I agree it's not fascinating. But I actually was going to initially include an addendum about how I think it's not quite the same as pointing out the harms of something as fundamental as atoms or fermions or something. Carbon isn't necessary for matter and possibly not necessary for life; just necessary for our particular implementation of it.
> Carbon isn't necessary for matter and possibly not necessary for life
Well in a way it is, because that's what evolution had to work with. Maybe in some other multiverse atoms wouldn't be necessary, but that's just not the way it is in our reality.
That's my point. The fact that carbon is ubiquitous to life on Earth is analogous to atoms being ubiquitous in our universe. There could be another universe where atoms don't exist, but who cares we don't live there, neither do we live in a part of the universe where life is not made out of carbon. There is absolutely nothing interesting about the fact that life is made out of carbon and that at the same time carbon can cause harm to said life if used improperly. Not sure why we keep going in circles.
I'm not sure why we keep going in circles, either. The first few words of my post made it clear that I understand the utter banality and lack of sense in the point:
>I'm aware what I'm about to say is a dumb non sequitur that doesn't really make sense,
Obviously it's not interesting and isn't actually saying anything, since carbon is so general and fundamental as a building block on Earth.
I was speaking thematically or poetically. We generally don't refer to ourselves as "atom-based lifeforms" or "quark-based lifeforms", but we often do refer to ourselves as "carbon-based lifeforms". I could elaborate, but hopefully that captures what I'm referring to, here. It's mostly a matter of wordplay, not matter.
