• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World in $1.5tn ‘plastics crisis’ hitting health from infancy to old age, report warns

The world suffers because of us and by extension, we end up suffering too.
True, but the planet is going to do its thing no matter how many humans are here or not. We are on our way out much sooner just like many other species. The Earth was fine before us and will be after us. For one thing, we are much more fragile.
 
Or we could not have society revolve around delivering maximized profits to a tiny minority of rich assholes and instead use that surplus to help the majority of society.

Yeah sure- but that’s not about the environmental impacts of plastics. It seems we are mixing together rather quite different topics here.
 
Yeah sure- but that’s not about the environmental impacts of plastics. It seems we are mixing together rather quite different topics here.

Sure it is. Plastics are pursued because of their cost. Corporations go with plastic packaging over recycling friendly options like glass because they generate more profits by doing so.
 
I agree the model has to be changed. But I tend to lean more towards changing the model by investing, a little more in research on things like biodegradable plastics, than deconstructing civilization and going back to becoming a hunter gatherer society.
...you're aware that civilization existed before plastic, right?
 
Sure it is. Plastics are pursued because of their cost. Corporations go with plastic packaging over recycling friendly options like glass because they generate more profits by doing so.

Oh I see what you are saying. Not quite sure it’s that simple. I asked ChatGPT, and here is what it said:

The environmental friendliness of recycling glass versus plastics depends on several factors — including the type of plastic, the recycling process, energy use, and local infrastructure. Here's a breakdown:

1. Environmental Impact of Recycling Glass vs. Plastics
Glass:
Glass is 100% recyclable and can be recycled indefinitely without loss of quality.
Recycling glass saves about 30% of the energy compared to making new glass from raw materials.

However, glass is heavy and bulky, which means transporting it uses more fuel and generates more emissions compared to plastics.

Glass recycling rates vary by region but can be high where the infrastructure exists.
Plastics:

Plastics come in many types (PET, HDPE, PVC, etc.), some more recyclable than others.
Plastic recycling usually degrades the material quality, so it’s often "downcycled" into lower-quality products.

Producing plastics from recycled material uses less energy than virgin plastic production but the energy savings vary widely.
Plastics are lightweight and cheaper to transport, which reduces transportation emissions.

Plastic waste, especially single-use plastics, has major environmental downsides — pollution, microplastics, and often low recycling rates.

2. Is glass recycling pursued because it’s cheaper?
Not usually. Glass recycling is often more expensive or less economically attractive than plastics because:

Collecting and transporting glass is heavier and bulkier, increasing logistics costs.
The crushing, cleaning, and sorting processes for glass require infrastructure and labor.
Market demand for recycled glass (cullet) can fluctuate, sometimes making it less profitable.
In contrast, some plastics (like PET bottles) have a strong recycling market due to their wide use in packaging and relatively easier processing, making them sometimes cheaper to recycle.

3. So why recycle glass?
Environmental regulations and policy-driven goals to reduce landfill waste and conserve resources.
Glass recycling reduces the need for mining raw materials like sand and limestone.
It helps cut energy use and emissions in glass production.
In some places, consumer and municipal recycling programs prioritize glass due to its closed-loop recyclability.

Summary:
Glass recycling is generally more environmentally friendly than plastic recycling in terms of material reuse and avoiding degradation.
But it’s not necessarily cheaper — its heavier weight and logistics costs often make it more expensive to collect and recycle.
The push to recycle glass tends to be motivated by environmental benefits and regulatory or social pressures, rather than pure economic advantage.
 
...you're aware that civilization existed before plastic, right?

The poster I was responding to was saying we should get rid of division of labor and all become farmers or hunter/gatherers.
 
Oh I see what you are saying. Not quite sure it’s that simple. I asked ChatGPT, and here is what it said:

The environmental friendliness of recycling glass versus plastics depends on several factors — including the type of plastic, the recycling process, energy use, and local infrastructure. Here's a breakdown:

1. Environmental Impact of Recycling Glass vs. Plastics
Glass:
Glass is 100% recyclable and can be recycled indefinitely without loss of quality.
Recycling glass saves about 30% of the energy compared to making new glass from raw materials.

However, glass is heavy and bulky, which means transporting it uses more fuel and generates more emissions compared to plastics.

