You're just talking about hypotheticals. Saying hey this technology is good because the hypothetical is much worse. Well the hypothetical is just a random guess

You're just talking about hypotheticals. Saying hey this technology is good because the hypothetical is much worse. Well the hypothetical is just a random guess. As i said you're rationalizing. >The "plastic crisis" is not an example where Luddites were right. At the time it seemed like a good idea to make everything out of plastic, and it probably was... "Seemed like a good idea"? and "probably right"? Wow. you have no confidence in what you're talking about here. Your language implies that you AREN'T even sure about the hypothetical alternative if we didn't take the plastic route. The rest of the argument is basically just a rant on how to "solve" the problem and in no way a counter to the fact that plastic technology has harmed the planet. You ingest a credit card worth of plastic per week thanks to the "plastic crisis". >Fossil fuels were not an example where Luddites were right. They have lifted billions out of poverty over hundreds of years at a comparatively small cost, to say nothing of saving countless millions from freezing to death in the dark. Now it's time to leave them behind, and that's just what we're doing. More hypothetical's. Nobody was lifted out of poverty. What happens is that food production increased so the planet can support a bigger population. Without that production increase those people wouldn't have existed in the first place. Society existed fine at lower pre-industrial state with a much lower and sustainable population just fine without fossil fuels. This discussion of hypotheticals is a form of rationalization. There is literally no denying that each of the technologies I list here contributes a negative to society. >Obesity and misinformation are not examples where Luddites were right. Again, you're just flailing here, pulling random crap out of your ass. No. Nothing's pulled out of my ass. It's just you're unable to comprehend anything. Let me spell out to you what I'm talking about. I'm talking about INDUSTRIAL FOOD PROCESSING. Not industrial farming. Farming doesn't cause obesity. Food processing does when you strip a food product down to levels of unnatural purity. Go read it again. You're such a genius. Unbelievable. >"Negative effects of the Internet" reported on an Internet quack medical news site. Okey-dokey, then. Bro. Everybody on the face of the earth knows the negative psychological effects of social media. The negative health effects of people spending too much time gaming on the internet. Everybody knows this. There's a million sites talking about this. It's OBVIOUS. You want a "better" source? Here: https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/facebook.pdf random research paper from stanford. But this is besides the point. You're just arguing to stay alive right now. I simply "cited" a source to show you how it CAN be cited. But literally you pop up here laughing at the source? It's like I proved to you with a dictionary that O-N-E spells ONE and you just laugh at my source and don't even believe that O-N-E spells one. Wow just wow. >Nuclear weapons put a stop to increasingly-destructive world wars by doing the unthinkable: making the leaders fear for their own lives. That's a boon unmatched by any other in post-medieval history. And nuclear technology could have saved us from countless other ills, if it weren't for mindless FUD from celebrities and politicians with no sense of risk assessment. This is next level mind twisting. The amount of bias you have to have in order to prove your point must be so high that you can even justify nuclear weapons as good. You're too far gone man. Leaders fearing for their own lives as if leaders were never ever under any sort of threat to their lives before nuclear weapons appeared? And to even compare fear for life with actual destruction of civilization as if there's some net benefit that makes the risk of nuclear holocaust justifiable... it's just embarrassing at this point. You're too far gone man. >Chernobyl? See above. Fossil fuel power sources have killed unimaginable magnitudes more people than nuclear power plants ever could, which is one reason why we need to move past them. But they do it in boring, remote places like hospitals and cancer wards, and they do it years after the harm is inflicted. Without scary green blobs of molten radioactive crap to show on TV, nobody including you cares. News flash: faulty reasoning leads to poor outcomes, (no) film at 11. Bro, all of this was addressed. Read what I wrote before responding with stuff I already talked about. >Whether you should "go on" or not is up to you. I can write whatever the hell I want to write. Whether I go on or not is 100% up to ME. >You appear to be addressing a question that wasn't asked, or that was asked by someone who isn't here. You're delusional. I'm not addressing a question because no question was asked. It only appears that way to you. I don't know why it appears that way to you. Perhaps something is wrong with you. Let me describe to you what I'm doing. Someone stated "None of which you seem to be able to cite." So I decided to cite a bunch of stuff to show him how he's completely and utterly WRONG. That's it. Either way it worked. I got you. From 2 sentence responses to an entire wall of text. You had to "defend" your argument here only you seem to be unable to realize that you had no argument to begin with and right now you're just defending your pride.