3 ms·
The point is that justifying something because life is "better" by some metric while calling the opposing side "insane" for having reservations about something
by 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 agoi 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