4 ms·

>can individually lifestyle-choice their way out of >Plastic pollution is a systemic problem, and has been for decades. Sorry, this gets uncritically repeated

by dqv 3y ago

>can individually lifestyle-choice their way out of >Plastic pollution is a systemic problem, and has been for decades. Sorry, this gets uncritically repeated so much that it's bordering on propaganda. Like it's just doing free work for oil companies at this point. This kind of stuff is exactly what I'd say as someone working for an oil company's social media team after realizing that individual choice is not something that happens in a vacuum. Corporate propaganda on the personal-carbon-footprint issue backfired - they thought they would be able to demoralize people, but it slowly grew into a movement that continues to grow. It's honestly kind of funny they thought people wouldn't attach their morality to decisions about environmental destruction. "individual lifestyle choices don't cause systemic change" is a bastardization of the original concept. And it's actually doing the original intent of corporations - to demoralize people about seeking an oilless future. The original concept was that one should not feel guilty if they can't make an individual lifestyle choice because something is preventing them from doing so. It was never meant to demoralize people from using their own moral compass to decide not to participate in certain behaviors. I don't get why "I want to use less petroleum-derived products and eventually none at all" is exempt from spreading through the social network as a worthwhile idea when literally everything else does. Again, people aren't individually responsible for the systemic results of their choices, but their individual choices do create signals that result in systemic change. Our choices don't operate in a vacuum, our peers, friends, and family all look at what we do; their peers, friends, and family do the same.

pessimizer 3y ago
This objection is obviously rote, and is entirely misplaced. Not microwaving plastic isn't a moral failure, it's a safety hazard due to the plastic falling apart. But if everything you consume is full of microplastics, then worrying about these microplastics is likely a waste of time. Saying that the environment is so full of microplastics that conscious efforts to avoid them will be a waste of time is the opposite of excusing companies for filling the environment with microplastics. It's saying that the only thing that will be effective is to attack the sources rather than lifestyling your way out of it. You've confused health for morality, then gone on to give a lecture about it.
- junofan 3y ago
  Yeah given that we’re finding micro/nanoplastics mainly in people’s lungs and blood it seems more likely I’m getting dosed from aerosols after rainstorms or something.
- dqv 3y ago
  >This objection is obviously rote, and is entirely misplaced. No, it's not. The only thing rote here is the repeated argument that individual action doesn't lead to systemic change. It's also not misplaced, it's a direct response to the grandparent saying "we can't lifestyle our way out of exposure to microplastics". >Not microwaving plastic isn't a moral failure, it's a safety hazard due to the plastic falling apart. This is a disingenuous reduction of what I've said. The original comment wasn't discussing specifically abstaining from microwaving of plastic, but of lifestyle choices to reduce exposure to microplastics in general. >But if everything you consume is full of microplastics, then worrying about these microplastics is likely a waste of time. You seem to think that I believe that avoiding plastic has a direct effect on my exposure to microplastics. I'm confused why you think that since I specifically mentioned social actions whose effects obviously lag behind concrete systemic change. The intent isn't to reduce exposure to microplastics in a physical way, but in a social way. It's about circles of social influence effecting change through ceremony and symbolism. The ceremony of not microwaving plastic (and more specifically, trying to avoid plastic as much as is practicably possible) is something that gets discussed and repeated through many social circles. The symbolism of avoiding specific companies - making them the faces of microplastic contamination - gives people their enemy. Duh, it's boycotting. >Saying that the environment is so full of microplastics that conscious efforts to avoid them will be a waste of time is the opposite of excusing companies for filling the environment with microplastics. Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. This is the exact demoralization I'm talking about: "avoiding microplastics exposure is a waste of time". It excuses the companies in the abstract because demoralized people don't talk about/look for alternatives, it is excuse granted by inaction. Which is better for Microplastics Inc - someone who says "well I'll just be exposed to microplastics anyway so I might as well buy from Microplastics Inc" or "I'm not buying from Microplastics Inc because they are really hurting the environment". There is a reason why there are so many companies that try to depict themselves as green. They still don't fear being depicted as greenwashers but that's going to be their new fear. >It's saying that the only thing that will be effective is to attack the sources rather than lifestyling your way out of it. Which is incorrect. Attacking the source requires a social movement. Trying to lifestyle your way out of it is what creates the social movement. I don't genuinely think riding a bike to the coffee shop reduces global carbon emissions in any meaningful way, but the ceremony of doing so creates connection and resilience with other environmentalists. And it works. Just this year, we got massive improvements to both our bike infrastructure and public transit. >You've confused health for morality, then gone on to give a lecture about it. What does that even mean? Health is obviously connected to my morality, not confused with it, - I don't want to be hurt by reliance on petroleum, I don't want others to be hurt by reliance on petroleum and I don't want future generations to be hurt by reliance on petroleum. This goes for health and everything else.

