4 ms·

That's not sufficient macroeconomic justification to push the shellfish remains biofilm forward. See Cobra Effect [1]. This is reflexivity in action [2]. In th

That's not sufficient macroeconomic justification to push the shellfish remains biofilm forward. See Cobra Effect [1]. This is reflexivity in action [2]. In the first year you start manufacturing this biofilm, your sentiment is true, it is using waste stream. In the Nth year, fisheries are collapsing shrimp stocks, flooding markets with shrimp to extract what used to be a waste stream to eke out ever decreasing margins in a vicious cycle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_(social_theory)

shalmanese 4y ago
Or you just consume the entirety of the waste stream and then stop because it's a low value marginal add on product that doesn't drive an industry. It's not like the demand for cow manure is driving us to create brand new herds simply to output more manure.
- yourapostasy 4y ago
  Right now what saves us from the cobra effect with such a biofilm is hydrocarbon-based plastics are cheaper than it and the distribution and manufacturing networks are built around them. I'd be perfectly content with no concerns if there are no subsidies tampering with such biofilms; let them organically develop their own markets, manufacturing networks and supply chains, and I completely agree with you that they will naturally stop. If well-intentioned government subsidies aggressively push for using the waste stream however (about the only way I see such a biofilm ever ramping up beyond niche markets), then it is very difficult to conceive those policy makers calibrating to the same homeostatic outcome. That's not how the plastics industry works. The demand scale is on such a bonkers level that distorts normal incentives. I always worry about such reflexivity when these breathless articles come out about alternative production-side solutions to our current plastics production-consumption matrix. It's way more complex and large than most people understand outside that industry.
  - shalmanese 4y ago
    If you compare the price/lb of shellfish vs the price/lb of plastic packaging, it's very hard to imagine any level of subsidy that would result in the tail wagging the dog.

shalmanese 4y ago

Or you just consume the entirety of the waste stream and then stop because it's a low value marginal add on product that doesn't drive an industry. It's not like the demand for cow manure is driving us to create brand new herds simply to output more manure.

yourapostasy 4y ago
Right now what saves us from the cobra effect with such a biofilm is hydrocarbon-based plastics are cheaper than it and the distribution and manufacturing networks are built around them. I'd be perfectly content with no concerns if there are no subsidies tampering with such biofilms; let them organically develop their own markets, manufacturing networks and supply chains, and I completely agree with you that they will naturally stop. If well-intentioned government subsidies aggressively push for using the waste stream however (about the only way I see such a biofilm ever ramping up beyond niche markets), then it is very difficult to conceive those policy makers calibrating to the same homeostatic outcome. That's not how the plastics industry works. The demand scale is on such a bonkers level that distorts normal incentives. I always worry about such reflexivity when these breathless articles come out about alternative production-side solutions to our current plastics production-consumption matrix. It's way more complex and large than most people understand outside that industry.
- shalmanese 4y ago
  If you compare the price/lb of shellfish vs the price/lb of plastic packaging, it's very hard to imagine any level of subsidy that would result in the tail wagging the dog.