3 ms·

We no longer use asbestos as a flame flame retardant in houses. We no longer use chemicals harmful to the ozone layer on spray cans. We no longer use lead in

We no longer use asbestos as a flame flame retardant in houses. We no longer use chemicals harmful to the ozone layer on spray cans. We no longer use lead in gasoline. We figured those things were bad, and changed what we did. If evidence is available ahead of time that something is harmful, it shouldn't be controversial to avoid widespread adoption.

josefritzishere 2y ago
I don't think it is safe to assume the use patterns of tangible things extend to intangible things; nor the patterns of goods to that of services. I just see this as a conclusory leap.
- estebank 2y ago
  I was replying to > when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology?
  - jpkw 2y ago
    In each of those examples, we said "no" decades after they were developed, and many had to suffer in order for us to get to the stage of saying "no".
bombcar 2y ago
None of those things were said "no" to before they were used and in a wide-spread manner. The closest might be nuclear power, we know we can do it, we did it, but lots of places said no to it, and further developments have vastly slowed down.
- estebank 2y ago
  In none of those did we know about the adverse effects. Those were observed afterwards, and it would have taken longer to know if they hadn't been adopted. But that doesn't invalidate the idea that we have followed "if something bad, collectively don't use it" at various points in time.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    We were well aware of the adverse effects of tetraethyl lead before lead gasoline was first sold. The man who invented it got lead poisoning during its development, multiple people died of lead poisoning in a pilot plant manufacturing it and public health and medical authorities warned against prior to it being available for sale to the general public.
- rat87 2y ago
  And for nuclear power many would say that rejecting it was a huge mistake
tw1984 2y ago
[flagged]

josefritzishere 2y ago

I don't think it is safe to assume the use patterns of tangible things extend to intangible things; nor the patterns of goods to that of services. I just see this as a conclusory leap.

estebank 2y ago
I was replying to > when the has it ever been the case that you can just say "no" to the world developing a new technology?
- jpkw 2y ago
  In each of those examples, we said "no" decades after they were developed, and many had to suffer in order for us to get to the stage of saying "no".

bombcar 2y ago

None of those things were said "no" to before they were used and in a wide-spread manner. The closest might be nuclear power, we know we can do it, we did it, but lots of places said no to it, and further developments have vastly slowed down.

estebank 2y ago
In none of those did we know about the adverse effects. Those were observed afterwards, and it would have taken longer to know if they hadn't been adopted. But that doesn't invalidate the idea that we have followed "if something bad, collectively don't use it" at various points in time.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  We were well aware of the adverse effects of tetraethyl lead before lead gasoline was first sold. The man who invented it got lead poisoning during its development, multiple people died of lead poisoning in a pilot plant manufacturing it and public health and medical authorities warned against prior to it being available for sale to the general public.
rat87 2y ago
And for nuclear power many would say that rejecting it was a huge mistake

tw1984 2y ago

[flagged]