3 ms·
"environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc." Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a ma
by massysett 11y ago
"environmental damage due to modern mining, plastics, etc."
Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics?
You could voluntarily give these things up. Indeed some communities (e.g. Amish) forsake some technologies. Instead you are using these technologies, enjoying them despite their ill effects, while claiming that most could do without them.
- coldtea 11y ago>Communicated using a network that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics, and using a machine that wouldn't exist without modern mining and plastics? Probably missed the part where I wrote: "That one might point at improvements in other areas that offset these negatives/losses , doesn't mean there wasn't any loss in the first place" Just because something (e.g. plastics) had a useful result, doesn't mean all of its results are useful, that it's sustainable in the long run (e.g. wont come back to bite us in the ass), or that it's currently used optimally. Besides, one can still acknowledge some harm despite the fact that he himself uses what's harmful (e.g. I don't like that pigs are killed for it, but bacon is delicious). That's not "hypocritical", it's just weighting pros and cons. And it's not like it's a black or white thing either. Acknowledging the harm makes us able to make decisions about how to improve things. E.g, to give an extreme example regarding your question, one could very well say: I'm ok with using plastics for important things like computers, but not with the tons of plastic garbage every year but making tons of disposable plastic BS from it (e.g. see the ban on plastic shopping bags in some places).