I would not have had the opinion that you are happy about the solution. Your reply is basically “not appreciate a larger situation, problem, etc., because one is considering only a few parts of it” (the origin). We cannot fix the reason the problem is there. IT IS. Fixing the problem is the only reality and now that is within reach. Complaining about the origin is missing the point.
We cannot fix the fact that the patch is there no. But we most certainly can fix continuing supply of garbage to it. That is exactly the argument I put forth in a different reply. “Oh well; we can just fish out the garbage, so we don’t need to fix the underlying issue of single use plastics.” Complaining about the origin of the pollution is very much not missing the point.
I very much doubt the goal of an organisation like “The Ocean Cleanup” is to get to pick up garbage in perpetuity. I would very much hope, that its end goal is to outlive its own usefulness.
If I can add to the discussion here. Problem is the the solution isn’t a solution. Heck the headline is a lie because the first sentence is “If the project raises 7.5 billion dollars”. The article makes people feel like the problem is solved already but it’s not. And to say that we cannot fix the origin of the problem is just not true. To think so is to actually miss the point of the project which is that monumental problems CAN be solved, but cleaning the patch isn’t done and it won’t be the end of the challenge.
We will not be able to go back in time and stop all the plastic from being created. We can’t stop the motion of the ocean that puts it together in the current configuration.
We can’t stop the human activity that causes plastic to end up in the ocean.
We can’t stop the production of plastic.
We can’t demand that governments force their population to behave in specific ways.
The issue is what it is. We can only deal with the situation as it is. The article details a plan and a possible conclusion in 10 years if everything works out. That doesn’t make me feel like it’s solved.
How in the heck do you mean? I’m happy for the accomplishment. It’s excellent work. I’m just angry that said work is necessary in the first place.
I would not have had the opinion that you are happy about the solution. Your reply is basically “not appreciate a larger situation, problem, etc., because one is considering only a few parts of it” (the origin). We cannot fix the reason the problem is there. IT IS. Fixing the problem is the only reality and now that is within reach. Complaining about the origin is missing the point.
We cannot fix the fact that the patch is there no. But we most certainly can fix continuing supply of garbage to it. That is exactly the argument I put forth in a different reply. “Oh well; we can just fish out the garbage, so we don’t need to fix the underlying issue of single use plastics.” Complaining about the origin of the pollution is very much not missing the point.
I very much doubt the goal of an organisation like “The Ocean Cleanup” is to get to pick up garbage in perpetuity. I would very much hope, that its end goal is to outlive its own usefulness.
If I can add to the discussion here. Problem is the the solution isn’t a solution. Heck the headline is a lie because the first sentence is “If the project raises 7.5 billion dollars”. The article makes people feel like the problem is solved already but it’s not. And to say that we cannot fix the origin of the problem is just not true. To think so is to actually miss the point of the project which is that monumental problems CAN be solved, but cleaning the patch isn’t done and it won’t be the end of the challenge.
We will not be able to go back in time and stop all the plastic from being created. We can’t stop the motion of the ocean that puts it together in the current configuration.
We can’t stop the human activity that causes plastic to end up in the ocean.
We can’t stop the production of plastic.
We can’t demand that governments force their population to behave in specific ways.
The issue is what it is. We can only deal with the situation as it is. The article details a plan and a possible conclusion in 10 years if everything works out. That doesn’t make me feel like it’s solved.