3 ms·

Compared to ignoring global warming - ignoring lead exposure is a minor negligence.

by ajuc 5y ago

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Both are a product of the same process of privileging of commodity production for profit over overall collective well-being. And yes, I'm aware that said commodity production produces wealth which also improves well-being. But there's a contradiction there in our economic model that is not serving us well. EDIT: I should add to my point above that what's common with both these is one overarching world altering product that has completely transformed the world: the automobile. Ribbons of tarmac lace the earth (it wouldn't surprise me if this is a long term environmental problem, too), even in some of the most remote sections of the planet. Cities are built around them, privileging automobile use above a bunch of other aspects of quality of life. Road transport is 75ish% of global CO2 emissions. And, yeah, leaded fuel poisoned our bodies, minds, and the environment for decades.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Economics has a term for this: negative externalities. A buys a snowblower from B, gaining 4 health for not shoveling and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. B buys a leaf blower from C, gaining 4 health from not raking and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. C buys a lawnmower from A, gaining 4 health from not scything and reducing everybody's health by 3. Each seller gets 4 health from the money. Every trade is beneficial to both parties by 1 health unit, but now, everybody is worse off by 1 health unit than they would be had the trades not happened. In practice, we're usually D-Z, who participated in no trades and get a net reduction in health of 9.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    That is an incredibly naive way of looking at it. The way it usually goes is "everyone is +5, except the village that shares the watershed with the mine" On anything but the shortest timeline things like like wealth, health and productivity are fungible at the societal level. If the net cumulative effect of the externalities wasn't smaller than the benefits of the progress then the progress wouldn't happen because more people would be worse off and things would grind to a halt because the gains would be more than offset.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      Not only is it not naive, but avoiding these scenarios woth market regulation is one of the main purposes of modern government. Hence, vaccination policies and CFC regulation. Libertarians like to believe that negative externalities and other market failures don't exist, that the invisible hand is always benevolent, but examples abound for those who do not follow a religion that forbids them from noticing.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        >Not only is it not naive, but avoiding these scenarios woth market regulation is one of the main purposes of modern government. Hence, vaccination policies and CFC regulation. Libertarians like to believe that negative externalities and other market failures don't exist, that the invisible hand is always benevolent, but examples abound for those who do not follow a religion that forbids them from noticing. It's still naive, or maybe obtuse. Repeating the "negative externality" buzzword doesn't give you a blank check to peddle your preferred ideology (government intervention/regulation) while crapping on the other team. Without regulation we get lithium batteries and a couple dozen poisoned watersheds. With regulation we get slightly more expensive batteries and fewer poisoned watersheds. Regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about regulation it's somewhere between farcical and deceitful to pretend that the economic activity in both of those situations doesn't help more than it hurts. If it didn't work this way progress would grind to a halt because the increased material wealth of having the batteries would be more than cancelled out by the problems that poisoned watersheds create, to run with the existing example.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        Examples where most people are worse off are easy to think of. I gave an example where everybody is worse off because it is an interesting scenario. I made no claim about how often that situation occurs. There is no reason for overall progress to grind to a halt — the Nash equilibria for a game can be arbitrarily bad. There is only the obvious conclusion that governments should get involved to fix these problems when they occur, including regulating lead use, given that we see plenty of governments that have not and have suffered the consequences.
catchclose8919 5y ago
...are you sure about that?

Compared to ignoring global warming - ignoring lead exposure is a minor negligence.

by ajuc 5y ago

Compared to ignoring global warming - ignoring lead exposure is a minor negligence.

Both are a product of the same process of privileging of commodity production for profit over overall collective well-being. And yes, I'm aware that said commodity production produces wealth which also improves well-being. But there's a contradiction there in our economic model that is not serving us well. EDIT: I should add to my point above that what's common with both these is one overarching world altering product that has completely transformed the world: the automobile. Ribbons of tarmac lace the earth (it wouldn't surprise me if this is a long term environmental problem, too), even in some of the most remote sections of the planet. Cities are built around them, privileging automobile use above a bunch of other aspects of quality of life. Road transport is 75ish% of global CO2 emissions. And, yeah, leaded fuel poisoned our bodies, minds, and the environment for decades.

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Economics has a term for this: negative externalities. A buys a snowblower from B, gaining 4 health for not shoveling and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. B buys a leaf blower from C, gaining 4 health from not raking and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. C buys a lawnmower from A, gaining 4 health from not scything and reducing everybody's health by 3. Each seller gets 4 health from the money. Every trade is beneficial to both parties by 1 health unit, but now, everybody is worse off by 1 health unit than they would be had the trades not happened. In practice, we're usually D-Z, who participated in no trades and get a net reduction in health of 9.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  That is an incredibly naive way of looking at it. The way it usually goes is "everyone is +5, except the village that shares the watershed with the mine" On anything but the shortest timeline things like like wealth, health and productivity are fungible at the societal level. If the net cumulative effect of the externalities wasn't smaller than the benefits of the progress then the progress wouldn't happen because more people would be worse off and things would grind to a halt because the gains would be more than offset.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Not only is it not naive, but avoiding these scenarios woth market regulation is one of the main purposes of modern government. Hence, vaccination policies and CFC regulation. Libertarians like to believe that negative externalities and other market failures don't exist, that the invisible hand is always benevolent, but examples abound for those who do not follow a religion that forbids them from noticing.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      >Not only is it not naive, but avoiding these scenarios woth market regulation is one of the main purposes of modern government. Hence, vaccination policies and CFC regulation. Libertarians like to believe that negative externalities and other market failures don't exist, that the invisible hand is always benevolent, but examples abound for those who do not follow a religion that forbids them from noticing. It's still naive, or maybe obtuse. Repeating the "negative externality" buzzword doesn't give you a blank check to peddle your preferred ideology (government intervention/regulation) while crapping on the other team. Without regulation we get lithium batteries and a couple dozen poisoned watersheds. With regulation we get slightly more expensive batteries and fewer poisoned watersheds. Regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about regulation it's somewhere between farcical and deceitful to pretend that the economic activity in both of those situations doesn't help more than it hurts. If it didn't work this way progress would grind to a halt because the increased material wealth of having the batteries would be more than cancelled out by the problems that poisoned watersheds create, to run with the existing example.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        Examples where most people are worse off are easy to think of. I gave an example where everybody is worse off because it is an interesting scenario. I made no claim about how often that situation occurs. There is no reason for overall progress to grind to a halt — the Nash equilibria for a game can be arbitrarily bad. There is only the obvious conclusion that governments should get involved to fix these problems when they occur, including regulating lead use, given that we see plenty of governments that have not and have suffered the consequences.

catchclose8919 5y ago

...are you sure about that?