Punching holes in poison ivy leaves sounds like a good way to get a rash.
post
Not sure how long it takes, but I hear tell there's biodegradable glitter.
There is, but to what standard does the manufacturer consider their product "biodegradable".
There are many, I believe the best ones are TUV certified water-biodegradable ('OK Biodegradable Water' cert). It's means it's 100% biodegradable and non-ecotoxic to a high standard, with at least 90% fully biodegrading in fresh water in 56 days or less, and confirms it does not biodegrade into microplastics - which some 'bioplastics' do.
'BioGlitter' is one example, a British invention now owned by a German company and made in Germany. From quick research it seems to be made primarily of Eucalyptus (leaf?) cellulose and wood pulp.
https://www.discoverbioglitter.com/what-does-ok-biodegradable-water-certification-mean/
Everything is technically biodegradable given enough time. Except lead maybe
In Australia there's a tree called Gympie-Gympie.
"Gympie" is a powerful swear-word in the local aboriginal language (like "Fucking cunt!") and in that language, repeating a word twice is like amplifying it 10x. They named this tree the most aggressive swear they could come up with.
The tree is covered in tiny hypodermic needle-like hairs. Brushing against it leaves you coated in these hairs which inflict a pain that has been described as like being burned with fire, except with fire, your nerve endings are eventually destroyed. Not so with the Gympie-Gympie.
Pain from an encounter has been known to last for months or years. There is a story of a soldier on patrol who used it's leaves as toilet paper. He committed suicide after a few weeks. There's a report of a horse which brushed one of these trees, and it went mad and ran nonstop until it found a cliff and ran right over the edge to its death.
Gympie-Gympie leaves would make the most cursed glitter imaginable

Those leaves remind me of stinging nettles... I'm sure Gympie-Gympie is worse, but my first time being stung by nettles scared the shit out of me as they got me clear through my jeans.
Extracting urisol for entirely legitimate purposes
I'm pretty sure purchasing a glitter bomb-worth of glitter does not determine whether that same amount will be subsequently manufactured. the glitter has already been made. might was well make the most of it.
Doesn't it? More people buying -> more being manufactured?
that's not causal
if I press the power button on a computer, it boots up following a set of causal events. it's not like there are little people inside the machine deciding how much power to let through or how many pixels to make white.
but human manufacturing and market systems are rife with people who can decide if or when or how much or how long. my decisions don't cause their decisions.
It does indirectly; if there is a trend of glitter bombs that causes the sales of glitter to go up 100% over a sustained period, then those people will likely decide to manufacture more, because making decisions that way is their job. Are you trying to say that their decisions have moral weight here while the consumer's decisions do not? Or are you trying to say that how much glitter is purchased literally does not impact how much is produced? I could see how someone might argue for the former even though I disagree, but I'm pretty sure the latter is just not the truth.
It does ensure a non-zero amount ends up as pollution though
once it is manufactured it is pollution, no matter what happens to it
Do you have a preference between burying nuclear waste in a designated disposal site and scattering it randomly over waterways?
Mate, you're making commies look bad by failing to understand supply and demand.
supply and demand is a theory about price discovery
.. Annnd what does it mean when you buy a big bag of glitter, and then the price is the same tomorrow, and in a week.. And in month?
It means your demand has not outpaced production, nor reduced a finite resource - your purchase of stock has simply been replenished by a supplier.
Purchases inform supply - more will be made to continue meeting demand. If this is not the case, the market price will change.
https://qoblex.com/blog/the-law-of-supply-and-demand-complete-guide-to-market-economics/
This is the same silly argument people have for eating meat - doesn't hold water
it's absolutely true, but if you object, point out whatever said that's wrong.
When you buy something, you add yourself to the demand for the thing.
and when you buy something, the supply shrinks
What do manufacturers do when the supply shrinks?
they're agents with free will. they can decide anything at all, including to destroy their existing inventory.
Okay but realistically what is going to happen? You seem smart, you don't need to be walked across the line, you know that in this world that we live in, they are going to manufacture more. Because there is no force that is going to stop them from doing it. And until there is, that won't change. So while that force does not exist, it is a near certainty that you purchasing glitter or meat contributes to its continued production.
realistically what is going to happen
production Will continue at the same levels regardless of what I buy
Categorically untrue, there is no demand without consumers.
but production happens without demand
Does some part of you truly believe that if demand for glitter dropped to 0 that glitter production would continue for any significant period of time?
that's not what I said. it's a strawman.
Then your argument is not clear to me, sorry :/ I said "there is no demand without consumers" and you said "production happens without demand". What do you mean by this? Do you mean that production sometimes exceeds demand? Do you mean that production happens no matter what demand?
It seems plainly obvious, to me, that by being a consumer of a good, you are stimulating the demand for that good, and with capitalism being as it is, when demand is stimulated, production (or price increasing, where production is not an option) shortly follows. Short of radical regime or legislation change (both of which I should be clear I support) I don't see that changing. Thus, buying glitter is worse than not buying glitter (as far as I can see).
One single bag of glitter may not make a big difference, but each bag makes an equal contribution. Sure, regulation would be more effective, but in its absence the best way to prevent glitter production is to not buy any.
This is absolutely causal btw. More glitter purchased -> shelves empty -> stores order more glitter -> producers make more glitter
this is story telling. give me data
all 65 comments