Toxic stuffs are always technologically superior. Always. Fluoride etched Indium-Gallium-Arsenide-Phosphide make great solar cells. Iron-Aluminum-Gold alloy, not so much, if it worked at all.

Human life expectancy literally doubled as we switched from those "less hazardous and more reusable" options to disposable plastics. What justification do you have to go back to that? No one has one.

We need sustainable plastics production. Maybe from agricultural waste or something. Not a transition to a "Glass-and-steel Age". There's no way around that.

> Human life expectancy literally doubled as we switched from those "less hazardous and more reusable" options to disposable plastics.

Really? And are the two things causally connected in the way you imply? In that period infant mortality was falling which has a dramatic effect on mean life expectancy but is probably not all that greatly affected by disposable plastics.

Also life expectancy in Norway was 72.8 years in 1950-1955. When, if ever, was it only 36.4 years? I'm quite that plastic packaging was rare or non-existent in Norway and the rest of Europe in the early 1950s and life expectancy is certainly not 145.6 years now that it is ubiquitous.