4 ms·

Should we apply the same logic to the oil industry and how bad things were before we could pump tetraethyl lead into our vehicles to go faster than a horse? It'

Should we apply the same logic to the oil industry and how bad things were before we could pump tetraethyl lead into our vehicles to go faster than a horse? It's not "plastics bad insanity" when there are verifiable issues with plastics having to do with our bodies - we've banned certain plastics from being used in food storage for this very reason.

kragen 3y ago
probably? i mean, what would it look like to not apply the same logic to the oil industry? you'd argue for eliminating oil from machinery because it comes from the same industry that promoted tetraethyllead. it's the same kind of overgeneralization, but even more extreme plastics are more similar than oil-company products, but they are not similar enough to make general conclusions about them like this. the only thing sodium polyacrylate, teflon, polyester, and epoxy have in common is that they're cheap, moldable solids made from oil
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  The point is that justifying something because life is "better" by some metric while calling the opposing side "insane" for having reservations about something already proven to be potentially dangerous is flawed. I chose the oil industry because it's another example of something which has helped humanity in innumerable ways, but brought its own risks which we should not ignore solely because one metric looks good. I'm not advocating for tearing down any industry, just pointing out that such extreme rhetoric isn't very intellectual.
  - kragen 3y ago
    i think we need more nuanced examination of the risks and benefits of particular materials. i agree with the earlier commenter that erasing such nuance to the extreme of describing 'plastics' in general as 'things that are known to be bad' amounts to 'insanity'. it's overgeneralization to the point of total irrationality in particular, i don't think polypropylene plastic mulch, whether embrittling in the sun or inert in a landfill, is any more harmful than the quartz that makes up a large fraction of the soil it's covering. (less so, actually, because inhaling polypropylene particles doesn't give you lung cancer.) and i don't think the endocrine effects of bisphenol-a or the bioaccumulation of dechlorane plus is relevant to that judgment, since polypropylene plastic mulch doesn't contain them. they might contain some other harmful additive, but the problem then is the additive, not the plastic

kragen 3y ago

probably? i mean, what would it look like to not apply the same logic to the oil industry? you'd argue for eliminating oil from machinery because it comes from the same industry that promoted tetraethyllead. it's the same kind of overgeneralization, but even more extreme plastics are more similar than oil-company products, but they are not similar enough to make general conclusions about them like this. the only thing sodium polyacrylate, teflon, polyester, and epoxy have in common is that they're cheap, moldable solids made from oil

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
The point is that justifying something because life is "better" by some metric while calling the opposing side "insane" for having reservations about something already proven to be potentially dangerous is flawed. I chose the oil industry because it's another example of something which has helped humanity in innumerable ways, but brought its own risks which we should not ignore solely because one metric looks good. I'm not advocating for tearing down any industry, just pointing out that such extreme rhetoric isn't very intellectual.
- kragen 3y ago
  i think we need more nuanced examination of the risks and benefits of particular materials. i agree with the earlier commenter that erasing such nuance to the extreme of describing 'plastics' in general as 'things that are known to be bad' amounts to 'insanity'. it's overgeneralization to the point of total irrationality in particular, i don't think polypropylene plastic mulch, whether embrittling in the sun or inert in a landfill, is any more harmful than the quartz that makes up a large fraction of the soil it's covering. (less so, actually, because inhaling polypropylene particles doesn't give you lung cancer.) and i don't think the endocrine effects of bisphenol-a or the bioaccumulation of dechlorane plus is relevant to that judgment, since polypropylene plastic mulch doesn't contain them. they might contain some other harmful additive, but the problem then is the additive, not the plastic