• Neshura
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Aight, do the first step then.

    Ultimate solution to human pollution. My guess is, you won’t like it though.

    You mention all the people suffering from mesothelioma, from lead poisoning and micro plastics but you fail to mention the lives saved from penicillin, the people saved from starvation due to nitrate fertilizer and pesticides. The mothers saved because of X-Rays and other tests during pregnancy. You can’t pick and choose all the bad stuff whilst ignoring the good that came from the same system. You can’t have your cake and eat it too and so far innovating and worrying about the consequences later has worked out better than not doing that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      I didn’t fail to mention anything. I’m pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, I know there’s lots of good that have come from quite frankly atrocities when viewed from a certain viewpoint.

      You lost all credibility when you claimed chemistry is the same even if the environment is different.

      • Neshura
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        You lost all credibility when you claimed chemistry is the same even if the environment is different.

        So you think it suddenly turns into some different science because the environment changes? That we can’t apply it anymore just because the initial state is different? Not how that works. The rules stay the same even if the input changes. We can take the atmospheric composition and replicate it in a lab to see how something would react in the atmosphere. Unless some parameter is missed that will be exactly what would happen in the atmosphere. There is only one step where the laws of science suddenly change and it’s not with the location of chemical substances.