4 ms·

> But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently wor

by ysavir 3y ago

> But so have fire, the wheel, and the automobile Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel, but the harms of fire and combustion engines are currently world-class problems, such as the climate. Very much "if we knew then what we know now" situations, and with PFAS and the like, we have the opportunity to act before it becomes an issue.

scotty79 3y ago
> Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.
- ysavir 3y ago
  That seems a big stretch, especially for the purposes of lumping it in with fire and combustion engines. Being crushed under a wheel has more to do with circumstance than the wheel itself, whereas fire and combustion engines (though the more I say that, the more I realize they're both the same thing) are a negative impact by their very usage. If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
- ourmandave 3y ago
  That's the price you pay for having giant stone coins like Yap island.
t0bia_s 3y ago
Problem here is not a product, but ammount of it. Corporate greed and obsession of maximalisation of income, driven by whole ad industry needs to be addressed. We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.
Gareth321 3y ago
History is full of examples of acting without evidence, with disastrous results. Thankfully, in this case, we can have high confidence that the absence of PFAS is not a health risk. So the cost of action without evidence is purely financial. It’s not clear to me the global economic impact of banning these chemicals, but I’m struggling to forecast anything large enough to care. For this reason, I support banning these chemicals. The case for historical claims is murkier without evidence.

by ysavir 3y ago

scotty79 3y ago

> Not sure what harm you attribute to the wheel Many people in history has been crushed, sometimes lethally, under various wheels.

ysavir 3y ago
That seems a big stretch, especially for the purposes of lumping it in with fire and combustion engines. Being crushed under a wheel has more to do with circumstance than the wheel itself, whereas fire and combustion engines (though the more I say that, the more I realize they're both the same thing) are a negative impact by their very usage. If we go by circumstance, anything can be a danger, or a non-danger. And the solution is to be more mindful of our circumstances. What we're trying to identify in this thread are the practices that, while being immediately beneficial, are also immediately negatively impactful, even if it took us years (dozens, hundreds, or thousands thereof) to learn about the negative impacts. And following that, to be more mindful of which practices may have similar negative impacts, and be forward thinking about that possibility rather than reflectively regretful.
ourmandave 3y ago
That's the price you pay for having giant stone coins like Yap island.

t0bia_s 3y ago

Problem here is not a product, but ammount of it. Corporate greed and obsession of maximalisation of income, driven by whole ad industry needs to be addressed. We certainty all do not need teflon pans. Or cars. Without massive production, such problems would be "just" local anomaly.

Gareth321 3y ago

History is full of examples of acting without evidence, with disastrous results. Thankfully, in this case, we can have high confidence that the absence of PFAS is not a health risk. So the cost of action without evidence is purely financial. It’s not clear to me the global economic impact of banning these chemicals, but I’m struggling to forecast anything large enough to care. For this reason, I support banning these chemicals. The case for historical claims is murkier without evidence.