Some people don’t want to hear this but sometimes accessibility is not sustainable or eco-friendly. Disabled people sometimes need straws, or pre-made meals in plastic containers, or single-use items. Just because you can work with your foods in their least processed and packaged form doesn’t mean everyone else can.
I mean, if we’re talking about a more…academic? rigorous? accurate? definition of sustainability, something has to meet human needs to be sustainable. A “sustainable” system that disabled people can’t use isn’t sustainable. Not distracting from your point just saying that “sustainability” is supposed to actually include the needs of people.
Also. In my opinion it’s a good thing we invented plastic. Plastic is good at a lot of things. There are some applications where there really Isn’t a more sustainable alternative. A lot of medical equipment needs to be single-use plastic and there’s not really a way around it.
When we’re talking material properties of a substance, plastic does stuff that other materials can’t. It’s not brittle. It can be flexible. It can be lightweight. It doesn’t expand and contract a bunch with temperature. It can allow light through. And it doesn’t corrode or biodegrade, which is bad but it’s also good because it doesn’t change or become contaminated while you’re using it.
I bet the abled ‘leftists’ are going to be real cool and normal about this.
I saw a post one time that was like “in a just world with equality for everyone, people in rich imperialist countries would have access to less of expensive luxuries and that’s okay” but one of their examples of these expensive things that wouldnt be in the world anymore with equality was. MRI machines.
I don’t know about y'all but I think theres like, a ranked list of the frivolousness of expensive technologies, and all medical technology is collectively dead at the fucking bottom