3 ms·

I was asking whether it might be good as a provocative question asked in the more philosophical sense. I don't assume they are good, but I do object to simple f

I was asking whether it might be good as a provocative question asked in the more philosophical sense. I don't assume they are good, but I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world, especially when most other things appear to be orders of magnitude more dangerous to us than microplastics, e.g. drinking alcohol, traffic fumes/air pollution.

lm28469 6y ago
> I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world Well, we're fucking up big times and have plenty of reasons to be worried, if your house is on fire calling the firefighters isn't fear mongering. > most other things appear to be orders of magnitude more dangerous to us than micro-plastics, e.g. drinking alcohol, traffic fumes/air pollution You can chose not to drink alcohol or not to smoke. You can't chose not to ingest micro plastic. And you're right, air pollution is a similar issue, should we ignore rising issues because we're already dealing with existing ones ? By the way, nobody is telling you to be scared. Micro plastics in placenta is, apparently, a fact, micro plastics being dangerous to us is a fact, chose how you feel about it but don't shoot the messenger.
- saberience 6y ago
  If I had to make a guess I would say that most people's diet/lifestyle/stressful job is about 1000X more impactful to their expected lifespan than microplastics in their diet. Sure, it sucks and I'm happy scientists can study this. But if I were running a government I would be putting all my money into improving air quality and reducing fossil fuel usage etc. Ultimately there are always going to be many factors which are "killing humans" and a limited amount of money to spend to try and "fix things." By far the biggest "killer" right now is advertising and unhealthy foods so we should be focusing on that if we really care about the health of human beings. In addition, assuming we care about the maximum amount of human lives lengthened, we should be focusing on pollution, climate change, and the environment. In comparison to these issues, worrying about microplastics is fucking meaningless. If you had 10 trillion dollars and wanted to increase the chances of humans becoming extinct, what would you spend it on, seriously? Who gives a fuck if we're breathing in toxic fumes all day or the planet is so hot we can barely walk outside?
  - titzer 6y ago
    > In comparison to these issues, worrying about microplastics is fucking meaningless. If you had 10 trillion dollars and wanted to increase the chances of humans becoming extinct, what would you spend it on, seriously? Who gives a fuck if we're breathing in toxic fumes all day or the planet is so hot we can barely walk outside? Oh, I get it. Right, because there is one type of pollution and climate change due to massive amounts of CO2 waste, we shouldn't focus on plastic waste. The planet is choking our on waste products because people keep arguing about what our top priority should be. Uh, how about addressing all of these massive problems we created? But we won't. Because replace "microplastics" with another topic and grab another internet troll off the shelf to argue we definitely don't need to worry about that one; rinse and repeat until we are completely paralyzed, incapable of any action whatsoever. Meanwhile, profit!
  - aiilns 6y ago
    > If I had to make a guess I would say that most people's diet/lifestyle/stressful job is about 1000X more impactful to their expected lifespan than microplastics in their diet. I like how in your first comment you try appearing a skeptic, upholder of science and yet you make unscientific guesses based on no evidence. We know very little as of yet on how humans work, what is harmful and what isn't. Just look at all the research on various medicines...that 20 years later it turns out they were only as good as placebos. Facts: 1. Microplastics appear to be everywhere now. 2. There is evidence that they are not inert molecules, passing through, instead they are chemically active. Assumption: microplastics are bad for you. Now if that causes debilitating fear to you that's a different issue, but sticking your head in the sand won't make the problem go away. Also, your utalitarian logic is flawed.
  - EinwegPlastik 6y ago
    So what you are still saying is: I think microplastic is a problem. -> right? Do you have the feeling every human needs to solve all problems? We are big, we have in theory enough resources, why not saying something like: we need to fix the microplastic issue; Its priority is behind air pollution and climate change. Instead of: Microplastic is not a problem!!111 Issue y and z are much bigger issues!!11 I personally think it should be feasable to work on all those topics in parallel as also often those issues can't be solved by everyone as not everyone is the expert in the same field.
perfunctory 6y ago
> I don't assume they are good, but I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world Why are you so hung up on fear-mongering? The title of the article is plain neutral. The article just reports the results of a medical research and quotes some medical professionals. I don't see any fear-mongering here. Isn't it just your interpretation?
- dr_orpheus 6y ago
  The article does have neutral statements on findings "Their effect in the body is unknown but scientists say there is an urgent need to assess the issue, particularly for infants." And the quoted statements from journals are also stating the facts and the general concern because the placenta is crucial for foetal development. But prior to that in the article are statements like “It is like having a cyborg baby: no longer composed only of human cells, but a mixture of biological and inorganic entities,” and "the scientists said they could carry chemicals that could cause long-term damage or upset the foetus’s developing immune system" The article presents these attention grabbing statements prior to some of the medical journal entries which is why they are likely accusing the article of "fear-mongering".
klyrs 6y ago
> I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world The world is full of dangers, large and small, and it's normal for adults to discuss and evaluate them. For example, if I've left a cupboard open, I might say "oh hey, watch your head" as you walk into the kitchen -- even though it's less dangerous than a falling anvil. Microplastics are a relatively novel phenomenon, and therefore an active area of scientific research. If you're feeling overwhelmed by the risks in the world, and the consequences of living in a society, maybe that's a sign that you should step away from the news for a while. Read a book, paint a picture, play an instrument, go fishing, or something that will get you and your attention away from computers and phones for an extended period.

