>>7157 Actually I'm not so sure on the waste diapers cause compared to some other things out there. Also the amount of water and chemicals used to clean cloth might have a potential impact as well that is harder to measure even. Still for an example of "the downfall of the West" I can think of worse.

Dumb baby, theres been no landfills for years since they started incineration which means they burn waste and make heat and/or electricity outta it

>>7172 It depends on the country. The UK definitely still uses landfill for a lot of waste disposal. Even incineration is hardly ideal since it still creates pollution and isn't a particularly efficient use of raw materials. That said, ABDL diapers are going to be totally negligible compared to other sources of pollution. Any solution to prevent the coming mass extinction event is going to have to be a systematic one, and that means you need politicians who aren't utterly corrupt and/or incompetent. That said, ABDL diapers are going to be totally negligible compared to other sources of pollution. Any solution to prevent the coming mass extinction event is going to have to be a systematic one, and that means you need politicians who aren't utterly corrupt and/or incompetent. I do like the aesthetic of some cloth diapers though. Disposables can be worn outside under a skirt without anyone noticing, but a girl who had to wear cloth diapers would find it much harder to preserve her dignity.

>>7172 Are you suggesting that everyone is forced to wear diapers as a continual fuel source to be burned for electricity?

>If you ever want a greater symbol of the downfall of the West look no further than disposable diapers and the absolute waste they cause I don't own a car and I live within walking distance to work. I try to shop within walking distance and keep my deliveries to a minimum. I repair rather than replace electronics whenever possible, I sell and donate rather than throw away things I don't use. I feel ​like I've offset my use of disposable diapers by that. >If you ever want to do your bit for the planet reject the disposables and return to cloth. They don't even have truly great colorful designs anyway. I've tried cloth and it just doesn't do it for me, I'm a DL and that lovely disposable SAP makes all the difference for me. I suppose I could try a disposable booster in a cloth diaper, but then what's the point? >Billions of diapers end up in landfills each year which is causing humanity to literally drown the world in shit And? Your "reasoning" is that they won't decompose for hundreds of years, I find it difficult to believe it's that large of an impact, this is easy to prove, really, I'd love to see a study that tried to dig up landfills from the 80's and found an identifiable disposable from the 80's in the trash, I suspect they might find some remnants, but not a full, intact diaper. Maybe Pamperchu can finally be useful! Aside from that, though, there is FAR more waste and pollution in this world than diapers, planned obsolescence consumer goods are a much bigger problem than diapers.

>>7157 The math seems off for the image. More than ten diapers a day doesn't seem right.

>>7267 3800 / 365 is about 10.5 diapers per day.

>>7269 I know, it just seems high to me. Maybe I'm just so skewed by ABDL stuff that it seems high, not like I have much experience with kids.

>>7157 diapers (baby and adult together) make up around 1% of landfill use by volume. For comparison, paper products are something like 50% to 60%. Landfills are also not a serious problem in moderation. what we should be far more concerned about is the greenhouse gas footprint, and again, the contribution to this made by diapers is probably fairly negligible. Its an easy trap to fall into when looking at environmental concerns. We see something that looks like a serious problem, but in the bigger picture it is totally unimportant. Its a lot like crypto haters saying it has the same energy consumption of a small country. That is true, but that is less than 1% of our energy consumption. The problem isnt the1% crypto consumes, and its not even the 99% everything else does. Its our use of carbon based fuel for energy. Like the phrase "the straw that broke the camels back", if you are trying to preserve your camel, you should not start with the 1 gram straw added at the end, but on the 100 kilogram load it was already carrying. The issue of diapers is a good example of focusing on the straw.

>>7267 >>7270 Smaller bladders = more diapers used. Babs especially food can go straight through them. Kids also don't really want to be sitting around in a messy diaper and risk diaper rash.

>>7333 Newborns tend to burn through about that many diapers in a day, though that number almost always tapers off as the kid gets older. Toddlers tend to only go through 5 or 6 in a day (unless they're sick or something, obviously). I'd say that the OP image is just like propaganda for cloth diapers or environmentalism anyway. Although I frankly welcome our cloth diaper overlords with welcome loins.

