4 ms·

Its ridiculous to have a free market decide whether we want to have PFAS or not. Free markets are premised on rational agents making decisions for themselves. B

by Lutger 3y ago

Its ridiculous to have a free market decide whether we want to have PFAS or not. Free markets are premised on rational agents making decisions for themselves. But I can't decide to live in a PFAS-free world by myself. I can't de-risk my son from autism, cancer and whatnot by just not buying PFAS products even if I would have a reasonable choice to do so. PFAS is everywhere, its in the rain, in our food, in the soil, in the air we breathe, and it will be there for thousands of years. From next to 3M's factories to Antarctica, there is no spot on earth that isn't polluted by PFAS. I'd say lets have a vote. Do you want to risk autism, cancer, infertility and whatnot for nonstick pans and all the other wonders of PFAS? If the majority doesn't, it will get a global ban.

_heimdall 3y ago
You absolutely can chose to not add any if those chemicals into your life. Of course you can't control the rain, though you can control your food to a great extent. If people care enough to decide not to use products that contain PFAS, the environmental exposures would disappear pretty quickly. More importantly, if its even possible for governments to effectively coordinate a cleanup process that job would be much easier if consumers pitched in by first using their individual power to drastically reduce the contaminants being added into the system. > I'd say lets have a vote. Do you want to risk autism, cancer, infertility and whatnot for nonstick pans and all the other wonders of PFAS? If the majority doesn't, it will get a global ban. That doesn't require a vote at all. Bans are only useful when we have to leverage the power of the state to force people to do something they don't want to do. If consumers agree that nonstick pans have all those risks and they aren't worth it, they stop buying nonstick pans and companies stop making them. Even if we wanted the ban route, who enforces it? The UN? Some new global government? Or a unanimous agreement by every government in the world, including those who's economies are partly supported by producing the nonstick pans?

by Lutger 3y ago

_heimdall 3y ago

You absolutely can chose to not add any if those chemicals into your life. Of course you can't control the rain, though you can control your food to a great extent. If people care enough to decide not to use products that contain PFAS, the environmental exposures would disappear pretty quickly. More importantly, if its even possible for governments to effectively coordinate a cleanup process that job would be much easier if consumers pitched in by first using their individual power to drastically reduce the contaminants being added into the system. > I'd say lets have a vote. Do you want to risk autism, cancer, infertility and whatnot for nonstick pans and all the other wonders of PFAS? If the majority doesn't, it will get a global ban. That doesn't require a vote at all. Bans are only useful when we have to leverage the power of the state to force people to do something they don't want to do. If consumers agree that nonstick pans have all those risks and they aren't worth it, they stop buying nonstick pans and companies stop making them. Even if we wanted the ban route, who enforces it? The UN? Some new global government? Or a unanimous agreement by every government in the world, including those who's economies are partly supported by producing the nonstick pans?