3 ms·

If those tests can be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost then sure, they should be mandatory. But there's still a question of whether the benefits outw

If those tests can be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost then sure, they should be mandatory. But there's still a question of whether the benefits outweigh any downsides. There's been a number of hypotheses floating about that many of the industrial chemicals permeating our environment might be partly responsible for declining fertility - if true, how do you judge whether that's necessarily a bad thing in a world where we're already overstretching our planet's ability to sustain our lifestyles?

npunt 4y ago
You’re scope creeping unnecessarily - even if we’re beyond carrying capacity for the planet the answer is not let ‘er rip with industrial chemicals. Better to address the issues separately, so you can make sure there are fewer unintended consequences. Also, if industrial chemicals are causing declining birth rates in humans don’t you think they’re doing that to other animals too? And that may be contributing to making the whole planet less livable?
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Absolutely, but the research to determine these things is slow and expensive. We still don't have a clear picture around fertility after decades of study, and that's just one example. Banning things until we have conclusive evidence they're 100% safe isn't feasible, that's my only point. And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
  - amluto 4y ago
    How much economic harm would a ban on untested bioaccumulating persistent small molecules cause? Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I'd agree on such a ban. But how expensive is it to determine that a small molecule is bio accumulating? And how much time/money do we need to spend on testing? It's not the pure economic harm I'm worried about. Such a molecule might well be a key part of a genuine solution to reducing GHG emissions.
autoexec 4y ago
Overpopulation is a larger problem than most people seem to realize because they aren't usually thinking about anything more than how many bodies can be crammed into a given area. Once you start thinking about how many people a given area can sustainably support all the space we seem to have matters a lot less. I'm all for working to address overpopulation, but clearly there's a huge problem with choosing to murder or poison massive numbers of other people to "help". When populations reach the point where they start genuinely thinking being dead or never being born is better than contributing to the problem they stop having kids, and start looking at suicide. Maybe you're at that point already, and if you made the choice to die in order to help, or by way of example, I wouldn't fault you for it, but your feelings on the matter should never become someone else's problem and it should never justify the actions of someone causing, or allowing someone to cause, large numbers of people to suffer.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Not sure how you got any of that from my message. I'm not even suggesting we should keep using particular chemicals even if they're known to be linked to infertility, only that if said chemicals have a particular benefit, maybe the disadvantage of slightly decreased fertility is worthwhile (as it is that link hasn't been firmly established even after decades of research).
  - autoexec 4y ago
    People don't need to decide if the "disadvantage" of being unknowingly poisoned until fertility is impaired is "worth it". Anyone who feels that they are too fertile can have themselves sterilized without the harm to the environment caused by these chemicals and anybody who hasn't made that choice for themselves should never have to worry about being poisoned either. That means nobody should get to decide it's worth it for them to keep using the chemicals if that means everyone else gets poisoned against their will. There's really no big moral dilemma here.

npunt 4y ago

You’re scope creeping unnecessarily - even if we’re beyond carrying capacity for the planet the answer is not let ‘er rip with industrial chemicals. Better to address the issues separately, so you can make sure there are fewer unintended consequences. Also, if industrial chemicals are causing declining birth rates in humans don’t you think they’re doing that to other animals too? And that may be contributing to making the whole planet less livable?

wizofaus 4y ago
Absolutely, but the research to determine these things is slow and expensive. We still don't have a clear picture around fertility after decades of study, and that's just one example. Banning things until we have conclusive evidence they're 100% safe isn't feasible, that's my only point. And just to be clear I'm not the least bit in the laissez-faire camp of "allow anything and let the market decide what's safe" either. Regulation is critical, but it has limits and we (as in taxpayer-funded research facilities etc.) should be regularly reexamining whether the benefits outweigh the downsides for all industrially produced chemical substances.
- amluto 4y ago
  How much economic harm would a ban on untested bioaccumulating persistent small molecules cause? Suppose that there was no evidence that PFOA was harmful. Should we allow unlimited use of it?
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I'd agree on such a ban. But how expensive is it to determine that a small molecule is bio accumulating? And how much time/money do we need to spend on testing? It's not the pure economic harm I'm worried about. Such a molecule might well be a key part of a genuine solution to reducing GHG emissions.

autoexec 4y ago

Overpopulation is a larger problem than most people seem to realize because they aren't usually thinking about anything more than how many bodies can be crammed into a given area. Once you start thinking about how many people a given area can sustainably support all the space we seem to have matters a lot less. I'm all for working to address overpopulation, but clearly there's a huge problem with choosing to murder or poison massive numbers of other people to "help". When populations reach the point where they start genuinely thinking being dead or never being born is better than contributing to the problem they stop having kids, and start looking at suicide. Maybe you're at that point already, and if you made the choice to die in order to help, or by way of example, I wouldn't fault you for it, but your feelings on the matter should never become someone else's problem and it should never justify the actions of someone causing, or allowing someone to cause, large numbers of people to suffer.

wizofaus 4y ago
Not sure how you got any of that from my message. I'm not even suggesting we should keep using particular chemicals even if they're known to be linked to infertility, only that if said chemicals have a particular benefit, maybe the disadvantage of slightly decreased fertility is worthwhile (as it is that link hasn't been firmly established even after decades of research).
- autoexec 4y ago
  People don't need to decide if the "disadvantage" of being unknowingly poisoned until fertility is impaired is "worth it". Anyone who feels that they are too fertile can have themselves sterilized without the harm to the environment caused by these chemicals and anybody who hasn't made that choice for themselves should never have to worry about being poisoned either. That means nobody should get to decide it's worth it for them to keep using the chemicals if that means everyone else gets poisoned against their will. There's really no big moral dilemma here.