[HN Gopher] Microplastics are finding their way into fruit and v...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Microplastics are finding their way into fruit and vegetables as
       they grow
        
       Author : MikeDelta
       Score  : 110 points
       Date   : 2023-01-07 17:12 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
        
       | Eisenstein wrote:
       | Plastics are inert. This is why they don't biodegrade easily. It
       | is the additives in the plastics (to make them softer, or color
       | them, or whatever) that are terrible for you.
       | 
       | By the time these things are 'microplastics' I am having a hard
       | time feeling scared that they are harmful. I'm not saying they
       | aren't, but until someone can tie them to an actual problem, I
       | don't see an issue -- especially since there is nothing we can do
       | about it.
       | 
       | That said, one-time-use plastics are absolutely obscene and need
       | to be removed from society as soon as humanly possible.
        
         | tomp wrote:
         | There's nothing wrong with one-time-use plastics, in countries
         | with good waste management systems.
         | 
         | Paper straws suck.
        
           | maxbond wrote:
           | Every paper straw I have ever used has been great.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | radec wrote:
           | What's a good waste management system? Honest question.
        
             | MorrisMinor wrote:
             | Plasma converter:
             | 
             | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
             | 
             | Unfortunately it's more expensive than just throwing waste
             | into a hole in the ground.
        
             | tomp wrote:
             | Burying plastics in the ground; returning carbon to where
             | it came from.
        
               | colechristensen wrote:
               | No, burning them in a waste to energy plant.
               | 
               | While we still use hydrocarbons for a while for power, we
               | might as well let some of them hang out as our stuff for
               | a bit before being burned for energy.
        
               | vouaobrasil wrote:
               | Animals live in the ground and you are talking about
               | filling their homes with garbage? You are sick.
        
           | brettermeier wrote:
           | There are no countries with good waste management systems.
           | Waste counts as recycled, if it was exported. What happens
           | after that, nobody knows and nobody cares. Even in Europe,
           | just a tiny amount of plastic gets recycled, most is shipped
           | away, so that others should care about.
           | 
           | Edit: Source: "The recycling lie"
           | https://www.daserste.de/information/reportage-
           | dokumentation/... (german)
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | Mandate plasma gasification instead of plastics recycling.
             | The result is a syngas that can be burned for energy and an
             | inert slag you can dispose of in asphalt.
             | 
             | Edit: MorrisMinor suggests this further down:
             | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293509
        
           | dashundchen wrote:
           | Honestly go look outside. Go alongside a well trafficed road
           | in the city or the country and take a close look at the soil.
           | The curb or tree lawn is filled with visible bits of degraded
           | plastic, and that's not even seeing abraded tire dust that
           | will just look like soot or dirt.
           | 
           | Go to pretty much any beach and sift through the sand. Again
           | you will find an abnormal number of plastic mixed in. Even in
           | "clean" places with not a lot of litter plastic bits are
           | visibly everywhere.
           | 
           | Own any synthetic clothes? Look at your lint trap after
           | running a dryer or shaking out your clothes. The dust and
           | lint coming off will quickly become microplastics. The
           | wastewater from your washer will also be filled with them
        
           | politician wrote:
           | Metal straws (and spoons, forks, knives) are amazing.
        
         | legulere wrote:
         | Plastics are relatively brittle however without those additives
         | and will break down into harmful micro and nano plastics:
         | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...
         | 
         | There's a lot we can do about it. Clothes tires and mismanaged
         | waste are leading sources for microplastic that can be reduced.
        
           | Eisenstein wrote:
           | Without the full article we can only go by the abstract of
           | your link, which doesn't say anything definitive except that
           | the effects on humans are unknown.
        
             | mumblemumble wrote:
             | The precautionary principle would seem to be worth
             | considering in that case.
        
               | Eisenstein wrote:
               | I'm not sure how freaking out about it is going to help.
               | I am all for removing plastics as much as possible, so
               | the motivation to do that should help the other. In the
               | meantime there are _definite_ , _known_ bad things that I
               | can freak out about health-wise.
        
