4 ms·
You're looking at it from the vantage point of "the future". For some span of time, "plastic never degrades". Then someone discovers something new, and after th
by mikro2nd 4y ago
You're looking at it from the vantage point of "the future". For some span of time, "plastic never degrades". Then someone discovers something new, and after that plastic degradation becomes possible (though not widespread).
What we know changes.
- voiper1 4y ago>What we know changes. This may be a bit pedantic, but: it's not that what we know changes, per se. We weren't mistaken in thinking that plastic doesn't degrade. We mean: as of now, we have no possible method to make plastic degrade. It _may be_ we will develop such a method in the future, but it's reckless to rely on the _possibility_ of a future discovery.
- bamboozled 4y agoI might be wrong but I think parent is referring too the fact that, this incorrect messaging causes a huge amount of stress for little gain and it also kind of looks silly when it turns out to be wrong thus diminishing the credibility of SCIENCE! To call something a "forever chemical" is talking in absolutes, and we should know that most things aren't absolute.