Glass recycling rates vary by region but can be high where the infrastructure exists.
Plastics:

Plastics come in many types (PET, HDPE, PVC, etc.), some more recyclable than others.
Plastic recycling usually degrades the material quality, so it’s often "downcycled" into lower-quality products.

Producing plastics from recycled material uses less energy than virgin plastic production but the energy savings vary widely.
Plastics are lightweight and cheaper to transport, which reduces transportation emissions.

Plastic waste, especially single-use plastics, has major environmental downsides — pollution, microplastics, and often low recycling rates.

2. Is glass recycling pursued because it’s cheaper?
Not usually. Glass recycling is often more expensive or less economically attractive than plastics because:

Collecting and transporting glass is heavier and bulkier, increasing logistics costs.
The crushing, cleaning, and sorting processes for glass require infrastructure and labor.
Market demand for recycled glass (cullet) can fluctuate, sometimes making it less profitable.
In contrast, some plastics (like PET bottles) have a strong recycling market due to their wide use in packaging and relatively easier processing, making them sometimes cheaper to recycle.

3. So why recycle glass?
Environmental regulations and policy-driven goals to reduce landfill waste and conserve resources.
Glass recycling reduces the need for mining raw materials like sand and limestone.
It helps cut energy use and emissions in glass production.
In some places, consumer and municipal recycling programs prioritize glass due to its closed-loop recyclability.

Summary:
Glass recycling is generally more environmentally friendly than plastic recycling in terms of material reuse and avoiding degradation.
But it’s not necessarily cheaper — its heavier weight and logistics costs often make it more expensive to collect and recycle.
The push to recycle glass tends to be motivated by environmental benefits and regulatory or social pressures, rather than pure economic advantage.

Not the cost of recycling. The cost of manufacturing. It’s cheaper to manufacture packaging made of plastic, and thus leads to higher profits, than doing the same with glass or other materials that are more environmentally friendly.
 
The poster I was responding to was saying we should get rid of division of labor and all become farmers or hunter/gatherers.

There are environmental extremists who push for primitivism as a response.

We used to have a poster on here who advocated for ending industrialization.
 
True, but the planet is going to do its thing no matter how many humans are here or not. We are on our way out much sooner just like many other species. The Earth was fine before us and will be after us. For one thing, we are much more fragile.
The earth is not fine right now because of us. But yes, Earth will continue even if we extinct ourselves.
 
The earth is not fine right now because of us. But yes, Earth will continue even if we extinct ourselves.
The Earth can "weather" anything. It's only us who won't be fine. Remember, the Earth was hit by a huge asteroid ~66,000,000 years ago that caused a mass extinction of most species on the planet, and the Earth is still here.
 
Not the cost of recycling. The cost of manufacturing. It’s cheaper to manufacture packaging made of plastic, and thus leads to higher profits, than doing the same with glass or other materials that are more environmentally friendly.

There's a lot of pluses or minuses to either choice- even from an environmental perspective.

That’s what’s nice about research/innovation/new technology: it empowers can create new choices and paradigms for yourself which allows you to bypass all the problems, limitations, and simple binaries of your existing choices.
 
There's a lot of pluses or minuses to either choice- even from an environmental perspective.

That’s what’s nice about research/innovation/new technology: it empowers can create new choices and paradigms for yourself which allows you to bypass all the problems, limitations, and simple binaries of your existing choices.

And capistalist corporations will only make decisions based on what maximizes their profits.

Not what is best for the environment.
 
And capistalist corporations will only make decisions based on what maximizes their profits.

Not what is best for the environment.

Sure. So that's why it's good to look into things that help them do that, WHILE still watching out for environmental concerns. It's possible. There are already a lot of movements in that direction. We are not stuck.
 
Sure. So that's why it's good to look into things that help them do that, WHILE still watching out for environmental concerns. It's possible. There are already a lot of movements in that direction. We are not stuck.

Or we could have a society that doesn’t revolve around feeding rich assholes yacht addictions.
 
I don't think anyone is advocating zero plastic.
A big problem is single use plastic - water bottles and take out food containers. I think that's something that we can easily chip away at.
Some could be substituted with aluminum, like soda and beer cans, in lieu of bottles. Aluminum gets recycled.
 
Or we could have a society that doesn’t revolve around feeding rich assholes yacht addictions.
I agree it should not "revolve" around them. But I'm not sure completely destroying that incentive will help either- it's proven to be a pretty powerful incentive for economic growth.

