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 fallac

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.