3 ms·

We're all responding to an article about how plasticizers used in certain plastics to make them all more flexible can damage DNA in some organisms. Why do you c

by throwway120385 2y ago

We're all responding to an article about how plasticizers used in certain plastics to make them all more flexible can damage DNA in some organisms. Why do you consider that empirical study to be new Luddite Puritanism? And if the plasticizer can leach out of plastics, which has been shown in numerous studies over the years, why do you consider them inert? It's not enough to assert, loudly, that you are right and we are all wrong and everything is fine let's all go back inside and let the chemists keep doing what they're doing. You have to explain also why PE and PP never under any circumstances ever contain any plasticizers. Regarding plastics and microplastics in the oceans, I've seen tons of pictures of dead birds that after autopsy have filled their crops with broken plastic pieces instead of food. This is not good, and having all of our sea birds die is not an insignificant environmental harm. So hand-waiving that away doesn't change the fact that introducing plastics have caused new and exciting forms of harm in our biosphere.

morpheos137 2y ago
1. I was interacting with the general theme of the comments on the article, which is the zeitgeist plastic bad. 2. I believe you should consider logical fallacies and questions of scale and trade offs. Specifically people arguing against "plastics" in general seem to depend on hearsay, strawmen, all or nothing fallacy, appeal to authority, etc. it is black and white thinking against the nuance of the real world. In recent times on many issues it seems that black and white thinking is presented as something that is a rational way to approach things. It is not. The real world is complicated and full of nuance anf tradeoffs. Just because you can show some plastics may have some harmful effects does not mean that the miracle of plastic materials is a net bad for humanity or the environment unless you can show the harm EXCEEDS that of scalable alternatives. The burden of proof is on those who are against plastics to show that the net harm caused by specific compounds is worse than the net benefit of using them. We will never be able to prove that all plastics are harmless in every possible context. Nor should we. In life we have to make decisions based on the best available information we have. So it makes more sense to ask after 70 years what significant harms have been caused by plastics that would be made less than alternatives. Even a thousand pictures of dead birds does not make a compelling case unless it is weighed against the costs of harvesting forests for paper and burning fossil fuels to make glass and metal to make inferior packaging that costs more and takes more fuel to transport. All else held equal light weight non biodegrade materials made from cheap highly productive chemical feed stocks are better for the environment than alternatives. A series of anecdotes and one sided analyses does not make a compelling case.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  When you put it that way it actually makes a lot more sense to me. But I think if that's your position, then you should present alternative harms that plastics use have prevented. I'm aware of some harms that would have happened in the medical field where disposable medical devices have likely reduced the burden of sterilization after procedures. Imagine having to clean your hypodermic after every use.

morpheos137 2y ago

1. I was interacting with the general theme of the comments on the article, which is the zeitgeist plastic bad. 2. I believe you should consider logical fallacies and questions of scale and trade offs. Specifically people arguing against "plastics" in general seem to depend on hearsay, strawmen, all or nothing fallacy, appeal to authority, etc. it is black and white thinking against the nuance of the real world. In recent times on many issues it seems that black and white thinking is presented as something that is a rational way to approach things. It is not. The real world is complicated and full of nuance anf tradeoffs. Just because you can show some plastics may have some harmful effects does not mean that the miracle of plastic materials is a net bad for humanity or the environment unless you can show the harm EXCEEDS that of scalable alternatives. The burden of proof is on those who are against plastics to show that the net harm caused by specific compounds is worse than the net benefit of using them. We will never be able to prove that all plastics are harmless in every possible context. Nor should we. In life we have to make decisions based on the best available information we have. So it makes more sense to ask after 70 years what significant harms have been caused by plastics that would be made less than alternatives. Even a thousand pictures of dead birds does not make a compelling case unless it is weighed against the costs of harvesting forests for paper and burning fossil fuels to make glass and metal to make inferior packaging that costs more and takes more fuel to transport. All else held equal light weight non biodegrade materials made from cheap highly productive chemical feed stocks are better for the environment than alternatives. A series of anecdotes and one sided analyses does not make a compelling case.

throwway120385 2y ago
When you put it that way it actually makes a lot more sense to me. But I think if that's your position, then you should present alternative harms that plastics use have prevented. I'm aware of some harms that would have happened in the medical field where disposable medical devices have likely reduced the burden of sterilization after procedures. Imagine having to clean your hypodermic after every use.