and i do think a robust alternative will be necessary in pushing forth any able limiting legislation i am uninterested in profiting financially from this effort my interest is in having there be a sane approach to resource utilisation
justifier 11y ago
i've been thinking a lot about your inquiry and my response, so i thank you for taking the time to make it you've caused me to really consider what my goals are i am uninterested in making plastics illegal but rather i'm interested in reducing the amount of plastic waste in the world my initial reaction is the best way to halt this is to remove the ability to create more plastics but as you pointed out it's more interesting to promote stead limit so perhaps instead of making plastic use for superficial, yet to be clearly defined, uses illegal perhaps there is a buy in for use allowance meaning plastic bottling is illegal unless you pay for the rights for so much plastic use but the caveat is two fold first: in order to pay for the rights you need to agree to reduce overall plastic waste in the world meaning, you can use plastic bottles for your product, but you need to be diminishing old plastic accumulation if you fail to reduce at the rate agreed in the permission then your rights are again revoked second: the only ones who can buy the rights to create plastics are research teams attempting to decompose existing plastics in this way the research is funded by the sponsorship of plastic users meaning, a big corp that bottles in plastic uses profits to fund research in plastic decomposition for the ability to continue to bottle in plastics . any thoughts?

justifier 11y ago

as much as i like your sentiment: motivators stead limitators; we're talking about a mature industry causing a great deal of harm already yesterday and somehow managing to offload responsibility, using lobbying, onto the consumer subsidising a shift in production interests is a great idea, and i do think a robust alternative will be necessary in pushing forth any able limiting legislation i am uninterested in profiting financially from this effort my interest is in having there be a sane approach to resource utilisation

justifier 11y ago

i've been thinking a lot about your inquiry and my response, so i thank you for taking the time to make it you've caused me to really consider what my goals are i am uninterested in making plastics illegal but rather i'm interested in reducing the amount of plastic waste in the world my initial reaction is the best way to halt this is to remove the ability to create more plastics but as you pointed out it's more interesting to promote stead limit so perhaps instead of making plastic use for superficial, yet to be clearly defined, uses illegal perhaps there is a buy in for use allowance meaning plastic bottling is illegal unless you pay for the rights for so much plastic use but the caveat is two fold first: in order to pay for the rights you need to agree to reduce overall plastic waste in the world meaning, you can use plastic bottles for your product, but you need to be diminishing old plastic accumulation if you fail to reduce at the rate agreed in the permission then your rights are again revoked second: the only ones who can buy the rights to create plastics are research teams attempting to decompose existing plastics in this way the research is funded by the sponsorship of plastic users meaning, a big corp that bottles in plastic uses profits to fund research in plastic decomposition for the ability to continue to bottle in plastics . any thoughts?