Comment by [deleted] on 25/01/2020 at 18:33 UTC

5 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)

View submission: Reductio: if we consider merely affecting the environment to be morally wrong, we face the conclusion that our existence is evil. This indicates we have made a mistake...

View parent comment

Reducing pollution isn't an end unto itself, it is part of preserving the ecosystem that supports our life. Polluting an environment without an ecosystem should not be considered wrong or evil under this premise, and yet many people still see it so. This, to me, is further sign of the "excess enthusiasm" discussed in the article.

Or taking matter from one planet and taking to another. Its not like the earth is gaining mass at a rate equivalent to our creation of litter. The idea in the other subreddit is so stupid it was ridiculed by Douglas Adams in Hitchiker's guide to the galaxy https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin[1][2]

1: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin

2: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Bethselamin

It fails basic a=a logic

Replies

Comment by MmePeignoir at 26/01/2020 at 02:31 UTC

2 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Ah, Douglas Adams, the greatest scientist of the 20th Century and authority on everything.

Like, are you fucking kidding me? Of all the things you might be worried about, *loss of mass* is your objection to that plan?

Right now humans produce about 10^12 kgs of trash per year. Mass of the earth? 6*10^24 kg. That’s 12 fucking orders of magnitude in difference. Even if humans started producing trash one hundred times faster and literally all of it gets dumped into space (a highly unlikely premise, mind you - chances are there would be far easier/economically lucrative ways to recycle, and only the truly worthless would be dumped), it still wouldn’t make a dent.