by dqv 3y ago

pessimizer 3y ago

This objection is obviously rote, and is entirely misplaced. Not microwaving plastic isn't a moral failure, it's a safety hazard due to the plastic falling apart. But if everything you consume is full of microplastics, then worrying about these microplastics is likely a waste of time. Saying that the environment is so full of microplastics that conscious efforts to avoid them will be a waste of time is the opposite of excusing companies for filling the environment with microplastics. It's saying that the only thing that will be effective is to attack the sources rather than lifestyling your way out of it. You've confused health for morality, then gone on to give a lecture about it.

junofan 3y ago
Yeah given that we’re finding micro/nanoplastics mainly in people’s lungs and blood it seems more likely I’m getting dosed from aerosols after rainstorms or something.
dqv 3y ago
>This objection is obviously rote, and is entirely misplaced. No, it's not. The only thing rote here is the repeated argument that individual action doesn't lead to systemic change. It's also not misplaced, it's a direct response to the grandparent saying "we can't lifestyle our way out of exposure to microplastics". >Not microwaving plastic isn't a moral failure, it's a safety hazard due to the plastic falling apart. This is a disingenuous reduction of what I've said. The original comment wasn't discussing specifically abstaining from microwaving of plastic, but of lifestyle choices to reduce exposure to microplastics in general. >But if everything you consume is full of microplastics, then worrying about these microplastics is likely a waste of time. You seem to think that I believe that avoiding plastic has a direct effect on my exposure to microplastics. I'm confused why you think that since I specifically mentioned social actions whose effects obviously lag behind concrete systemic change. The intent isn't to reduce exposure to microplastics in a physical way, but in a social way. It's about circles of social influence effecting change through ceremony and symbolism. The ceremony of not microwaving plastic (and more specifically, trying to avoid plastic as much as is practicably possible) is something that gets discussed and repeated through many social circles. The symbolism of avoiding specific companies - making them the faces of microplastic contamination - gives people their enemy. Duh, it's boycotting. >Saying that the environment is so full of microplastics that conscious efforts to avoid them will be a waste of time is the opposite of excusing companies for filling the environment with microplastics. Absolutely and unequivocally incorrect. This is the exact demoralization I'm talking about: "avoiding microplastics exposure is a waste of time". It excuses the companies in the abstract because demoralized people don't talk about/look for alternatives, it is excuse granted by inaction. Which is better for Microplastics Inc - someone who says "well I'll just be exposed to microplastics anyway so I might as well buy from Microplastics Inc" or "I'm not buying from Microplastics Inc because they are really hurting the environment". There is a reason why there are so many companies that try to depict themselves as green. They still don't fear being depicted as greenwashers but that's going to be their new fear. >It's saying that the only thing that will be effective is to attack the sources rather than lifestyling your way out of it. Which is incorrect. Attacking the source requires a social movement. Trying to lifestyle your way out of it is what creates the social movement. I don't genuinely think riding a bike to the coffee shop reduces global carbon emissions in any meaningful way, but the ceremony of doing so creates connection and resilience with other environmentalists. And it works. Just this year, we got massive improvements to both our bike infrastructure and public transit. >You've confused health for morality, then gone on to give a lecture about it. What does that even mean? Health is obviously connected to my morality, not confused with it, - I don't want to be hurt by reliance on petroleum, I don't want others to be hurt by reliance on petroleum and I don't want future generations to be hurt by reliance on petroleum. This goes for health and everything else.