3 ms·

You are assuming bad faith because you are reading things into my words that are not there. I do not deny that (some) pollutants accumulate. I also do not den

You are assuming bad faith because you are reading things into my words that are not there. I do not deny that (some) pollutants accumulate. I also do not deny that pollution is quite bad in some places. I am specifically questioning your claim that doubling pollution would specifically halve the rate of innovation. I was pointing out that you have not supported that statement. You claimed it twice, you still haven't supported it, and I'm pretty sure that you can't support it. Stop trying to read into my statement wild claims that aren't there. Can you support your claim?

OutOfHere 2y ago
Yes, microplastics accumulate in the brain over the years [PMID: 38765967]. They cause anxiety [PMID: 37269995] and brain inflammation [DOI: 10.3390/ijms241512308]. There is a lot more research on them than I am quoting here. When someone is suffering from crippling anxiety, if you have ever suffered from it, the last thing on their mind will be to develop anything cool. Moreover, microplastics accumulate and harm various organs, not only the brain. They also cause generational infertility due to the pervasive co-presence of toxins like phthalate in them [PMID: 39446714]. Similarly, higher CO2 levels are detrimental to cognition. This has been known for years and is established knowledge.
- luc4 2y ago
  First, these studies merely suggest that microplastics have these effects in humans, yet you state them as fact. However, I don't want to argue that microplastics are harmless or that pollution is not an issue. Neither do I want to defend the point that doubling the population doubles the "speed of discovery". But even if all of your points are accurate, you would still have to show that these negative effects outweigh the benefit of a priori doubling productivity. In fact, you make the even stronger claim that doubling the population will actually cut the "speed of discovery" in half. None of this is substantiated by your argument.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    How is it that despite the vast population, we no longer have geniuses like Newton, Leibnitz, Gauss, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.? If they existed today, they would just be selling ads and stocks.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Yes, microplastics accumulate in the brain over the years [PMID: 38765967]. They cause anxiety [PMID: 37269995] and brain inflammation [DOI: 10.3390/ijms241512308]. There is a lot more research on them than I am quoting here. When someone is suffering from crippling anxiety, if you have ever suffered from it, the last thing on their mind will be to develop anything cool. Moreover, microplastics accumulate and harm various organs, not only the brain. They also cause generational infertility due to the pervasive co-presence of toxins like phthalate in them [PMID: 39446714]. Similarly, higher CO2 levels are detrimental to cognition. This has been known for years and is established knowledge.

luc4 2y ago
First, these studies merely suggest that microplastics have these effects in humans, yet you state them as fact. However, I don't want to argue that microplastics are harmless or that pollution is not an issue. Neither do I want to defend the point that doubling the population doubles the "speed of discovery". But even if all of your points are accurate, you would still have to show that these negative effects outweigh the benefit of a priori doubling productivity. In fact, you make the even stronger claim that doubling the population will actually cut the "speed of discovery" in half. None of this is substantiated by your argument.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  How is it that despite the vast population, we no longer have geniuses like Newton, Leibnitz, Gauss, Maxwell, Einstein, etc.? If they existed today, they would just be selling ads and stocks.