               | nullish_signal wrote:
               | "Better the Devil you know than the Devil you don't",
               | yes?
        
         | userbinator wrote:
         | _It is the additives in the plastics (to make them softer, or
         | color them, or whatever) that are terrible for you._
         | 
         |  _That said, one-time-use plastics are absolutely obscene and
         | need to be removed from society as soon as humanly possible._
         | 
         | Those seem to be somewhat conflicting viewpoints. The
         | overwhelming majority of single-use plastics are PE or PP,
         | which also don't really have much in the way of additives.
         | 
         | PVC, ABS, and others in those families are what need the really
         | harmful plasticisers, and also cost a lot more; as a result,
         | they aren't going to be chosen for single-use applications
         | unless there are other important reasons to do so.
         | 
         | Then the article goes on to mention PFAS, which is related to
         | fluoropolymers, another very different category. I'm sure FPs
         | are used in some single-use applications, but they are not
         | cheap compared to PP or PE so they'll be massively lower in
         | volume.
         | 
         | I hate how articles like this just promote a "plastics = bad"
         | narrative, and they didn't even mention what type of
         | microplastic they found.
        
         | Traubenfuchs wrote:
         | I always dream about opening a single use plastic shop in the
         | future, for those who just don't care and those who are
         | actively opposed to it being removed everywhere.
         | 
         | For example, drinking delicious Coca-Cola Zero Sugar at
         | McDonalds from a paper straw is disgusting. The straw usually
         | disintegrates before I am done and sticks to the lips at the
         | start.
         | 
         | I love single use plastic.
        
           | Eisenstein wrote:
           | Why is everyone using straws as an example? First, they are
           | not what I am talking about -- we used to get beverages in
           | re-usable containers and now it is almost impossible to find
           | anything in glass. We don't need plastic to-go containers, we
           | don't need _everything_ in a plastic wrapper or vacuum sealed
           | in a thick plastic container (as evidenced by companies not
           | doing that and having zero problems with their products being
           | damaged). These are just a few things that could be changed
           | with zero inconvenience to the consumer. In fact, the plastic
           | sealed packages that require a chainsaw to open being
           | discontinued would be a convenience for consumers, since I
           | have never met a person who didn 't hate them.
           | 
           | Keep your plastic straws.
        
             | kennywinker wrote:
             | I would be so far from shocked if we found out soon that
             | plastic grocery bag / straw bans were a psi-op by big
             | oil/plastic manufacturers to make people hate the idea of
             | reducing single-use plastic. I couldn't have picked a more
             | inconvenient and inconsequential place to start legislating
             | if I had tried.
             | 
             | A ban on plastic soda bottles? Great! There's are existing
             | non-plastic solutions, nobody would be negatively impacted,
             | and we'd see that reducing our plastic use can be easy and
             | not require major sacrifices. Instead we come up against it
             | every time we buy a beverage or go to the grocery store.
        
               | tdeck wrote:
               | The paper straws are pretty inferior but the grocery bag
               | taxes just aren't that annoying. If you live in a place
               | that charges for bags you quickly get used to just
               | bringing bags with you and it's no big deal. Plus it
               | significantly reduces the number of plastic bags blowing
               | around in the wind. Since bags are so light they easily
               | become airborne, sometimes posing a traffic safety hazard
               | and often blowing into waterways.
        
               | kennywinker wrote:
               | My city outright banned single-use grocery bags. I was
               | already in the habit of bringing re-usable bags, but
               | every so often I'll have forgotten to grab bags or I'm
               | stopping in on my way home from something else so I don't
               | have them on me. Before the plastic bag ban, I'd just
               | grab a "single-use" bag, and then use it as a trash bag
               | for my kitchen or bathroom. Since the ban I regularly buy
               | kitchen trash bags, I have about a dozen re-usable bags
               | stuffed in the back of a closet, and half the stuff I buy
               | at the grocery store still comes wrapped in a layer or
               | two of excess plastic. For me, net loss. For the city?
               | Probably a minor win in terms of plastic usage and street
               | trash, and a significant loss in terms of people's
               | willingness to ban other forms of single use plastic.
        
               | userbinator wrote:
               | _Before the plastic bag ban, I 'd just grab a "single-
               | use" bag, and then use it as a trash bag for my kitchen
               | or bathroom. Since the ban I regularly buy kitchen trash
               | bags_
               | 
               | I wonder if those who come up with these ideas realise
               | the irony of forcing people to buy bags which are _truly_
               | going to be single-use instead of reusing what they would
               | 've already had.
        
               | kennywinker wrote:
               | How many people in your life re-use grocery bags? I'm
               | fairly certain grocery bag bans are a net-win when viewed
               | from the perspective of total plastic usage, because MOST
               | people would have to be using them at least twice for the
               | result to be anything other than a net-win from any
               | perspective but mine. I only managed to use about as many
               | as I was given because I got pretty good at remembering
               | my re-usable bags...
               | 
               | The problem is not the burden of changing my behaviour,
               | or the extra cost of buying exactly as much single-use
               | plastic as I need in the form of a box of trash bags a
               | couple times a year - the problem is why are we starting
               | with this?? I'm dead certain that there are a ton of
               | single-use plastics we could ban that would have close to
               | ZERO impact on 99.9% of people's lives, because it would
               | be handled entirely by industry doing a single re-tooling
               | of their lines, but we're not doing those for some
               | strange reason?
        
               | Eisenstein wrote:
               | I think you are on to something. It isn't unprecedented
               | -- they did the same thing with 'recycling' -- using a
               | political and media campaign to convince people that
               | plastics weren't bad because they could be recycled, then
               | getting legislation passed to require recycling by
               | households. It is absolutely villainous.
        
             | Traubenfuchs wrote:
             | But I want to leave the store with the beaverage and throw
             | away the container afterwards. Another great horror: Thin
             | plastic bottles! Drinks in crinkly plastic bottles that
             | feel like you could just roll them into a ball. Yuck. I
             | want the thick plastic ones you can use to bonk someone on
             | the head. I want back my cheap single use plastic bags that
             | I could just throw away after use, instead of managing
             | storage and availability of reusable ones.
        
             | tedunangst wrote:
             | Because more cities have banned plastic straws than have
             | banned plastic bottles.
        
             | dewclin wrote:
             | > we don't need everything in a plastic wrapper
             | 
             | I bought a celeriac the other day, it was in a vacuum
             | wrapped plastic cover. What a waste of resources.
        
               | Eisenstein wrote:
               | In case anyone else has no idea what a 'celeriac' is:
               | 
               | > Celeriac (Apium graveolens var. rapaceum), also called
               | celery root, knob celery, and turnip-rooted celery
               | (although it is not a close relative of the turnip), is a
               | variety of celery cultivated for its edible stem or
               | hypocotyl, and shoots. Celeriac is like a root vegetable
               | except it has a bulbous hypocotyl with many small roots
               | attached.
        
             | xorcist wrote:
             | I understand I am the weird one here, but I have the
             | feeling must have missed the great straw usage conditioning
             | everyone else went through. I find straws to be something
             | for small children, not grownups.
             | 
             | I'm not sure I've used a straw in my adult life, yet I see
             | people drinking _coffee_ with a straw. Isn 't the taste
             | affected? Lots of what we think of as taste is actually
             | smell and texture.
             | 
             | No wine connoisseur would order a straw with their
             | expensive wine! I fail to see why one would be necessary
             | for coffee or water, except for long distance runners and
             | other situations where one needs to drink while moving.
        
             | fwsgonzo wrote:
             | We must not inconvenience anyone at any cost! Even if it
             | creates a layer of plastic on earths surface and we get
             | microplastic in our spines.
             | 
             | It would have been easier to believe in a better future if
             | people could stomach tiny inconveniences.
        
           | zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
           | Who even uses straws? Straws should be reserved for the
           | disabled.
        
       | csmeder wrote:
       | Something I don't understand:
       | 
       | Patagonia's stated mission is to save the earth and microplastics
       | entering the oceans is a major environmental concern. However, it
       | is also true that many of Patagonia's clothes are made from
       | synthetic materials such as plastic. The use of synthetic
       | materials in clothing (and each washing) greatly contribute to
       | the problem of microplastics in the oceans.
       | 
       | I'm I missing something? Is the above wrong? Or is Patagonia
       | lying about their mission driven approach?
        
         | mjamesaustin wrote:
         | They have a page on it here:
         | https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-po...
         | 
         | The short of it is that all product manufacturing has an impact
         | on the environment, and they are investing in minimizing their
         | impact over time.
         | 
         | Something they note is that the biggest way to reduce impact is
         | to create longer lasting and high quality products, because the
         | less frequently you need to buy something the less pollution
         | you create.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | Arbortheus wrote:
         | Saving the earth is a complex aim with so many different areas
         | to prioritise. Synthetics may produce micro plastics, but then
         | natural fibers like cotton require huge amounts of pesticides
         | and water, viscose or bamboo requires a shit load of chemicals.
         | Carbon footprints for almost all textiles are big. Recycled
         | plastic is a low carbon, no pesticide, low impact material with
         | one downside - micro plastics.
         | 
         | Polyester is one of the few success stories around recycled
         | plastic. It's not like the alternative is to turn your old
         | plastic bottle into a new plastic bottle, plastic recycling is
         | almost always downcycling the material into a lower grade
         | product.
         | 
         | Like most things around conservation and the environment, it is
         | complicated and there are loads of stakeholders - biodiversity,
         | micro plastics, chemical accumulation, CO2 and greenhouse
         | gases, deforestation, waste management, just to name a few.
         | 
         | One thing we can be sure of is the best thing is to not buying
         | new clothes. In fact this philosophy should be applied to every
         | consumer good. Making things is extremely bad for the
         | environment. Patagonia have been pretty consistent around this
         | point, for example as far back as 2001 they had their "don't
         | buy this jacket" ad:
         | https://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/jovanalleshi/patagonia-sustainabil...
         | 
         | This is the elephant in the room that most consumer goods
         | companies don't want to talk about. They can make things out of
         | bamboo or produce paper straws or have recyclable packaging,
         | but fundamentally even environmentally friendly products have a
         | huge environmental impact.
         | 
         | Ultimately Patagonia's mission statement is at odds with the
         | reason it or any company exists. Saving the earth isn't
         | profitable.
        
           | mistrial9 wrote:
           | agree and good post BUT "Saving the earth isn't profitable"
           | is too simple, and gives ammo to those with different agendas
        
             | Arbortheus wrote:
             | Yeah, I did debate not including that part. I think I would
             | elaborate by saying...
             | 
             | Saving the earth isn't profitable for companies in the
             | business of making consumer products (in most cases).
             | 
             | But for companies that make essential sustainable
             | products/technologies and services like wind farms, or
             | various green technologies, or electric car infrastructure,
             | or waste-to-energy plants, or recycling plants, or any
             | number of things we will need to reach net-0 carbon, there
             | will be a lot of jobs and profit to be made while also
             | advancing humanity and helping solve this big problem.
        
         | nonethewiser wrote:
         | What's more sustainable than using fur from an animal that
         | needs to be sheared of it for it's own health?
         | 
         | Patagonia uses synthetics because they're cheap.
        
         | colechristensen wrote:
         | I was under the impression that the primary sources of ocean
         | plastics were large usually Asian cities without proper waste
         | management effectively dumping significant portions of their
         | trash in rivers and the ocean as well as ocean fishing waste.
         | 
         | Sure some plastics get into natural water sources from clothes
         | washing, but how much of an issue is this actually compared to
         | other sources?
        
