3 ms·

You have to admit the same argument in other contexts is a little funny. Like if you were exposed to an industrial pollutant that was shown to reduce your brain

You have to admit the same argument in other contexts is a little funny. Like if you were exposed to an industrial pollutant that was shown to reduce your brain mass by 1% I don't think many people would be saying 'do I really need that brain material?' Obviously this is more than a little influenced by enjoying the effects of a drug.

bergenty 4y ago
I mean a pollutant has no upside. Being intoxicated has a lot of upsides including a good time, stress relief, community etc.
- gruez 4y ago
  The pollutant isn't being dumped into the environment for fun. It's almost always done in service of some sort of economic activity (eg. farming, power generation, resource extraction). In this context the upside is the associated economic activity.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    Taking alcohol is my choice. I make that choice because I think the trade off is worth it, but I respect other people who think otherwise and do not drink. It is nobody’s choice to live in a polluted atmosphere and you cannot opt out.
  - Teever 4y ago
    That argument assumes high efficiency in society when we both know that society is anything but.
the_only_law 4y ago
Well, on one hand, I drink alcohol on my own choice, it’s not much my choice if some pollutant is dumped into the air.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  > it’s not much my choice if some pollutant is dumped into the air Aren't you enjoying the benefits of those pollutants ? The sheer fact that you are posting on HN means that you have access to a device that was produced thousands of miles away and got delivered to you. No one forced you to own one, that was your choice. Just because you are not the one physically emitting the stuff does not mean you share no responsibility for it.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    The reception your comment got says a lot about the HN community's ability to have adult discussion about subjects involving bodily harm. The supply chain for our basic necessities of life maims and kills people but we consider putting food on plates to be well worth the tradeoffs. Having a blood diamond on your ring is not something we consider to be worth the tradeoffs. The tradeoffs made to get a smartphone or computer into a consumer's hand, along with the tradeoffs of consuming booze, exist somewhere in the nuanced continuum between those fairly extreme example points.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      You are assuming that there is an explicit decision made wrt trade-offs. A simpler explanation is - a "blood" diamond has a fairly explicit consequence, manufacturing consequences aren't so obvious or necessary. I'd also note that it should be possible to police these things - diamonds without blood, tech without pollution - consumer boycotts aren't often so successful vs legal policy changes.
taneq 4y ago
You certainly see arguments like “lowering the speed limit by X% would reduce road fatalities by 1%” and people saying “no thanks, I’ll take the risk”.
taeric 4y ago
Pulling in something we all agree is bad feels like you are trying to trick us into agreeing with you. What about exposure to television programming? Does that have an impact on brain mass? Soft drinks? Carbohydrates? Music?
amelius 4y ago
Other example: more than 3.5 million people die each year from outdoor air pollution. Yet nobody seems to be alarmed by it to the point that anything changes. It's only when there is a direct short-term life-threat that people seem bothered to take action (see COVID).
SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
People genuinely don’t really care about air pollution in neighborhood’s broadly, actually. I mean, consider the fact brake pads can still be made with asbestos and are aerosolized every time a car brakes. But it genuinely hasn’t stopped cars.
- ikr678 4y ago
  That says more about the US than it does 'people' - quite a few countries banned asbestos brakes decades ago (UK 1999, Aus 2003, Germany 1993).
- worewood 4y ago
  > But it genuinely hasn’t stopped cars. I disagree; in fact, brake pads have stopped cars. ;)
- empyrrhicist 4y ago
  And my crazy neighbors insist on burning leaves instead of just mulching/composting. It's atrocious outside, and its all so pointless.
oneoff786 4y ago
Driving 1% of the variance is not the same as reducing your brain mass by 1%. Without knowing anything about the brain, Reducing your brain mass by 1% sounds pretty crazy to me, and probably has extreme negative effects very far before hitting 100% loss. It’s not absurd to say the negative effects of air pollution on this specific outcome are mostly negligible but still not want air pollution for other reasons. Which is a hypothetical statement of course because we don’t have any data here.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
Outdoor air pollution doesn't taste good and it's not my choice. There's a huge difference between "This is slightly dangerous" and "This is slightly dangerous but a lot of fun"
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Well, a pollutant has no use. That’s the difference. I’d like to see the same comparison between people living in cities or countryside.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Well, a pollutant has no use. That’s the difference. Every piece of technology that carried your commentary from your fingertips to my eyeballs has a nonzero environmental impact. Some watershed in Asia had to be fractionally (after all, the mine likely supplied material for far more devices than yours and mine) poisoned so you could say that. Is that sufficient purpose? Keep in mind modern society exists at the end of a very, very, very long and interconnected supply chain so the raw material from the mine probably (fractionally, of course) finds its way into smoke alarms and pacemakers. Trying to define "purpose" is an unbelievably complex can of worms.

