Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmstickney | Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty libertarian myself so I understand your concern, but only if the "market" actually knew about this. The point I'm trying to make is that this article (posted here and Reddit) is the first time I'd ever heard of this.

I'd say I'm a pretty average person so I don't think the masses had a clue about microbeads.

What I believe and hope is that if the masses did know about this, the market would have reacted and forced action.

View on HN

I think this is really naïve. The masses knowingly engage in a hell of a lot of wasteful and/or harmful behavior. I know flying uses a lot of hydrocarbons and literally affects global temperature [1], yet I still fly. A minority are much worse than average. I live in SF and I once had a roommate who “couldn't be arsed” to put recyclables in the recycle bin (which was literally next to the rubbish bin), for example. This man is well-traveled and is educated enough to be a private-school teacher.

[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate...

Partly true. There are degrees of awareness.

Most people are not at all aware of microbeads.

Most people know they are supposed to recycle, but are unable to comprehend the negative consequences of not doing it.

It's even harder for people to be aware of their carbon footprints and the consequences of global warming. It never enters the brain of anyone I know that they might be increasing their footprint by flying. And they could tell you by what percent, even approximately, if you asked them.

You know and still fly. I literally feel nausea when I think about what I do when I fly, but I still do it to make my family happy. If anyone is behaving criminally you and I may be among the worst.

I don't think there's cause to feel guilty about flying or other technology. The transition to an advanced industrial society, in a competitive and violent world, requires ruthless forward progress if you want to create and defend your prosperity and freedom. In the long run, improved technology will allow us to stop damaging the environment. The best way to get there is to move full speed ahead. Between nuclear power, electric cars, biofuels, and other renewables, we are almost there.

But flying and transportation is mostly required for a functional society. We can easily live without micro-beads, so it's a bit easier to outright ban them.

The point here is that the government can be smarter than the market. The effort required to educate enough members of the public that microbeads are bad to the point that they become unprofitable is WAY larger than the point required to convince legislators and regulators to outlaw them.

Agreed. I've been using a brand of face soap with little scrubby beads in it for years, and had no idea the things were made of plastic. There's no way that the level of public awareness on this is anywhere near that of something like CFCs.

Guess I'll go find a new brand of face soap.

Why is this downvoted?

Because it's naively childish, and absolves the companies from any wrongdoing because "the market".

This is not what I was trying to convey. Doesn't absolve a company from wrongdoing. If a company is doing something horrific, but no one knows about it, that doesn't make it okay.

I was just trying to rebut the initial comment that this proves the market couldn't solve this.

I don't necessarily have an answer, but I am just saying, if the market isn't even aware, how could they even act?

The masses shouldn't matter. The companies shouldn't be making this crap in the first place, no matter how much the "market" wants it. Hence, market failure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com