Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Food Packaging

scanofthemonth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 132 posts

Re: Food Packaging

#41

Post by hallway_monitor »

colordrops wrote: post #33
simulate-me wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

To be blunt your argument for polluting our environment doesn't feel like it's in good faith when you blame wood for being a pollutant until a fungus showed up hundreds of millions of years ago. I absolutely loathe the term "whataboutism" but this seems like a real example - "what about the fact that wood was a pollutant hundreds of millions of years ago? We should be able to dump plastic now".

It would be somewhat ironic if a bacteria were to evolve to eat plastic and be invasive. An organism like that would have quite an effect on humanity's habits.

Re: Food Packaging

#42

Post by hallway_monitor »

ars wrote: post #39
adewinter wrote: post #10

It's weird that CT scans cost hundreds (thousands?) of dollars when used in medicine but at the airport everyone's baggage is routinely scanned for approx. $free. Is the hardware and software needed for CT scans really that expensive or not?

The air port has an x-ray machine, not a CT scanner. The CT has a ring the spins around the object making a 3d image - they don't have that at the airport. X-rays are quite cheap in the medical world (reading them is where the cost is, not taking the x-ray).

I suppose a CT is what I saw at the airport earlier this year then - maybe Houston? The technicians clearly had a 3d model and were manipulating it to view it from all angles.

Re: Food Packaging

#43

Post by 8ytecoder »

colordrops wrote: post #33
simulate-me wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

To be blunt your argument for polluting our environment doesn't feel like it's in good faith when you blame wood for being a pollutant until a fungus showed up hundreds of millions of years ago. I absolutely loathe the term "whataboutism" but this seems like a real example - "what about the fact that wood was a pollutant hundreds of millions of years ago? We should be able to dump plastic now".

... and pray that a fungus that can eat plastic shows up in another millennia

Re: Food Packaging

#44

Post by simondotau »

aldebran wrote: post #31
ramraj07 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because none of us truly want to give up what we have gained. You’re still commenting on a website using a computer or a phone. The only way this will fix is after the planet is truly fully fucked, where no amount of money can protect you from that, then humanity will figure out whacko ways to fix it. Many if not most will suffer indescribably, for sure. But I see no other way this will play out.

Some people do. 1. Reduce plastic consumption as much as you can. 2. Use reusable bags 3. Choose packaging that contains less plastic. This is truly horrible in the US. Apple sauce containers for kids have so much unnecessary plastic. I mean the ones with the fancy caps that are big only to appeal to kids. And to reduce your carbon footprint further - controversial point incoming - reduce or stop eating meat. “But, a…

Fascinatingly, single use plastic bags are so impossibly thin that you'd have to reuse a reusable bag more times than they're likely to last. I have not seen any data, but I'm willing to bet that our consumption of plastic has increased, with any reduction in single use plastic bags more than offset by an increase in "reusable" bags.

If instead of normalising the use of reusable bags, we normalised soft plastics (LDPE) recycling, the planet would probably be in a better condition. A one cent tax per bag would probably be sufficient to pay for it.

(And don't get me started about cotton. If you only focus on climate change, cotton isn't too bad. But if you zoom out to look at environmental impact, petroleum doesn't hold a candle to cotton for the devastation of natural habitat, water use, energy use, etc etc etc. One t-shirt or tote bag is likely more environmental impact than all of the soft plastics used by one person in a year.)

Re: Food Packaging

#45

Post by [deleted] »

palijer wrote: post #22

It's incredible that we designed a material for robustness that takes hundreds of years to break down, and it is the default material for designing single use everyday items, and then rely on all the efforts of an ineffective recycling program to maybe get a couple more uses out of it.

[deleted]

Re: Food Packaging

#46

Post by [deleted] »

stickfigure wrote: post #26

While this is technology is beautiful, I think it would be easier to visualize how these products work by looking at old-fashioned still pictures of their disassembled parts.

[deleted]

Re: Food Packaging

#47

Post by darawk »

colordrops wrote: post #33
simulate-me wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

To be blunt your argument for polluting our environment doesn't feel like it's in good faith when you blame wood for being a pollutant until a fungus showed up hundreds of millions of years ago. I absolutely loathe the term "whataboutism" but this seems like a real example - "what about the fact that wood was a pollutant hundreds of millions of years ago? We should be able to dump plastic now".

His point is that nature adapts to these things and learns to consume them eventually. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with storing plastic in the earth, as long as it isn't disrupting ecosystems.

Re: Food Packaging

#48

Post by fowkswe »

Can someone please focus the same amount of energy that was put into making this visualization into figuring out how to abolish plastic in general?

Re: Food Packaging

#49

Post by Teracotage »

BOOSTERHIDROGEN wrote: post #6
ggm wrote: post #5

There's a book from 25+ years ago on the design of cardboard boxes which goes to similar levels of obsessive detail. Part Art college, design school, industrial design and part coffee table book. Cardboard, it's origami for industry: sheet form, now optimise assembly, cost and structural integrity alongside ease of production...

Which book ?

This website has templates for packaging https://www.templatemaker.nl/en/

Re: Food Packaging

#50

Post by Teracotage »

codetrotter wrote: post #16
ggm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could remember. My mum used to bring these things home from the art college library on long loan. It was by an industry professional, on the processes to design efficient boxes, packing, cardboard constructions. I can't find it online.

The library possibly has her loan history still. You could ask her to check with them if they could find out for you. Mostly for your own sake I mean. But if you do find out then please let us know too :)

This should do https://www.templatemaker.nl/en/
Post reply on HN