4 ms·

I don't think we'd be premature in reducing our environmental impact

toomuchtodo 8y ago
There are enormous amounts of landfill space available, and when properly lined, do not impact the environment. Throw those broken glasses out, throw on a new pair, and get back to work working on something important.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  Interesting opinion. There are not infinitely many resources though and our energy consumption is not yet even near CO2-neutrality. It's insignificant for eye glass frames, but not so much for other stuff, like packaging.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    I have confidence humanity will solve the disposal issue soon enough no hand wringing will be required. See: rapid renewables deployment across the globe and the hockey stick EV adoption curve. It’s not as if this is nuclear waste. Toss it in the ground, wrap it up nicely, and we’ll revisit it in 50-100 years. Disclaimer: recovering recycling evangelist
    - moate 8y ago
      >>I have confidence humanity will solve the disposal issue soon enough Hubris my man. Pure hubris. I'm not saying it's not possible, but when there are strong financial interests tied to NOT doing exactly that, it doesn't feel like something I'd say I'm confident in. Also "soon enough" to undo all the damage that things like the Pacific Garbage Patch have done to the environment? Soon enough to remove all the mercury in food chain? There's literal things dying because of this. I think the hand wringing is justified. You can make it a value prop (we save X human lives because of products packaged in this manner, so fuck these bees) but there's still actual consequences to our planetary roommates.
      - toomuchtodo 8y ago
        One person's hubris is another person's faith in human ingenuity. Your pacific garbage patch example is disingenuous. It would not occur if poor countries had proper waste disposal infrastructure (ie collection and landfills).
        moate 8y ago
        >> It would not occur if poor countries had proper waste disposal infrastructure (ie collection and landfills). Sure, and if we just provide food for everyone then nobody will be hungry. That's some high quality hand waving there my friend. The whole "don't worry, we'll figure it out" attitude just comes across as useless. There aren't realistic solutions in place right now. People are working on solutions though. This doesn't mean that there's any reason to assume these solutions would work on a global scale. When dealing with problems like this, we're going to require extraordinary solutions. Confusing "possible" and "probable" is my issue here.
beat 8y ago
Worrying about discarded eyeglasses as an "environmental impact" issue is a classic example of bikeshedding. I'll burn more gasoline driving home from work than the mass of a pair of eyeglasses. And I'll burn it in a car that has a 10-15 year lifespan and weighs about as much as 100,000 pairs of glasses (I'm guessing here, but it's at least in the tens of thousands). Bikeshedding for purpose of condescension is one of the biggest and most avoidable sins of environmentalism. Don't do that.
- smolder 8y ago
  While I was replying in a thread that started about wasting frames for glasses, the parent poster seemed to have gone on a tangent about resource waste generally being insignificant next to human time costs. I did not mean to contend that saving the wasted glasses frames was needed.

There are enormous amounts of landfill space available, and when properly lined, do not impact the environment. Throw those broken glasses out, throw on a new pair, and get back to work working on something important.

solarkraft 8y ago
Interesting opinion. There are not infinitely many resources though and our energy consumption is not yet even near CO2-neutrality. It's insignificant for eye glass frames, but not so much for other stuff, like packaging.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I have confidence humanity will solve the disposal issue soon enough no hand wringing will be required. See: rapid renewables deployment across the globe and the hockey stick EV adoption curve. It’s not as if this is nuclear waste. Toss it in the ground, wrap it up nicely, and we’ll revisit it in 50-100 years. Disclaimer: recovering recycling evangelist
  - moate 8y ago
    >>I have confidence humanity will solve the disposal issue soon enough Hubris my man. Pure hubris. I'm not saying it's not possible, but when there are strong financial interests tied to NOT doing exactly that, it doesn't feel like something I'd say I'm confident in. Also "soon enough" to undo all the damage that things like the Pacific Garbage Patch have done to the environment? Soon enough to remove all the mercury in food chain? There's literal things dying because of this. I think the hand wringing is justified. You can make it a value prop (we save X human lives because of products packaged in this manner, so fuck these bees) but there's still actual consequences to our planetary roommates.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      One person's hubris is another person's faith in human ingenuity. Your pacific garbage patch example is disingenuous. It would not occur if poor countries had proper waste disposal infrastructure (ie collection and landfills).
      - moate 8y ago
        >> It would not occur if poor countries had proper waste disposal infrastructure (ie collection and landfills). Sure, and if we just provide food for everyone then nobody will be hungry. That's some high quality hand waving there my friend. The whole "don't worry, we'll figure it out" attitude just comes across as useless. There aren't realistic solutions in place right now. People are working on solutions though. This doesn't mean that there's any reason to assume these solutions would work on a global scale. When dealing with problems like this, we're going to require extraordinary solutions. Confusing "possible" and "probable" is my issue here.

beat 8y ago

Worrying about discarded eyeglasses as an "environmental impact" issue is a classic example of bikeshedding. I'll burn more gasoline driving home from work than the mass of a pair of eyeglasses. And I'll burn it in a car that has a 10-15 year lifespan and weighs about as much as 100,000 pairs of glasses (I'm guessing here, but it's at least in the tens of thousands). Bikeshedding for purpose of condescension is one of the biggest and most avoidable sins of environmentalism. Don't do that.

smolder 8y ago
While I was replying in a thread that started about wasting frames for glasses, the parent poster seemed to have gone on a tangent about resource waste generally being insignificant next to human time costs. I did not mean to contend that saving the wasted glasses frames was needed.