bergenty 4y ago

I mean a pollutant has no upside. Being intoxicated has a lot of upsides including a good time, stress relief, community etc.

gruez 4y ago
The pollutant isn't being dumped into the environment for fun. It's almost always done in service of some sort of economic activity (eg. farming, power generation, resource extraction). In this context the upside is the associated economic activity.
- kergonath 4y ago
  Taking alcohol is my choice. I make that choice because I think the trade off is worth it, but I respect other people who think otherwise and do not drink. It is nobody’s choice to live in a polluted atmosphere and you cannot opt out.
- Teever 4y ago
  That argument assumes high efficiency in society when we both know that society is anything but.

the_only_law 4y ago

Well, on one hand, I drink alcohol on my own choice, it’s not much my choice if some pollutant is dumped into the air.

IMTDb 4y ago
> it’s not much my choice if some pollutant is dumped into the air Aren't you enjoying the benefits of those pollutants ? The sheer fact that you are posting on HN means that you have access to a device that was produced thousands of miles away and got delivered to you. No one forced you to own one, that was your choice. Just because you are not the one physically emitting the stuff does not mean you share no responsibility for it.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  The reception your comment got says a lot about the HN community's ability to have adult discussion about subjects involving bodily harm. The supply chain for our basic necessities of life maims and kills people but we consider putting food on plates to be well worth the tradeoffs. Having a blood diamond on your ring is not something we consider to be worth the tradeoffs. The tradeoffs made to get a smartphone or computer into a consumer's hand, along with the tradeoffs of consuming booze, exist somewhere in the nuanced continuum between those fairly extreme example points.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    You are assuming that there is an explicit decision made wrt trade-offs. A simpler explanation is - a "blood" diamond has a fairly explicit consequence, manufacturing consequences aren't so obvious or necessary. I'd also note that it should be possible to police these things - diamonds without blood, tech without pollution - consumer boycotts aren't often so successful vs legal policy changes.

taneq 4y ago

You certainly see arguments like “lowering the speed limit by X% would reduce road fatalities by 1%” and people saying “no thanks, I’ll take the risk”.

taeric 4y ago

Pulling in something we all agree is bad feels like you are trying to trick us into agreeing with you. What about exposure to television programming? Does that have an impact on brain mass? Soft drinks? Carbohydrates? Music?

amelius 4y ago

Other example: more than 3.5 million people die each year from outdoor air pollution. Yet nobody seems to be alarmed by it to the point that anything changes. It's only when there is a direct short-term life-threat that people seem bothered to take action (see COVID).

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago

People genuinely don’t really care about air pollution in neighborhood’s broadly, actually. I mean, consider the fact brake pads can still be made with asbestos and are aerosolized every time a car brakes. But it genuinely hasn’t stopped cars.

ikr678 4y ago
That says more about the US than it does 'people' - quite a few countries banned asbestos brakes decades ago (UK 1999, Aus 2003, Germany 1993).
worewood 4y ago
> But it genuinely hasn’t stopped cars. I disagree; in fact, brake pads have stopped cars. ;)
empyrrhicist 4y ago
And my crazy neighbors insist on burning leaves instead of just mulching/composting. It's atrocious outside, and its all so pointless.

oneoff786 4y ago

Driving 1% of the variance is not the same as reducing your brain mass by 1%. Without knowing anything about the brain, Reducing your brain mass by 1% sounds pretty crazy to me, and probably has extreme negative effects very far before hitting 100% loss. It’s not absurd to say the negative effects of air pollution on this specific outcome are mostly negligible but still not want air pollution for other reasons. Which is a hypothetical statement of course because we don’t have any data here.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

Outdoor air pollution doesn't taste good and it's not my choice. There's a huge difference between "This is slightly dangerous" and "This is slightly dangerous but a lot of fun"

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Well, a pollutant has no use. That’s the difference. I’d like to see the same comparison between people living in cities or countryside.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Well, a pollutant has no use. That’s the difference. Every piece of technology that carried your commentary from your fingertips to my eyeballs has a nonzero environmental impact. Some watershed in Asia had to be fractionally (after all, the mine likely supplied material for far more devices than yours and mine) poisoned so you could say that. Is that sufficient purpose? Keep in mind modern society exists at the end of a very, very, very long and interconnected supply chain so the raw material from the mine probably (fractionally, of course) finds its way into smoke alarms and pacemakers. Trying to define "purpose" is an unbelievably complex can of worms.