nature
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
162 points (98.8% liked)
Asklemmy
46651 readers
701 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Health
life and death
I have a thick rope of muscle in my mouth that I can control accurately enough to speak with, swallow with, and dig popcorn fragments out from between my teeth with.
Just one of nature's wacky solutions that applies to more than one problem. I should be grateful it doesn't have thorns on it.
Homelessness.
Water. Fresh drinking water straight from the tap.
And yet I'm seeing lots of people in the UK start to buy bottled water. Worse: canned water.
The shittification of public services in favour of private products is a creep I'm not paying enough attention to
I agree with the overall sentiment; but there is no way in hell that canned water is worse than plastic bottles.
Aluminium is infinitely more/easily recyclable than plastic, and has a much lower negative impact on the environment.
But to reiterate, filling up your own bottle from the tap is preferred - but if you have to buy water in a container: can > bottle
It's not really the metal that's bad, but the coating on the inside of the metal (in contact with your food/water), that raises concerns.
Glass is best, but food/water in glass containers are often considerably more expensive.
I am aware; but when the options are an entirely plastic container (clear, and readily able to oxidise and leech microplastics when exposed to light over long periods of time) versus a lined metal can (which is at least opaque) - cans are remain the lesser of two evils.
I don't disagree at all. I wish we had more options.
More glass with compatibility with mason jar lids would be a win for everyone. You can recycle 5them if you want, reuse them easily, and they can remain in circulation for a very long time.
The only caveat with glass is that you have too many idiots breaking them on sidewalks, bike lanes, and parks.
Glass is also quite heavy, increasing logistics costs for transport - but in an ideal world where everything runs off renewable energy sources and stupid people didnโt ruin things for the rest of us - glass would indeed be the ideal medium.
But glass is easy to sterilize at the point of purchase and refilled. There are "zero waste" stores that do something like this already, so there's nothing to bring in other than bulk product (instead of 100 cans or bottles).
Doesn't work everywhere in our current, high-profit, low-care business models.
I agree that metal is better than plastic, but it feels like they're trying to categorise water with soda as a commodity
The thing about it is aluminum cans leach into their contents, especially if left open. Aluminum isn't particularly harmful in that amount but it's something you can taste, particularly with acidic contents. Not sure how much water suffers from this, but if it comes through in things with flavour, I'm sure it would come through in water, which is supposed to be flavourless, even if it's not usually very acidic.
Printed currency.
Homelessness. But I don't occasionally think about it. I see it every day. In the richest nation in recorded history.
What country? Is it really rich if it can't look after its citizens?
It's always been a rich man's country. All for one, none for all.
And the wealth of only one single manchild is enough to pay housing for them all - at least in this nation...and probably in some more. (Just looked some numbers up - world economic forum reported in 2021 that there are 150 million people homeless in the world, that would be ~2700,- per individual homeless person, taking his net worth into account -for 770. 000 homeless people in the US it would be ~525. 000 per person)
The problem is that homelessness is, weirdly, more complicated than just giving people homes. It's also about mental health issues (many of which we don't yet have the ability to effectively treat), community, purpose, and a ton of other things.
It's almost like everyone would benefit from a support system or safety net put in place by some community funded entity that would have the capability of putting those systems in place.
There are other problems for the homeless, but it makes treating those problems a lot easier when they have a home.
You can't treat any existing mental health issues while people are living on the street developing new ones.
You're right-I didn't want to make it look simple. I'm just constantly stunned how wealth is distributed, which is one of many reasons for homelessness. A fair distribution could finance housing and support systems.
view more: next โบ