6 ms·

Why is causing people - kids or otherwise - to contemplate their footprint on the earth or their impact to other people a bad thing? I’ve never been a straw us

Why is causing people - kids or otherwise - to contemplate their footprint on the earth or their impact to other people a bad thing? I’ve never been a straw user, but frankly we bought some reusable metal straws (my partner uses them), some reusable portable utensils, and regularly carry our portable coffee cups when we go out in public. All things that can fit in a purse or bag. We don’t find it an inconvenience and we like that perhaps in a small way we are reducing the amount of generated waste.

mc32 7y ago
Straws are neither here nor there. More power to you on whatever choice you make. The point is these measures solidify indoctrination. Let us tell you what to do. “We’ll think it through for you. Here is what’s good.” And as kids grow up they grow up trusting these voices telling them what’s best for them. It undercuts their critical thinking skills. It’s one big “YEA”. Rarely are they asked to follow the rabbit hole or all the unintended consequences. But it makes people feel good about “having agency” and “doing good”.
- chimprich 7y ago
  It seems to me that at least as big a problem in today's world is too much scepticism. Most of the time, the experts are correct. People question the science on climate change, the benefits of vaccination, whether the moon landings happened, whether the Earth is round, all based on the flimsiest of evidence.
- ganstyles 7y ago
  My understanding is that a lot of people had this attitude when seatbelts were first introduced as being required for vehicles. And I see it now with respect to things like straws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws. It has always come across to me as very, "Old man yells at cloud" talk. Eventually you or your children won't even miss straws and the world will be better off for having banned them. We all play a part in making things better and it's very hard to argue that not being able to use straws is a bar thing.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    kinda offtopic, but I really object to lumping seatbelt laws and helmet laws together. mandatory seatbelt use is as much for the safety of people outside the vehicle as those within it. unrestrained human bodies can become dangerous projectiles in an accident. mandatory helmet laws are dumb nanny stuff. if someone wants to split their skull on a curb, it's their own business. riding a bike/scooter at low speeds is not particularly risky anyway, and such laws add friction to a healthy and environmentally friendly means of transportation.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  My opinion for what it's worth is all societies do what you are complaining about. Historically most have been far more rigid with barely any introspection.
peterwoerner 7y ago
Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. Frequently we end up with a solution which is even worse for the environment. For instance, we switched from single use plastic bags to multiple use plastic bags in new york. I spent $8 dollars on buying 4 multiuse polypropylenes bags, not a big deal, but 2 of the four bags are already beginning to rip after 5 or 6 uses. In order for the the reusable bags to be as environmentally friendly as the single use bags they need to be reused atleast a couple of hundred times. So my grocery shopping is now a couple of bucks more expensive for me (whatever) and environmentally less friendly. Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  I bought a reusable bag/container from Walmart for $20. I used it at least a hundred times over the course of a couple of years. It was in perfect condition when I switched cities and donated it to someone. Another smaller one for $15 was used twice a week for 3 years.
  - jerf 7y ago
    Those bags require even more uses to be made of them before they break even vs. plastic bags, let alone end up being a benefit. I would find it hard to believe that on average they are a net gain. I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume. Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The issue is miseducation essentially - it effectively promotes bikeshedding and signaling contests instead of anything actually productive. An analogy is "Why would promoting handwashing to combat aids be a bad thing? It gets people focused on health."
- poulsbohemian 7y ago
  >An analogy is "Why would promoting handwashing to combat aids be a bad thing? It gets people focused on health." Well? Do tell. While hand washing or eliminating plastic bags or eliminating plastic straws might not be the end-all be-all of good environmental stewardship or good health practices, I'm a bit dumbfounded how they can be seen in a negative light. It's flu season, be cognizant of hand washing and cover your mouth when you cough - how's that a harmful message again?
  - spdionis 7y ago
    > It's flu season, be cognizant of hand washing and cover your mouth when you cough - how's that a harmful message again Well, you don't get to say you're helping to combat aids by giving out that type of advice. If you try, you are "promoting bikeshedding and signaling contests" instead of doing anything productive [to solve the AIDS problem].
- poulsbohemian 7y ago
  Nasrudith - I suppose I should caveat all this and say that I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response to my query. Thank you for the civil discourse. That stated - this point about "instead of anything actually productive" - the issue there is, I can only do what I can do. That is, I can vote in ways I think are good for the planet. I can choose products with minimal packaging. I can compost and use my metal straws and reusable shopping bags. BUT, I can't make the US agree to the Paris agreement and I am not an executive at an energy company or what have you. Thus, each of us can only do our small part. Is that signaling? Well yes, it signals that I'm trying.
zeveb 7y ago
It's a little like Mr. Obama's Cash-for-Clunkers programme, which sounds awesome at first, right? We got all those old polluting cars off of the roads! Except that they were by and large replaced with new cars whose manufacture caused far more pollution. And the programme expended funds which would have yielded a better result elsewhere. I don't carry any water for plastic straws — haven't used them regularly since I was a kid — but it's easily imaginable that the political capital expended to ban them would have yielded better results for the environment elsewhere. Heck, it's very possible that your metal straws themselves caused more environmental damage than the average man's lifetime straw consumption. Or not.
- organsnyder 7y ago
  These sorts of ad hoc programs are what happens when we have leaders unwilling to consider a carbon tax, which would incentivize market-selected solutions without picking winners. Also, Cash for Clunkers was as much (or more) an economic stimulus program as an environmental program.

