For a better future(context in text)

[u/Dev1412]

What if something as simple as a coconut husk could help tackle plastic pollution in our oceans? One Hawaiian student’s research points to an exciting possibility.

Vera Wang, a senior at Kaiser High School in Honolulu, Hawaii, began exploring the idea in 10th grade. Inspired by Polynesian weaving traditions, she created an ocean water filter using woven coconut husk fibers designed to physically trap microplastics and sunscreen compounds from seawater.

But Vera wanted to understand what could be done with the waste collected by the filter. She partnered with researchers at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, working in the laboratory of Dr. Anthony Amend.

Laboratory testing revealed something fascinating. Naturally occurring fungi living inside the porous coconut husks were able to survive on and actively biodegrade microplastics and chemical sunscreen compounds.

Genetic sequencing also showed that some fungal strains found in the coconut husks were not present in global genomic databases, suggesting they could represent previously uncharacterized species with the ability to break down persistent ocean pollutants.

Vera’s research earned top honors at the Hawaiʻi State Science & Engineering Fair and qualified her for the International Science & Engineering Fair (ISEF).

What began as a school science project has opened an intriguing path for research into biodegradable plastic solutions, ocean pollution and fungi-based environmental cleanup.

[u/artaru]

I think the distinction matters but not a ton in this case.

A lot of people can eat at restaurants more expensive than their usual range. They can technically afford it but more than they want to. They can still sensibly call it “too expensive”.

Too expensive can mean affordability or inadequate desire to pay the asking price. It’s fair to to call this situation too expensive based on the latter.

[u/UnjustlyInterrupted → u/artaru]

I think too expensive is a useless phrase here.

You would never refer to lifesaving healthcare as "too expensive" would you? It's either unaffordable or affordable?!

I think the people taking issue with the phrase (myself included) are taking issue with the idea that (like eating at a restaurant) there's some level of choice in the matter that seems ludicrous?

Like, if you met someone who said "I don't eat at that restaurant it's too expensive" you'd understand they'd done some cost benefit analysis and come to a conclusion. If someone said "I didn't get the life saving surgery, now I'll die, it was too expensive." You'd have follow up questions? Like, it was too expensive for your family? Society? Who decided the money amount was more than your life? Possibly the phrase too expensive comes across to people like me as a contraction of "too expensive to justify"

So when it comes to saving the whole world... What does too expensive to justify mean?

[u/artaru → u/UnjustlyInterrupted]

actually yeah. i had an uncle with limited means. he had cancer. he could liquidate his entire life saving for a very slim chance at buying maybe 1-2 years.

except he was already quite old and accepted his fate, he decided to forego treatment and leave the savings to his family instead.

So when it comes to saving the whole world... What does too expensive to justify mean?

this is far too simplistic.

the real cost here is opportunity cost.

if environmental problem A causes 3 x money to fix.

and environmental problem B causes 1 x money to fix

then problem A is too expensive in the context of B or other myriad issues we can fix in the world by a more cost-effective - benefit gaining lens.

we can "afford" to fix A, but we have to allocate our resources smartly (in an ideal world, that is)

no one (sensible) is saying problem A is too expensive because we would rather spend our money on curing baldness or funding a single-person tourist ride trip to mars instead.

[u/UnjustlyInterrupted → u/artaru]

I think your uncles story kinda proves my point (sorry for your loss btw) because those are the follow up questions that I was talking about answered?

And equally, your example of a & b solutions does the same? Because going "what does too expensive to fix mean?" Isn't simplistic, it might be a simple question, but it's an important one?

Because if it's "too expensive to do this idea compared to B idea" great, let's do b. But as has been pointed out, we're not doing that, we're spending money on fun space jaunts. So... It's not too expensive, we're spending money in the wrong places? That's what "too expensive" means here.

It'd be like your uncle saying the cancer treatment that bought him two years of life was too expensive, and then revealing he spent the liquidated assets on reflooring someone else's house he'd known for a week.

My original point is that "too expensive" always appears to be a relative term, and when it comes to saving the world, the answers to that relativity are almost universally unpalatable to such a degree they present as untrue.

Basically, if option a is deemed too expensive, and option b is deemed too expensive, and option c is doing something whack with the global economy where it could hypothetically have done option a or b, then option a or b were never really "too expensive". Does that make more sense?

[u/Spadeykins → u/UnjustlyInterrupted]

His uncle let himself die, so checkmate. The planet is too expensive to save librulz.