Hacker News Reader

Comment by lm28469 | Hacker News Reader

> words such as "may", "might", "could".

It's Earth, not a deployment you can rollback, we don't get to play that game.

We're talking hundreds or thousands of years before we'll know how bad we fucked up. Almost every life forms on the planet are linked one way or another, every changes has an impact.

Remember when DDT, asbestos and lead plumbing were harmless to humans ? Then they were classified as "could" be dangerous or "may" be harmful. Now they're straight up banned everywhere.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918521/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4780651/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/from-fish-to-huma...

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-dangerous-are-mic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor

https://environmentjournal.online/articles/microplastic-poll...

View on HN

>It's Earth, not deployment you can rollback, we don't get to play that game.

>We're talking hundreds or thousands of years before we'll know how bad we fucked up. Almost every life forms on the planet are linked one way or another, every changes has an impact.

>Remember when DDT, asbestos and lead plumbing were harmless to humans ? Then they were classified as "could" be dangerous or "may" be harmful. Now they're straight up banned everywhere.

This is exactly the kind of emotional appeals the GP is complaining about. There are tons of different substances you come into contact with on a day to day basis. Most of them will not be harmful in any reasonable quantity. If paper or cotton clothing was invented today the parchment and wool industries would be talking up how it's not proven to not be harmful. Yes, some plastics are probably bad even in small concentrations. Just from a common sense point of view it's highly unlikely that all plastics are bad in all concentrations. No you shouldn't ingest it intentionally. Yes, I'd like to see less plastics in the world. No I don't think it's going to be a massive future problem. If it really does turn out to be a serious problem we'll find a way to solve it. Remember when CFCs were going to deplete the ozone and give us all skin cancer?

I hate to be that guy but, did you read any of the links I provided ? It's not as if a weird hippie guy was predicting the end of the world. It's scientifically proven, measurable, it's right here, right now. And it's just the beginning of a very long process.

I read the first few and skimmed the rest. Yes plastics are a problem, the same way that smog in cities (mostly solved in developed nations) and CFCs were problems. None of them present an existential crisis to humanity. Sure we might spend a fraction of a percentage of global wealth dealing with the trade-offs of spewing plastic everywhere but we'll be fine in the long run.

> the same way that smog in cities (mostly solved in developed nations) and CFCs were problems.

"were" ?

Unless you live in the country side it _is_ an immediate problem to your health and a time bomb for the planet.

https://www.who.int/airpollution/en/

> mostly solved in developed nations

That's exactly the type of thinking that will destroy us. It's always China, or Russia, or developing countries, or your neighbours, or the damn democrats/republicans. Nobody wants to take responsibility. Let's continue to act like 8 years old while our home is slowly burning.

I think their point was that technological advancements have 'solved' the problem of smog in the cities that have the legal and physical infrastructure (i.e. developed) to implement the solutions. They did not seem to be saying that pollution is someone else's fault.

I live it one of these cities. In California. Beautiful landscape. Fields and mountains and ocean. My car is always covered in filth from the air. As is my balcony. I often stand atop a mountain and look out over the thick, visible layer of smog that tops the city - a city that has made vast progress in the last 4 decades. That progress has gotten us from nearly inhabitable to simply disgusting and unhealthy. Where are these solutions, exactly?

I don't live in a city with a smog problem, and this is not my area of expertise. I was just clarifying what I thought @dsfyu404ed was saying, since it seemed to me that @lm28469 had taken it out of context and jumped to a nasty reply that wasn't really pertinent to what was being claimed.

You could argue that @dsfu404ed's reply was actually way "nastier", as nonchalant as their attitude was, in the sense that it downplays the effects of "nasty" pollution in general.

That's the way I took it as well. And it is true in some places. When I first moved to the Los Angeles area long ago it was quite smoggy. But look at it now http://aqicn.org/city/los-angeles/ (all green = aqi reading less than 50).

Not sure how to reply to you directly @welearndnothing, I think we reached max depth?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952 -- CFCs are on the rise again.

> Sure we might spend a fraction of a percentage of global wealth dealing with the trade-offs of spewing plastic everywhere but we'll be fine in the long run.

If you look at each large scale environmental issue in isolation, sure, there's a chance that it will be mitigated down the line.

But at what cost in the mean time?

Because this stuff is hitting vital and fragile ecosystems now at scales unprecedented.

Might I remind you that we are well into a mass extinction that shows no signs of slowing down?

With regard to microplastics, it's only a matter of time before we microbes learn to digest them. Those little guys are gonna be everybodies' best friends.

Because of the likelihood that microbes will be learning to eat plastic pretty soon, I don't see microplastics as being quite as daunting of a problem, in isolation.

But I take issue with your casual attitude and prioritization of humanity over the larger ecologies that humanity evolved in and depends on.

We absolutely need to be alert about this and other ecologically issues collectively.

First we have to wait for the science, then we have to wait for the establishment to deny the science, then we have to wait for the establishment to lobby against the science. In the post-truth, post-science zeitgeist, should we acquiesce to all these demands?

We got lucky with CFCs because there was a cheap alternative, so the industry didn't really push against it. We are seeing a very different outcome with climate change, and now we enter another very similar debate with microplastics.

> * If it really does turn out to be a serious problem we'll find a way to solve it.*

We can only dodge so many bullets, that is even if we can dodge the current bullet. If society can only solve problems after they become a tragedy, it just takes a slow building tragedy to end it.

> This is exactly the kind of emotional appeals the GP is complaining about.

According to the book “Emotional Intelligence” rational thought and emotion are two sides of the same coin.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cstream...

> Remember when DDT, asbestos and lead plumbing were harmless to humans ? Then they were classified as "could" be dangerous or "may" be harmful. Now they're straight up banned everywhere.

DDT is banned for agricultural use, but is still permitted (and used) for vector control (ex: controlling mosquitos).

Asbestos is banned in many applications, but still has permitted uses in the US, although there's an open proposal to further restrict use [1]

I wasn't able to find any evidence of permitted use of new lead plumbing, however; so that one might be straight up banned.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos#notban...

I'm more concerned about runaway warming at the moment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com