3 ms·
> so that's where the focus should be. See this a lot. You are using your own limited attention span to argue that others shouldn't be doing the work they are
by titzer 7y ago
> so that's where the focus should be.
See this a lot. You are using your own limited attention span to argue that others shouldn't be doing the work they are doing because you can only think about one problem at a time. There are 7.7 billion people on this Earth damn it, we can and should work on multiple different parts of a problem at once. The garbage which is in the oceans needs to extracted (and extracted now, before it gets ground into microplastics), and as others have mentioned, other people are working on catching runoff waste at river sources.
I never really understood people who shout from the sidelines that people who are actually working their asses off on the problem are doing it wrong. Have a little more respect.
- hanniabu 7y agoNot to mention that there are other projects focus on stopping garbage creation at the source of consumers with creating garbage collection and processing programs in these 3rd world areas.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y agoI don’t really have any stats to support either view but the key point is this, if accurate > It's much cheaper to prevent plastic reaching the ocean than cleaning it up We may have 7.7 billion people but less than 0.1% are free and down to work on climate clean up so that doesn’t matter. If one activity is relatively inefficient then it probably shouldn’t be done. The argument here is that you can bail water with a teaspoon or you can plug the hole in the boat. Detractors are saying don’t waste your time with the tea spoon, and you’re saying “well at least it helps!” Similar arguments apply to whether we should burn garbage or not depending on the price of natural gas, or whether or not we should use energy to pull carbon from the sky. Again I don’t know if the detractors are correct but I wouldn’t be shocked if true.