mc32 7y ago

Straws are neither here nor there. More power to you on whatever choice you make. The point is these measures solidify indoctrination. Let us tell you what to do. “We’ll think it through for you. Here is what’s good.” And as kids grow up they grow up trusting these voices telling them what’s best for them. It undercuts their critical thinking skills. It’s one big “YEA”. Rarely are they asked to follow the rabbit hole or all the unintended consequences. But it makes people feel good about “having agency” and “doing good”.

chimprich 7y ago
It seems to me that at least as big a problem in today's world is too much scepticism. Most of the time, the experts are correct. People question the science on climate change, the benefits of vaccination, whether the moon landings happened, whether the Earth is round, all based on the flimsiest of evidence.
ganstyles 7y ago
My understanding is that a lot of people had this attitude when seatbelts were first introduced as being required for vehicles. And I see it now with respect to things like straws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws. It has always come across to me as very, "Old man yells at cloud" talk. Eventually you or your children won't even miss straws and the world will be better off for having banned them. We all play a part in making things better and it's very hard to argue that not being able to use straws is a bar thing.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  kinda offtopic, but I really object to lumping seatbelt laws and helmet laws together. mandatory seatbelt use is as much for the safety of people outside the vehicle as those within it. unrestrained human bodies can become dangerous projectiles in an accident. mandatory helmet laws are dumb nanny stuff. if someone wants to split their skull on a curb, it's their own business. riding a bike/scooter at low speeds is not particularly risky anyway, and such laws add friction to a healthy and environmentally friendly means of transportation.
Gibbon1 7y ago
My opinion for what it's worth is all societies do what you are complaining about. Historically most have been far more rigid with barely any introspection.

peterwoerner 7y ago

Because we give false measures and waste time and energy on things which are either insignificant or end up being detrimental. Frequently we end up with a solution which is even worse for the environment. For instance, we switched from single use plastic bags to multiple use plastic bags in new york. I spent $8 dollars on buying 4 multiuse polypropylenes bags, not a big deal, but 2 of the four bags are already beginning to rip after 5 or 6 uses. In order for the the reusable bags to be as environmentally friendly as the single use bags they need to be reused atleast a couple of hundred times. So my grocery shopping is now a couple of bucks more expensive for me (whatever) and environmentally less friendly. Straws are likely the same deal, plastic straws are probably more environmentally friendly than their metal straws.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I bought a reusable bag/container from Walmart for $20. I used it at least a hundred times over the course of a couple of years. It was in perfect condition when I switched cities and donated it to someone. Another smaller one for $15 was used twice a week for 3 years.
- jerf 7y ago
  Those bags require even more uses to be made of them before they break even vs. plastic bags, let alone end up being a benefit. I would find it hard to believe that on average they are a net gain. I think one of the problems is that people very much overestimate how big a problem "plastic bags at the grocery store are", because they're big, and white, and loud when they move around, and they're something so many people deal with. But they're also whisps of plastic nothingness. Save up all the bags you shop with, and see how long it takes for them to equal the mass, of, say, this: https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 https://www.amazon.com//dp/B07HKV9339 You're going to be saving for a long time... and you're going to be saving long past the point where your best efforts have squashed those bags into the same apparent volume. Plastic bags and straws aren't the problem. "Solving" the not-a-problem is burning people's limited give-a-damn on pointless wastes of time, and psychologically rewarding people for doing useless things to their own detriment that helps nobody.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The issue is miseducation essentially - it effectively promotes bikeshedding and signaling contests instead of anything actually productive. An analogy is "Why would promoting handwashing to combat aids be a bad thing? It gets people focused on health."

poulsbohemian 7y ago
>An analogy is "Why would promoting handwashing to combat aids be a bad thing? It gets people focused on health." Well? Do tell. While hand washing or eliminating plastic bags or eliminating plastic straws might not be the end-all be-all of good environmental stewardship or good health practices, I'm a bit dumbfounded how they can be seen in a negative light. It's flu season, be cognizant of hand washing and cover your mouth when you cough - how's that a harmful message again?
- spdionis 7y ago
  > It's flu season, be cognizant of hand washing and cover your mouth when you cough - how's that a harmful message again Well, you don't get to say you're helping to combat aids by giving out that type of advice. If you try, you are "promoting bikeshedding and signaling contests" instead of doing anything productive [to solve the AIDS problem].
poulsbohemian 7y ago
Nasrudith - I suppose I should caveat all this and say that I sincerely appreciate the thoughtful response to my query. Thank you for the civil discourse. That stated - this point about "instead of anything actually productive" - the issue there is, I can only do what I can do. That is, I can vote in ways I think are good for the planet. I can choose products with minimal packaging. I can compost and use my metal straws and reusable shopping bags. BUT, I can't make the US agree to the Paris agreement and I am not an executive at an energy company or what have you. Thus, each of us can only do our small part. Is that signaling? Well yes, it signals that I'm trying.

zeveb 7y ago

It's a little like Mr. Obama's Cash-for-Clunkers programme, which sounds awesome at first, right? We got all those old polluting cars off of the roads! Except that they were by and large replaced with new cars whose manufacture caused far more pollution. And the programme expended funds which would have yielded a better result elsewhere. I don't carry any water for plastic straws — haven't used them regularly since I was a kid — but it's easily imaginable that the political capital expended to ban them would have yielded better results for the environment elsewhere. Heck, it's very possible that your metal straws themselves caused more environmental damage than the average man's lifetime straw consumption. Or not.

organsnyder 7y ago
These sorts of ad hoc programs are what happens when we have leaders unwilling to consider a carbon tax, which would incentivize market-selected solutions without picking winners. Also, Cash for Clunkers was as much (or more) an economic stimulus program as an environmental program.