The world we live in is messy and chaotic- with lots of opposing, but often equally legitimate, ideals and considerations. There may never be perfect ways of navigating them, but just better and worse, smarter and dumber, ways of muddling through and getting by.

Below are what I think to be some words of wisdom, from one of my favorite philosophers, to avoid extremist or radical positions. I think where most people lose their way is when they start thinking there are perfect solutions, rather than just better and worse ones which must just be carefully and uneasily juggled and compromised through:

"Liberty and equality, spontaneity and security, happiness and knowledge, mercy and justice - all these are ultimate human values, sought for themselves alone; yet when they are incompatible, they cannot all be attained, choices must be made, sometimes tragic losses accepted in the pursuit of some preferred ultimate end."
-Isaiah Berlin

”True pluralism... is much more tough-minded and intellectually bold: it rejects the view that all conflicts of values can be finally resolved by a neat and tidy synthesis, and by which all desirable goals may be reconciled. It recognises that human nature generates values which, though equally sacred, equally ultimate, exclude one another, without there being any possibility of establishing an objective hierarchical relation or resolution among them. Moral conduct may therefore involve making agonising choices, without the help of universal criteria, between frequently irreconcilable, but equally desirable, values...Of course social or political collisions will take place; the mere conflict of positive values alone makes this unavoidable. Yet they can, I believe, be minimised by promoting and preserving an uneasy equilibrium, which is constantly threatened and in constant need of repair – that alone, I repeat, is the precondition for decent societies and morally acceptable behaviour, otherwise we are bound to lose our way.

A little dull as a solution, you will say? Not the stuff of which calls to heroic action by inspired leaders are made? Yet if there is some truth in this view, perhaps that is sufficient. An eminent American philosopher of our day once said that there is no a priori reason for supposing that the truth, when it is discovered, will necessarily prove interesting. It may be enough if it is truth, or even an approximation to it; consequently I do not feel apologetic for advancing this. Truth, said Tolstoy, ‘has been, is and will be beautiful’. I do not know if this is so in the realm of ethics, but it seems to me near enough to what most of us wish to believe not to be too lightly set aside.””
-Sir Isaiah Berlin
 
Last edited:
I agree the model has to be changed. But I tend to lean more towards changing the model by investing, a little more in research on things like biodegradable plastics, than deconstructing civilization and going back to becoming a hunter gatherer society.
I wouldn't mind. Id be just fine in that model :)
 
The poster I was responding to was saying we should get rid of division of labor and all become farmers or hunter/gatherers.
No, that person was responding to a discussion about farming independently.
 
The Earth can "weather" anything. It's only us who won't be fine. Remember, the Earth was hit by a huge asteroid ~66,000,000 years ago that caused a mass extinction of most species on the planet, and the Earth is still here.
As George Carlin once said and I paraphrase, "The Earth will be fine. It's the people who are f****d."
 
I wouldn't mind. Id be just fine in that model :)
Yeah, you say that. But a world without air conditioning, automobiles, cell phones, refrigerators/freezers, computers, modern medicine, airplanes, law and law enforcement, etc...? No modern agricultural science to help you grow your crops and avoid pests/fungi/droughts, etc...?

I don't think you would be too happy with it for very long. I suspect you are romanticizing and idealizing a bit.
 
Then change the model.

“it’s inconvenient not to” is not a good reason to destroy the planet.
When I worked in a grocery, 60 years ago, most pop bottles were glass and were returned for deposit. A rather substantial portion of our warehouse area was dedicated to this, along with one full time employee. Between this, and aluminum cans, most beverage plastic could be avoided. Probably needs a substantial excise tax on plastic to incentivize this change.
 
No, that person was responding to a discussion about farming independently.

Not sure what that means. I thought it meant farming for your own and your family's needs.

Because anything beyond that still requires packaging.
 
Yeah, you say that. But a world without air conditioning, automobiles, cell phones, refrigerators/freezers, computers, modern medicine, airplanes, law and law enforcement, etc...? No modern agricultural science to help you grow your crops and avoid pests/fungi/droughts, etc...?

I don't think you would be too happy with it for very long. I suspect you are romanticizing and idealizing a bit.
I know where I stand among the general populace, and as a strong second amendment advocate. I'd be fine

That said, I do like my AC, and running hot and cold water.
;)
 
Back
Top Bottom