4 ms·
This is a strawman. If we want to stop using fossils, it doesn't matter which use-cases we stop first. The main general problem in veening off fossils I see is
by tommiegannert 3y ago
This is a strawman. If we want to stop using fossils, it doesn't matter which use-cases we stop first. The main general problem in veening off fossils I see is that economies will crash and there will be wars if we regulate away use of fossils. So that's not going to happen any time soon.
However, LEGO is a completely optional/luxury aspect that won't affect economies at large, so perhaps it's better to start there. There are probably many of these "drops in the bucket" that together form something impactful.
- actionfromafar 3y agoYou could remove LEGO completely and it wouldn’t take us any closer to solving real problems. It’s just a waste of time.
- ranguna 3y agoPlastic has so many use cases that probably all of them individually is a drop in the ocean. Starting to actually do something is what matters.
- tommiegannert 3y agoYepp, thanks. The keyword really is "starting." Everything and anything is a start, no matter how small it looks in isolation.
- actionfromafar 3y agoBeing an expert in LEGO waste reduction makes nothing for being an expert in plastic packaging reduction. The multiplier is tiny for LEGO and huge for coming up with ways to replace drinking bottles, shampoo bottles, and everything that is single use. The solution is not to remove all the luxuries (LEGO), the solution is enabling our basic necessities to work without plastics. (Reducing LEGO is a "vitamin" and reducing single use packagin is "aspirin" in SAAS parlance, if that makes sense. It's good that LEGO takes responsibility for their own stuff, I'm not shitting on them.)
- nayuki 3y agoYour way of thinking is how we get into useless campaigns like stopping plastic straws.