4 ms·
The ceaseless proliferation of polluting substances like forever chemicals, plastics, and pesticides stands as an unequivocal testament to humanity's reckless d
by myshpa 3y ago
The ceaseless proliferation of polluting substances like forever chemicals, plastics, and pesticides stands as an unequivocal testament to humanity's reckless disregard for the wellbeing of our planet and its inhabitants.
- ethbr1 3y agoThe ceaseless increased economic output of the world has lifted billions out of poverty and allowed us to sustain the current world population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File%3AWorld_Population_Prospects.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File... Are there consequences? Absolutely! Were the benefits or costs greater? Now that's a more interesting question.
- okeuro49 3y agoCan I have the growth please without chemists putting microplastic beads in my toothpaste.
- ethbr1 3y agoNo. Would you prefer less growth or fewer microplastics?
- edgyquant 3y agoI would prefer you stop equating the two.
- okeuro49 3y agoIs that the same growth that was contingent on lead in paint and CFCs in the atmosphere?
- ethbr1 3y agoAre you saying lead paint doesn't have economic and material advantages over non-lead paint? Hint: it does. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/3004319.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-use-lead-in-paint/30... Or CFCs over replacement fluoropolymers? Replacements which, circling back to the OP, may be decomposing into persistent organic chemicals. https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-replacements-source-persistent-organic/98/web/2020/05 https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/CFC-re... Sometimes you get something for free, but more often you're trading something in exchange for it (at minimum, cost). Maybe it's a valid trade-off, maybe not. But ignoring the consequences on both options is an incomplete comparison.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoWhere "less growth" is a euphemism for "horrific die-backs" ?
- king_magic 3y agoI'm entirely fine with far less growth if corporations start being responsible and understand what long-term effect they might have.
- edgyquant 3y agoI have no idea why you’re implying economic growth isn’t possible without pollutants and toxic chemicals. The agricultural revolution and trading of food has lifted all those people out of starvation levels not selling plastic toys.
- ethbr1 3y agoWhile polluting vast swaths of waterways with excess fertilizer nutrients, destabilizing ecosystems. But we can feed people, so it's probably worth it.
- sooheon 3y agoSmall farms (non industrial, non monoculture export crops etc.) are much more productive in terms of nutrition per sqkm. Small farms also feed more of the world even on an absolute scale. It's a pernicious myth that we need industrial agro to "feed the world".
- dealuromanet 3y agoI am interested in a source comparing small farms versus non-industrial farms in terms of nutrition per sqkm. That's a very interesting concept I've not heard before. How is nutrition per sqkm being calculated here? Would this reduce the availability of diverse produce by comparison?
- sooheon 3y agoIt's an ongoing debate with decades of research from NGOs, non-profits, etc. Here's an attempt at a literature review: https://sustainabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/are-small-farms-better https://sustainabilitycommunity.springernature.com/posts/are... 1. "79% of studies reviewed reported that smaller farms have higher yields, with yields increasing 5% per 1ha decrease in farm size." 2. "77% of studies finding that smaller farms have greater biodiversity at both farm and landscape scales" 3. "no statistical evidence for farm-size relationships with resource-use efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, or profitability" Here's another paper that specifically breaks down people fed per hectare: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/meta https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034...
- mxkopy 3y ago[flagged]
- honkycat 3y agoI'm willing to bet you're one of the people that doesn't believe we are hurdling towards a mass extinction event even while the oceans are boiling. Once the mass famines start, I will be starkly in the "the costs are greater" side. Sure, industrialization has had some benefits, but it is also full of bad actors who internalize profits and externalize their effects. Example: These chemicals we KNOW are bad and unsustainable, but whose use we do not change because it is cheaper so someone at the top can keep making money.
- anonuser123456 3y agoHumanity isn’t a thing with agency. It can’t act recklessly.