We should not Discontinue using all Plastic Containers only those that are Wasteful – No

Plastic is a wondrous, invented substance with abundant possibilities. Its real and potential value to our society is immense. Banning its constructive use in any manner is inappropriate; even though some would use it to the detriment of everyone else in modern society in some circumstances; those self-centered, greed oriented scum, only wishing to dominate and suppress decent people.

The primary argument against plastic containers in today’s world is the environmental damage caused by various plastic artifacts, such as shopping bags, six-pack rings, bottles and such like, that are sold to consumers on a one-use, supposedly “disposable” basis.

The environmental issue being that such items are subsequently disgarded by the irresponsible to litter the environment, polluting the aesthetic beauty of wild and remote regions, and detrimentally impacting the wildlife of such regions, particularly sealife and birds. And no less adding to the ugly appearance of many of our urban and suburban areas as well. All of which is blatently true and obvious to any citizen of the world with any observational ability.

Instead of using our plastics technology appropriately on an environmentally suitable basis, many, if not most or even possibly all, commercial enterprises involved in the plastics industry endeavor to offer an alternative to this legitimate environmental concern by producing biodegradable plastics. For example, they try to produce plastic bags that are sufficiently weak that they break up after use – although perhaps, far too often during their initial use to the annoyance of many consumers – to the extent that they appear comparable to the biodegrading that paper bags are inevitably susceptible to. As long as they break up into small enough pieces to appear biodegradable, that will be sufficient as far as such companies are concerned for their marketing purposes.

That small pieces of the original plastic structure might continue to pollute and endanger wildlife, through blocking throats or through indigestible accumulation in the digestive tract of such wild life, doesn’t matter. As long as they are too small to be particularly noticeable to the average citizen. Allowing sufficient deniability in the information and disinformation over-abundent world of today’s Internet that we all have to strive to form valid opinions within. Opinions based on what we receive from various sources whose value we have to decide upon and evaluate for ourselves. Making our own decisions within today’s information rich but generally unvalidated world.

That it would actually be easier to produce a quality, artistically beautiful, plastic container that could become a family heirloom, still used by our descendants one thousand generations from now, is completely unacceptable to those dominating our world today. (Unless it was a stunningly expensive one-off that only they could purchase.) A concept that all the commercial interests of all those focused on capitalist economics, no matter what their theoretical political attitude or position may be, could not possibly accept on a general basis.

Actually using available technological capability to produce sufficient goods to meet the needs of their citizens and those of the poor, undeveloped nations, would, after all, imply that these dominant “leaders” of our societies were not actually necessary. And most clearly, not superior to the rest of us they continue to presume they are above and feel entitled to dominate.

Whether supposedly communist China, dominating today’s low-price consumer production, ‘commercially orientated for personal wealth creation’ dictatorships or military regimes, such as many of the USA’s questionable “allies” in today’s world or supposedly democratic nations professing to believe in human rights, such as the USA itself; today’s nations of every supposed political variety base their economics on the consumerism our technological advancement has made necessary to maintain capitalism. Technological capability making capitalism unnecessary unless artificially supported by extreme wasteful practices such as consumerism.

Our technological plastics capabilities is but one of the many advanced technologies that now abound within the developed societies of today’s world. Suggesting that all plastic containers should be banned is a diversion from what should be our real concerns! A ploy by those without regard for our world, to distract those that do, from more legitimate concerns.

The vast array of possibilities the scientific discovery and technological advancement we, as a global society, have achieved over the last 100 years is truly astounding. The advocates of capitalism claim that our scientific and technological advancement is solely due to competition; that which has been engendered by competition between capitalist, commercial entities. An understandable conceit, that many influential and powerful capitalists may even actually believe, personally. But, nethertheless, one that is blatently offered to society as a lie intended to benefit the dominant in society and hinder the personal development of all other members.  

As such, should we not consider it on a practical, common sense, and logical basis. The most significant advancements in technology have occurred during periods of warfare, whether hot or cold. While this has entailed extreme security measures to constrain revelation of results to “at the time” political enemies, it has necessitated the sharing of knowledge between a large number of scientists considered most capable within those allied nations considered fundamentally linked.

In comparison, the commercial world of capitalist businesses hides the results of their research until they have secured legal patents for their scientists’ discoveries that prevents competitors from utilising such for the indefinite or legally appropriate future. Such constraint on disclosure actually inhibits scientific and technological advancement, because it results in significant repetition.

Researchers repeating experiments that others have found to fail, because those results have been undisclosed, hidden from them. Experiments that may result in the painful deaths of laboratory animals, that could have been avoided if negative results by the R&D department of a competitor had been previously published.  

The majority of which therefore occurs in the comparatively sharing environment of tertiary educational facilities. Although, even these have significant competitive attitudes hindering interlectual sharing as well as multiple inappropriate hierarchical structures used to benefit ineffective supervisors over their intellectually capable and inventive students.

All said and done, this debate is intrinsically simple. The disagreement involved is one of unsubstantiated ignorance rather than legitimate argument. An emotion based ineffective irregularity that is essentially detrimental to all those emotionally involved.

Plastic containers designed, produced and intentially manufactured to provide a short term product for those people that purchase them, meeting the duration so implied, but failing to meet any concept of longevity; while acceptable to the dominant wealthy of a society, are quite clearly not to the average decent person in any decent society.

If we make the effort to improve our world’s society, we can accept the evils, not as things to unavoidably submit to, but as essential elements to oppose! Some of those with stunningly abundant financial wealth, that provides them with a dominating power most others happily submit to, live in the belief that they are personally Gods. That all other people are beneif them. That no other person could possibly come close to their own importance.

Plastic containers offer the possibility of providing an excellent and endless service to humanity. That possibility is potentially corrupted by poor quality industrial production and attitudes, and polluted by chemically damaging production methods promoted by arrogant and self-centred people believing in their personal right to dominate those they consider to be working class people, and the presumption that they are inherently better than anyone else without any experiential evidence supplying the slightest indication of any possibilty implying any at all legitimacy to arrogant bigotry.