3 ms·
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 a
by 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 agoAbsolutely, 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 agoHow 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 agoI'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.