3 ms·

The ceiling on how bad it can be is much _much_ lower than "it doesn't instantaneously kill you". It also doesn't dramatically decrease fertility, or cause sign

The ceiling on how bad it can be is much _much_ lower than "it doesn't instantaneously kill you". It also doesn't dramatically decrease fertility, or cause significant increases in cancer rates, etc. etc. etc. Any effects it has, by definition, _have_ to be subtle and minor or else we would know. Subtle like "doesn't obviously appear over the course of decades and across tens of millions of people". That is _extremely_ minor. And because I mentioned fertility and two other people have already mentioned sperm counts, I'm gong to get out in front of that one: We aren't even sure sperm counts are actually decreasing [0], let alone that they are caused by plastics [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-much-more-than https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-...

TylerE 3y ago
I was with you right up until you mentioned cancer. We haven't understood cancer long enough to know what historical rates actually were, and even if we did, we wouldn't know for sure what a delta (or lack of delta) actually indicates. Like, maybe microplastics are actually pretty cancerous, but overall cancer rates haven't changed that much because as plastics became commonplace, we were getting away from exposure to things like radium and asbestos.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  But the same is true of all of the other things. Maybe sperm count is actually decreasing, maybe it's just staying the same because microplastics make it worse but getting away from exposure to things like radium and lead and mercury make it better. The best you can say is that we don't know, not that we know it doesn't.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Sperm count you can at least approximate by looking at per-capita birthrates.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      That's a bad metric because there are many other things that can affect per-capita birthrates. There are birth control products that make it so even the most virile man with an explosive sperm count getting laid isn't going to result in a birth. People have have choosing less and less to have children, and deferring those choices to later in life, and I don't think that has anything to do with microplastics.

TylerE 3y ago

I was with you right up until you mentioned cancer. We haven't understood cancer long enough to know what historical rates actually were, and even if we did, we wouldn't know for sure what a delta (or lack of delta) actually indicates. Like, maybe microplastics are actually pretty cancerous, but overall cancer rates haven't changed that much because as plastics became commonplace, we were getting away from exposure to things like radium and asbestos.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
But the same is true of all of the other things. Maybe sperm count is actually decreasing, maybe it's just staying the same because microplastics make it worse but getting away from exposure to things like radium and lead and mercury make it better. The best you can say is that we don't know, not that we know it doesn't.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Sperm count you can at least approximate by looking at per-capita birthrates.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    That's a bad metric because there are many other things that can affect per-capita birthrates. There are birth control products that make it so even the most virile man with an explosive sperm count getting laid isn't going to result in a birth. People have have choosing less and less to have children, and deferring those choices to later in life, and I don't think that has anything to do with microplastics.