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.
Nature is a complex dynamic system. Yes, it can adapt to new influences without becoming instable.
But needlessly bombarding it with artificial chemicals surely has some kind of threshold over which adaptation mostly fails, equilibria get destroyed and the system becomes indeed instable.
> ... as long as it isn't disrupting ecosystems.
Problem is, who can reliably tell when it'll be too much?
IMO not worth risking "everything" for some added convenience of "ingenious" food packaging.
"Nature" is arbitrarly defined. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anything. "Wrong" is a human definition. "Nature" is perfectly fine with wood and plastic piling up for eternity without decomposition if no organism happens to evolve to do so. "Nature" is fine with human genocide. "Nature" is fine with a nearby supernova or asteroid destroying all life on earth.
The point is that from a human perspective, and from the perspective of most multicellular organisms, plastics discarded into the environment are a really bad thing for our health.
But needlessly bombarding it with artificial chemicals surely has some kind of threshold over which adaptation mostly fails, equilibria get destroyed and the system becomes indeed instable.
> ... as long as it isn't disrupting ecosystems.
Problem is, who can reliably tell when it'll be too much?
IMO not worth risking "everything" for some added convenience of "ingenious" food packaging.