lm28469 6y ago

> I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world Well, we're fucking up big times and have plenty of reasons to be worried, if your house is on fire calling the firefighters isn't fear mongering. > most other things appear to be orders of magnitude more dangerous to us than micro-plastics, e.g. drinking alcohol, traffic fumes/air pollution You can chose not to drink alcohol or not to smoke. You can't chose not to ingest micro plastic. And you're right, air pollution is a similar issue, should we ignore rising issues because we're already dealing with existing ones ? By the way, nobody is telling you to be scared. Micro plastics in placenta is, apparently, a fact, micro plastics being dangerous to us is a fact, chose how you feel about it but don't shoot the messenger.

saberience 6y ago
If I had to make a guess I would say that most people's diet/lifestyle/stressful job is about 1000X more impactful to their expected lifespan than microplastics in their diet. Sure, it sucks and I'm happy scientists can study this. But if I were running a government I would be putting all my money into improving air quality and reducing fossil fuel usage etc. Ultimately there are always going to be many factors which are "killing humans" and a limited amount of money to spend to try and "fix things." By far the biggest "killer" right now is advertising and unhealthy foods so we should be focusing on that if we really care about the health of human beings. In addition, assuming we care about the maximum amount of human lives lengthened, we should be focusing on pollution, climate change, and the environment. In comparison to these issues, worrying about microplastics is fucking meaningless. If you had 10 trillion dollars and wanted to increase the chances of humans becoming extinct, what would you spend it on, seriously? Who gives a fuck if we're breathing in toxic fumes all day or the planet is so hot we can barely walk outside?
- titzer 6y ago
  > In comparison to these issues, worrying about microplastics is fucking meaningless. If you had 10 trillion dollars and wanted to increase the chances of humans becoming extinct, what would you spend it on, seriously? Who gives a fuck if we're breathing in toxic fumes all day or the planet is so hot we can barely walk outside? Oh, I get it. Right, because there is one type of pollution and climate change due to massive amounts of CO2 waste, we shouldn't focus on plastic waste. The planet is choking our on waste products because people keep arguing about what our top priority should be. Uh, how about addressing all of these massive problems we created? But we won't. Because replace "microplastics" with another topic and grab another internet troll off the shelf to argue we definitely don't need to worry about that one; rinse and repeat until we are completely paralyzed, incapable of any action whatsoever. Meanwhile, profit!
- aiilns 6y ago
  > If I had to make a guess I would say that most people's diet/lifestyle/stressful job is about 1000X more impactful to their expected lifespan than microplastics in their diet. I like how in your first comment you try appearing a skeptic, upholder of science and yet you make unscientific guesses based on no evidence. We know very little as of yet on how humans work, what is harmful and what isn't. Just look at all the research on various medicines...that 20 years later it turns out they were only as good as placebos. Facts: 1. Microplastics appear to be everywhere now. 2. There is evidence that they are not inert molecules, passing through, instead they are chemically active. Assumption: microplastics are bad for you. Now if that causes debilitating fear to you that's a different issue, but sticking your head in the sand won't make the problem go away. Also, your utalitarian logic is flawed.
- EinwegPlastik 6y ago
  So what you are still saying is: I think microplastic is a problem. -> right? Do you have the feeling every human needs to solve all problems? We are big, we have in theory enough resources, why not saying something like: we need to fix the microplastic issue; Its priority is behind air pollution and climate change. Instead of: Microplastic is not a problem!!111 Issue y and z are much bigger issues!!11 I personally think it should be feasable to work on all those topics in parallel as also often those issues can't be solved by everyone as not everyone is the expert in the same field.

perfunctory 6y ago

> I don't assume they are good, but I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world Why are you so hung up on fear-mongering? The title of the article is plain neutral. The article just reports the results of a medical research and quotes some medical professionals. I don't see any fear-mongering here. Isn't it just your interpretation?

dr_orpheus 6y ago
The article does have neutral statements on findings "Their effect in the body is unknown but scientists say there is an urgent need to assess the issue, particularly for infants." And the quoted statements from journals are also stating the facts and the general concern because the placenta is crucial for foetal development. But prior to that in the article are statements like “It is like having a cyborg baby: no longer composed only of human cells, but a mixture of biological and inorganic entities,” and "the scientists said they could carry chemicals that could cause long-term damage or upset the foetus’s developing immune system" The article presents these attention grabbing statements prior to some of the medical journal entries which is why they are likely accusing the article of "fear-mongering".

klyrs 6y ago

> I do object to simple fear-mongering over yet another new thing to be afraid of in our world The world is full of dangers, large and small, and it's normal for adults to discuss and evaluate them. For example, if I've left a cupboard open, I might say "oh hey, watch your head" as you walk into the kitchen -- even though it's less dangerous than a falling anvil. Microplastics are a relatively novel phenomenon, and therefore an active area of scientific research. If you're feeling overwhelmed by the risks in the world, and the consequences of living in a society, maybe that's a sign that you should step away from the news for a while. Read a book, paint a picture, play an instrument, go fishing, or something that will get you and your attention away from computers and phones for an extended period.