Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't disagree with anything you wrote nor do I see how it contradicts anything I wrote. Just because it works doesn't make it right and running to the government and using the long arm of the law IMO should be reserved for egregious crimes lest it become regressive and commonplace.

So, what would be the correct course of action to prevent stuff like fish in the sea being full of plastic from happening?

This is the type of dangerous question that leads to interminable lists of laws. If there is any problem and we don't know of another solution that works as well, let's go with the one we do know. It also happens to be the easiest and we know it will work. One wonders why the same solution doesn't apply to paper that is also a serious littering problem? And it's always this same type of appeal to emotion. If you cared about the fish so much, why not just outlaw all plastics? Answer: because people only care about things as much as it doesn't affect them to solve. That's how regressive laws happen.

I could put forth a guess or two on attempts at action, but I am not familiar enough with the science to argue them wholeheartedly. But I can say the political decisions are rarely science based and more often based on perceived righteousness (which is why it's a tax and not illegal).

So... Your solution is "plastic isn't bad" as well as "whatabout paper?" and "don't mention the fish, because their cuteness makes us irrational" and "politicians are stupid"?

Color me unconvinced.

I think you misread. I didn't offer a solution. I just mentioned inconsistency and the reason why. Your reading is purposefully uncharitable and makes it impossible to have these kinds of discussions rationally.

>Your reading is purposefully uncharitable and makes it impossible to have these kinds of discussions rationally.

That's an assumption of bad faith. Now that is something that makes rational discussion impossible. You seem to see yourself as totally above the person talking with you, because you're just "rational". But you continually appeal to emotion yourself, and that emotion is fear:

"it's a slippery slope", "prohibitionists", "using the long arm of the law" (to describe a 5p charge), "regressive", "dangerous question","interminable lists of laws" etc

Solving this problem affects everyone. Not solving this problem affects everyone. This is the nature of global environmental problems. Yes, outlawing most of plastic packaging, additives etc. is probably going to happen sooner or later in some parts of the world. With China now banning imports of plastic garbage, the process has already started.

This is probably not related to plastic bags, but still interesting: 73% of deep sea fish ingested plastic https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0219/941718-plastics/

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact