4 ms·

I don't think most people understand that the damage from PFAS is generational and cumulative. You can isolate zebrafish, expose the first generation, and you'

I don't think most people understand that the damage from PFAS is generational and cumulative. You can isolate zebrafish, expose the first generation, and you'll see abnormalities generations later even those those fish were never exposed. That is their legacy - it's civilization-level harm.

ninininino 1y ago
I've been struggling to understand why people care more about Gaza, Ukraine, BLM, or trans bathrooms than issues like PFAS proliferation and ultimately came to the conclusion that people really just don't care about hypothetical future generations as much as the present. You can point and say "look, this action doesn't affect you much and just makes a 0.01% difference, but it will effect 100,000 future generations of life on this planet and can never be reversed" and people will still say "wow that's sad, but there are people starving in Country A" and be much more concerned. I guess it's us that are the weird ones.
- Liquix 1y ago
  A person’s toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people. A boil on one’s neck interests one more than forty earthquakes in Africa. Think of that the next time you start a conversation. - Dale Carnegie
- graemep 1y ago
  People do care about climate change and lots of other long term things. People care about things that there are campaigns about, that get media coverage. They also avoid thinking about things that they think cannot be changed. These are correlated: if there is a campaign to change something people think it cannot be changed.
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  Well, people do care about PFAS, global warming, environmental degradation...it's just htey've decided the solution is _depopulation_. They're fighting over the very carrying capacity of an earth that no ones going to fix. So, like, you realy think israel, russia, america, china, india are all flirting heavily with fascism because of their religion, nationalism, isolationism? Or is it more likely they're trying to isolate themselves from humanity to reduce the overall social costs. Biollionaires out there building their bunkers, and here we are...
- stronglikedan 1y ago
  It's possible to care about more than one thing at a time.
  - steve_adams_86 1y ago
    I could be wrong but I think the parent comment's point isn't that no one cares, but that the scale of the issue—today and spanning far into the future—isn't presently regarded by people in a proportional manner. So, people care, but not as much as it seems like they should. The parent also used the phrase "care more"; they aren't saying people don't care at all, so they acknowledge that people can care about more than one thing at a time.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      How can you measure caring? For example I care more about Ukraine than what my boss at work does to annoy me but I talk about the latter more.
- jancsika 1y ago
  Your argument doesn't make much sense. Short term changes in Gaza/Ukraine/PFAS proliferation will all have very little effect on the current daily lives of most Americans. But those same short terms changes in all of the above will have massive changes in the future of most Americans. E.g., if public pressure had prevented the U.S. from invading Iraq on March 20th, 2003, not much would have changed for Americans on March 21st, 2003. But by the end of the war, that would be over $1 trillion that would have been spent differently by the U.S. government. You apparently like statistical estimates-- tell me how much of that $1 trillion you estimate would have gone to research grants for PFAS proliferation risks and/or alternative technologies over a 20-year period. And that's just the opportunity cost. With Gaza and Ukraine there is further escalation of weapons use and drone tech, damage to the Chernobyl sarcophagus, potential use of tactical nukes, endless appetite for incorporating AI into war and mass surveillance... the list goes on and on. It just cannot be overstated how wrong it is to blithely assume that focus on current events is somehow short term thinking while armchair quarterbacking PFAS proliferation 100,000 generations into the future is somehow more consequential and erudite. Edit: change "stated" to "overstated" (hehe)
- tpmoney 1y ago
  If we’re taking about hypothetical effects on hypothetical generations of life that can never be reversed, anything you can worry about probably meets that threshold and so picking any given thing is arbitrary. Gaza and the Ukraine conflicts are the results of choices made by the generation before, which are in turn the result of choices made by the generation before that, which in turn are… and so on. Consider Gaza on its own. You could probably trace a pretty clear line from this conflict back to decisions made in the earliest records we have of Judaism. How many generations and people has that impacted? How many of these chemicals you’re specifically worried about are the consequences of actions taken in this and the prior conflicts? The total global impact of the decision of one Jewish sect to crucify the leader of another sect is probably conceivably larger than anything PFAS have done or even will do for quite a long while considering we’re still dealing with the consequences of that decision even now.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  If someone isn't aware of the dangers of something that's not the same as not caring.
- port11 1y ago
  It's disheartening if you do care about long-term issues, but perhaps these are all long-term issues. In a way, I think people tend to fight for causes they are exposed to and think their voices are on the right side of History. I'm appalled that Belgians are out protesting for Gaza (which is also important) but don't care one iota for what 3M did to half the ground water of the country — and how Belgian politicians and the EPP looked the other way. We're being slowly poisoned over here, but it's the war over there, you have nothing to do with, that matters the most. Right. We are facing the dismantling of social protections, climate change, corrupt governments, and so on, perhaps people pick the one issue that feels remote enough yet meaningful to fight for. But someone has to care about Gaza as well, I suppose. It would be far more useful to their lives if people fought for local causes.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >I'm appalled that Belgians are out protesting for Gaza (which is also important) but don't care one iota for what 3M did How could possibly determine this? Obviously no one has clearly stated this so I'm assuming it's due to lack of protest. What it people aren't aware of the situation or its dangers?

ninininino 1y ago

I've been struggling to understand why people care more about Gaza, Ukraine, BLM, or trans bathrooms than issues like PFAS proliferation and ultimately came to the conclusion that people really just don't care about hypothetical future generations as much as the present. You can point and say "look, this action doesn't affect you much and just makes a 0.01% difference, but it will effect 100,000 future generations of life on this planet and can never be reversed" and people will still say "wow that's sad, but there are people starving in Country A" and be much more concerned. I guess it's us that are the weird ones.