I won’t eat the bugs! I won’t live in the pod! I won’t drink the soy! I won’t switch to cloth! I’ll own things and be happy!

>>11412 >Newborns tend to burn through about that many diapers a day Christ you could use a baby to fertilize the world crops! >>11432 Kek

>>11432 Cloth diapers are super comfy, though...

>>11432 unfathomably based post

>>11432 Eternally this. >>11460 Cloth diapers are the cheapest worst most uncomfortable least performant garbage I ever had the displeasure of experiencing. What a load of bullshit. Not in a million years ever again. Kys.

>>11491 >Thinks boomer-style cloth diapers are still the norm >Thinks those stupid all-in-one diapers are the new norm >Has no idea how to use 2-in-1 diapers How's the weather back in the 1950's, neighbor? Let's go passive-aggressively oppress people of color after dinner at 4PM. Fuck off, boomer.

>>7271 9000ml ISO based

>>7271 Wholesomely based.

>>11432 You VILL vear ze cloth diaper

it is completely possible to make the entirety of a disposable diaper out of hemp. hemp pulp is more absorbent, hemp plastics are plenty waterproof, you can even make adhesive and elastics out of hemp, and it all biodregrades easily. but that wouldnt profit the oil industry, so of course that wont happen.

>>12776 If you can actually recreate the look and feel of plastic diapers with plant based products I'd be fine with that. My understanding was that there are real fundamental differences of plastic integrity and texture with plant based plastics though.

>>12776 The waterproof shell of diapers should be made out of the same plant-based material as the old sun chips bags(they were very noisy).

>>12776 There are multiple companies that make disposable baby diapers out of bamboo products, and they are advertised as compostable. Whether it scales up to adults or not, I cannot say.

For me, cloth is just like, well, clothes. Does not recreate the feeling of an actual diaper... the plastic padding and the texture of it against my skin It's just not the same. Also, everything I consume regularly is 1 billion times way less eco-friendly If I drink one beer, the glass is going to be there literally forever. The motherfucking plastic that comes with everything you buy is going to be there forever. disposable diapers are the least of our problem, cloth sucks, case closed

>>12819 Yes. I approve of this message. Cloth diaper is just clothes. cloth diaper is like putting on 10 layers of underwear, not good. The lithium in your phone will burn a hole through the earths mantel and aliens will find it in a thousand years and wonder why.

>>12783 >My understanding was that there are real fundamental differences of plastic integrity and texture with plant based plastics though. This really just depends. From my understanding, with synthetic chemistry, just about ANYTHING is possible. As long as the thing you are trying to replicate and the thing you are replicating it with are both hydrocarbons, it should be possible to synthesize an exact match. Since plastics, oil, and plants are all hydrocarbon based, this should apply. However, its possible that the chemical engineers and manufacturers might settle for an alternative material that is close, but not quite the same, as the original. It might be so that it has beneficial properties (it might be stronger, or biodegradable for example) or it could be that getting the synthetic material to be a 95% match is dramatically cheaper than making a 100% match.

>>12849 The problem with creating biodegradable plastic is that the environment you DON'T want it to break down in is too similar to the environment you DO want it to break down in.

>>12864 that isnt a problem unless your going to be wearing that same diaper for a month.........

>>7170 I live in downtown vancouver and anybody who wants to enable or support the homless should fucking neck themselves. It's literally the same as feeding rabid dogs and attracting them to your doorstep.

>>15290 So you think that not helping homeless will get them magically out of streets?

>>15295 Do not help the homeless. That money will be spent on people who don't contribute to the economy. You don't become homeless overnight. Better burn that money to prevent inflation. That being said, deliberately going after them with hostile arch. is stupid, I give you that.

>>15295 >So you think that not helping homeless will get them magically out of streets? The type of homeless person that is on the streets every day begging for cash is the type of homeless person that literally cannot be helped. At best they have an unfortunate mental health condition and refuse to take their meds, at worst they have a nasty meth, coke or fentanyl addiction that is all the drives whatever that remains of their brains. You're better off contributing your money to a homeless shelter/nonprofit and/or volunteering for one if you actually want to help the homeless. Give the street beggars money helps nobody and only serves to enable without actually helping. That's why Christians like this option, it's easy to virtue signal and they can just go back next week to pat themselves on the back. >>15310 >Do not help the homeless. That money will be spent on people who don't contribute to the economy. You don't become homeless overnight. While yes, it is true that nobody becomes homeless without a series of bad decisions, there are also people who legitimately recover from a low point in their lives.

