[nottaylorswift]

I think you overestimate - wildly - how much people care about the environment. Further the idea that recycling as policy offsets pollution is a delusion. That issue needs to be solved by materials science before even the design phase, not after the fact do good mitigation. It's a type of indoctrination; that's the purpose of recycling laws. If you follow them you're affirming voluntary compliance with government policy and that precedent makes you more agreeable to their continuing agenda. Doesn't make a bit of difference to the environment. It's a mind game. I've seen cargo ships pour metric tons of waste into the ocean as routine waste from industrial zones. The sheer size of the waste is almost unbelievable. Don't worry about the aluminum in your laptop and soda cans.

[throwaway946513]

Sorry to jump in wildly here - but this reminds me of a similar attack on the idea where we shouldn't use "air cleaners" to reduce carbon emission already in our atmosphere.

I get it, it's not a the only solution to a problem, but again - why not use this technology if the job it is designed to do helps, even enough to mitigate some other issues. Just because a solution does not address all 10 parts of a problem, doesn't mean that you can't use that solution for 1/10 of the problem.

[nottaylorswift]

Because it's not 1/10th of the problem being addressed, it's more like 1/10,000th. What I'm suggesting needs to be appreciated visually. Only then is the meaning of the scale of the issue apparent. I'm against recycling because it's a form of denial. We need to be searching for new materials and industrial process. Also, we need to switch to next generation nuclear energy at the very first opportunity. IMO

[forgotmypw17]

This isn't about recycling, but REUSE, and extending the life of a computer instead of pulling another one out of the supply chain and all of the consequences which follow.