Liquix 1y ago
A person’s toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people. A boil on one’s neck interests one more than forty earthquakes in Africa. Think of that the next time you start a conversation. - Dale Carnegie
graemep 1y ago
People do care about climate change and lots of other long term things. People care about things that there are campaigns about, that get media coverage. They also avoid thinking about things that they think cannot be changed. These are correlated: if there is a campaign to change something people think it cannot be changed.
cyanydeez 1y ago
Well, people do care about PFAS, global warming, environmental degradation...it's just htey've decided the solution is _depopulation_. They're fighting over the very carrying capacity of an earth that no ones going to fix. So, like, you realy think israel, russia, america, china, india are all flirting heavily with fascism because of their religion, nationalism, isolationism? Or is it more likely they're trying to isolate themselves from humanity to reduce the overall social costs. Biollionaires out there building their bunkers, and here we are...
stronglikedan 1y ago
It's possible to care about more than one thing at a time.
- steve_adams_86 1y ago
  I could be wrong but I think the parent comment's point isn't that no one cares, but that the scale of the issue—today and spanning far into the future—isn't presently regarded by people in a proportional manner. So, people care, but not as much as it seems like they should. The parent also used the phrase "care more"; they aren't saying people don't care at all, so they acknowledge that people can care about more than one thing at a time.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    How can you measure caring? For example I care more about Ukraine than what my boss at work does to annoy me but I talk about the latter more.
jancsika 1y ago
Your argument doesn't make much sense. Short term changes in Gaza/Ukraine/PFAS proliferation will all have very little effect on the current daily lives of most Americans. But those same short terms changes in all of the above will have massive changes in the future of most Americans. E.g., if public pressure had prevented the U.S. from invading Iraq on March 20th, 2003, not much would have changed for Americans on March 21st, 2003. But by the end of the war, that would be over $1 trillion that would have been spent differently by the U.S. government. You apparently like statistical estimates-- tell me how much of that $1 trillion you estimate would have gone to research grants for PFAS proliferation risks and/or alternative technologies over a 20-year period. And that's just the opportunity cost. With Gaza and Ukraine there is further escalation of weapons use and drone tech, damage to the Chernobyl sarcophagus, potential use of tactical nukes, endless appetite for incorporating AI into war and mass surveillance... the list goes on and on. It just cannot be overstated how wrong it is to blithely assume that focus on current events is somehow short term thinking while armchair quarterbacking PFAS proliferation 100,000 generations into the future is somehow more consequential and erudite. Edit: change "stated" to "overstated" (hehe)
tpmoney 1y ago
If we’re taking about hypothetical effects on hypothetical generations of life that can never be reversed, anything you can worry about probably meets that threshold and so picking any given thing is arbitrary. Gaza and the Ukraine conflicts are the results of choices made by the generation before, which are in turn the result of choices made by the generation before that, which in turn are… and so on. Consider Gaza on its own. You could probably trace a pretty clear line from this conflict back to decisions made in the earliest records we have of Judaism. How many generations and people has that impacted? How many of these chemicals you’re specifically worried about are the consequences of actions taken in this and the prior conflicts? The total global impact of the decision of one Jewish sect to crucify the leader of another sect is probably conceivably larger than anything PFAS have done or even will do for quite a long while considering we’re still dealing with the consequences of that decision even now.
Braxton1980 1y ago
If someone isn't aware of the dangers of something that's not the same as not caring.
port11 1y ago
It's disheartening if you do care about long-term issues, but perhaps these are all long-term issues. In a way, I think people tend to fight for causes they are exposed to and think their voices are on the right side of History. I'm appalled that Belgians are out protesting for Gaza (which is also important) but don't care one iota for what 3M did to half the ground water of the country — and how Belgian politicians and the EPP looked the other way. We're being slowly poisoned over here, but it's the war over there, you have nothing to do with, that matters the most. Right. We are facing the dismantling of social protections, climate change, corrupt governments, and so on, perhaps people pick the one issue that feels remote enough yet meaningful to fight for. But someone has to care about Gaza as well, I suppose. It would be far more useful to their lives if people fought for local causes.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >I'm appalled that Belgians are out protesting for Gaza (which is also important) but don't care one iota for what 3M did How could possibly determine this? Obviously no one has clearly stated this so I'm assuming it's due to lack of protest. What it people aren't aware of the situation or its dangers?