>>15315 >You're better off contributing your money to a homeless shelter/nonprofit and/or volunteering for one if you actually want to help the homeless. I 100% agree on that, didn't even thought about beggars as heres not much them. But a lot of junkies and with those a regular contact with social worker probably gives someone hope to get up from streets and fresh needles means less infections to cure in er. They also get some pension or what it's called and cutting it would just result in more crimes

>>15295 I think mass sterylizing and letting them fucking die will.

>>15319 >fresh needles means less infections to cure in er Literally wrong. You people clearly don't live near places with lots of homeless. If you go to an ER in a homeless infested shithole city like San Francisco or Vancouver it's always FILLED with homeless complaining about random shit to try and get drugs, harassing the staff, etc. The clean needles just mean they don't die when they CONTINUE DOING DRUGS. A lot of them subsist entirely on a high-sugar diet with zero nutrients, so they end up with gangrene from the diabetes and need to be treated.

>>15315 >there are also people who legitimately recover from a low point in their lives. And what peercentage of homeless people would that be? I'll let you in on a secret, since you've clearly never had a drug addiction yourself. Even if a homeless junkie gets his act together, stops doing meth/opiates/whatever, gets a job, a house, a family, etc., THEY WILL NEVER FEEL AS GOOD AS ANOTHER HIT OF DRUGS. A hit of crack causes like 12x the dopamine surge of an orgasm. Their reward pathways are permanently fucked, and living their life properly will never be as rewarding as continuing to leech off the system and do drugs. ESPECIALLY IF WE DO SHIT LIKE GIVE THEM FREE DRUGS AND CLEAN NEEDLES. I was almost homeless from drug addiction, and many of my closest friends are now homless or dead. FUCK THEM. They made themselves into wild animals and no amount of sympathy or enabling will reverse that process (even if it does for like 0.0000000004% of people who end up bouncing back).

>>11432 cloth backed means that they still use foil but only for the part that actually needs to be water proof (between the legs not on your hips) and that they can use thinner foil since the foil is supported by a cloth. Did you even ever wore a cloth backed diapers?

>>15322 > Their reward pathways are permanently fucked, and living their life properly will never be as rewarding as continuing to leech off the system and do drugs. ESPECIALLY IF WE DO SHIT LIKE GIVE THEM FREE DRUGS AND CLEAN NEEDLES You mean opioid substitution? Many addicts have been able to start normal life with it and stop leeching the system like you say.

>>15330 In my area they literally hand out tested drugs (actual cocaine, crack, meth, etc.) for free so that people don't do shit laced with fent. >Many addicts How many? Alcoholics Anonymous (a literal for-profit addictions counseling service) claims 13% of long-term addicts actually recover. The real number is probably much fucking lower. You're clearly repeating feel-good bullshit you've been conditioned to believe and have no actual experience dealing with homeless people or addicts.

>>15322 >And what peercentage of homeless people would that be? You're correct, the percentage is likely incredibly low, but enough people manage to do it that you see feel good stories. > I was almost homeless from drug addiction, and many of my closest friends are now homless or dead. FUCK THEM. They made themselves into wild animals and no amount of sympathy or enabling will reverse that process (even if it does for like 0.0000000004% of people who end up bouncing back). Yeah, homeless drug addiction is going to be quite high. But what about the people who are homeless due to non-drug (or alcohol)related reasons. People that: Were given predatory loans in the lead up to the 2008 bubble Were hit with a sudden death of the breadwinner of the family Were gambling addicts Didn't have home owner's insurance and lost a home due to fire Had a disagreement with a family member and got thrown out Were once married and ruined by divorce courts/child support/alimony ...etc. Homelessness doesn't always involve shitbag dopehead losers.

You ever think about what happens to your diapers? They don't make it to landfill or the incinerator the same size as when they were thrown out. They get mushed up and squished to a third of their size, so the space they take up isn't alot.