4 ms·

Yeah, that sounds fine to me. This would be a reasonable objection if plastic straws were going to drastically change our impact on the environment. If we were

Yeah, that sounds fine to me. This would be a reasonable objection if plastic straws were going to drastically change our impact on the environment. If we were a near zero-emission, zero-waste society, and plastic straws were the last thing holding us back from sustainability on a thousand-millions of years time frame, then maybe we should force the issue. But until then, making life harder for disabled people in order to make a tiny dent at the edges of the pollution our society creates is not worth it.

justinator 8y ago
Then I would have to disagree with your point of view as marginal gains in a lot of different areas in all our lives (tiny dents, as you say) is how we're going to change things, barring a deus ex machina massive breakthrough in technology, which - I'm not going to hold my breath. One could use the, "I'm not given up x, until y is reached" for almost anything that's a contemporary convenience or luxury. That's stymies most any progress. If the problem is people's view on disabled people, then we need to change people's view. If right now, we can get rid of plastic, single-use straws, except for disabled people, then to me: that sounds like a very reasonable compromise to marginally remove new plastic from the environment.
- hyperpape 8y ago
  There's a difference between asking everyone in society to give up something equally small (this was arguably true of the restrictions on incandescent bulbs that went into effect roughly ten years ago), and putting a disproportionate burden on people who are already disadvantaged and actively discriminated against. My point isn't "never do anything small", it's "find something else to do that doesn't hurt people who really deserve better".
  - justinator 8y ago
    You're framing plastic straws as an inalienable right. I'm saying we can live without them; we did before and for most of recorded human history. This isn't an impossible problem to solve.
    - hyperpape 8y ago
      For much of human history, we let disabled people die, murdered them as children, or treated them like animals. Any appeal to what we did for most of human history is worthless. The question is, given modern technology, how can we do best for all of us?

justinator 8y ago

Then I would have to disagree with your point of view as marginal gains in a lot of different areas in all our lives (tiny dents, as you say) is how we're going to change things, barring a deus ex machina massive breakthrough in technology, which - I'm not going to hold my breath. One could use the, "I'm not given up x, until y is reached" for almost anything that's a contemporary convenience or luxury. That's stymies most any progress. If the problem is people's view on disabled people, then we need to change people's view. If right now, we can get rid of plastic, single-use straws, except for disabled people, then to me: that sounds like a very reasonable compromise to marginally remove new plastic from the environment.

hyperpape 8y ago
There's a difference between asking everyone in society to give up something equally small (this was arguably true of the restrictions on incandescent bulbs that went into effect roughly ten years ago), and putting a disproportionate burden on people who are already disadvantaged and actively discriminated against. My point isn't "never do anything small", it's "find something else to do that doesn't hurt people who really deserve better".
- justinator 8y ago
  You're framing plastic straws as an inalienable right. I'm saying we can live without them; we did before and for most of recorded human history. This isn't an impossible problem to solve.
  - hyperpape 8y ago
    For much of human history, we let disabled people die, murdered them as children, or treated them like animals. Any appeal to what we did for most of human history is worthless. The question is, given modern technology, how can we do best for all of us?