>>509947>calling me a moron>can't understand the words that he is typingFirst of all, the following statement implies that plastic is not organic matter, which is incorrect:
>>509941>Plastic is objectively worse than organic matterIf you had even a passing background in any kind of science, which you have implied many times in this thread, then you would understand the difference between the words organic and inorganic, and you'd be able to give examples of each kind of material. The fact is that you do not and can not.
>The rate of decay does indeed matter I am sorry that you cannot understand this fact.First of all, "decay" isn't even the right fucking word. The word you're looking for is "decompose." Second of all, you're not reading my post, or even thinking about the words that you are saying with any level of depth.
>the only relevant factor>one factor of severalSee how these are not the same thing? This is why I say that you have not even thought about the subject in any sort of depth. Nor do you understand what it really is about having these items littered around on the forest floor that is undesirable (or rather, if you do, you have yet to articulate it). Lacking this, your posts come off as mere browbeating for the sake of browbeating.
Finally, I say that your understanding of the subject matter is overly simplistic because it is. You think in absolute terms, but nature does not. Rates of decomposition in fact vary depending on the environment, whether there are decomposers (bacteria, fungi, insects, etc.) in high enough quantities to have a significant effect, the temperature and moisture levels throughout the year. Things that take just a month to decompose in temperate climates take many times longer at high elevations and in the desert.