         | LarsAlereon wrote:
         | The flawed premise is that synthetic clothing significantly
         | contributes to microplastic pollution, particularly in the
         | ocean. Plastic pollution in the ocean comes primarily from
         | fishing gear like nets, debris unintentionally released by
         | major storms and wave events, and countries that use rivers
         | leading to the ocean as primary waste disposal. If you want to
         | make a difference to plastic pollution, advocate for
         | sustainable fishing practices, end shipping waste overseas for
         | fake recycling (Patagonia really recycling helps this), and
         | support programs to establish waste collection and disposal in
         | countries that don't have it.
         | 
         | Standard sewage treatment processes also capture most
         | microplastic with the solid waste, if you live somewhere with
         | sewage treatment.
        
           | davejohnclark wrote:
           | I was stunned to read that, in the UK, after carefully
           | separating out the microplastics with the solid waste, that
           | waste is then... spread on farmland as fertiliser,
           | microplastics and all.
           | 
           | >In the UK, of the sewage sludge screened out by treatment
           | works, 87% is sent to farms. The microplastics so carefully
           | removed from wastewater by the treatment process are then
           | spread across the land in the sewage sludge the water
           | companies sell to farmers as fertiliser.
           | 
           | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/26/microp.
           | ..
        
       | andrewstuart wrote:
       | (reposted comment) I've got a bee in my bonnet about "plastic
       | roads".
       | 
       | Many countries, desperate to make use of the gargantuan flow of
       | waste plastic, and desperate to avoid it going into landfill, are
       | putting the waste plastic into roads.
       | 
       | This is called "recycling".
       | 
       | Sounds like a great idea until you realize that cars and trucks
       | drive on the roads and grind them into dust - dust containing
       | microplastics.
       | 
       | The microplastic dust will go into air, waterways, rivers,
       | oceans, food, plants animals and people.
       | 
       | All this is because the environmentalists have decided that
       | "keeping plastics out of landfill" is more important than
       | anything.
       | 
       | Plastic roads are an environmental disaster in an epic scale
       | being created in the name of "recycling".
       | 
       | The worst thing is that for some reason it's not obvious that
       | this is a disastrous idea, and all around the world people are
       | breathlessly talking up plastic roads like its a solution to the
       | plastic waste problem.
       | 
       | "In 2015, the Indian government made it mandatory for plastic
       | waste to be used in constructing roads near large cities of more
       | than 500,000 people"
       | 
       | https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210302-could-plastic-ro...
       | 
       | Mandated madness. The safest place for the fire hydrant of waste
       | plastic is in landfill, not "recycled" into microplastic dust.
       | 
       | Would you like a plastic road outside your house, or outside your
       | kids school?
        
         | 8note wrote:
         | I'm not sure if it's environmentalists pushing for that, or the
         | plastics industry, in response to complaints about the amount
         | of plastics waste. The alternative that environmentalists
         | actually want is reduced production of plastics, and less
         | making of single use and short lived items
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Please don't copy-paste comments on HN. It lowers the
         | signal/noise ratio of the site.
         | 
         | If you want to refer to something you wrote elsewhere (e.g.
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34153694), a link is
         | great. Even better, if possible, would be a link along with new
         | information drawn from the specifics of the new discussion.
        
           | andrewstuart wrote:
           | gotcha ..... apologies.
        
             | dang wrote:
             | Appreciated!
        
         | sampo wrote:
         | > Sounds like a great idea until you realize that cars and
         | trucks drive on the roads and grind them into dust - dust
         | containing microplastics.
         | 
         | Car tires themselves wear down and produce microplastics. I
         | would guess the tires wear down more than the road, so the
         | contribution from road would be minuscule, comparing to the
         | contribution from the tires.
         | 
         | https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/tires...
        
           | nonethewiser wrote:
           | The contribution from the road is independent of the
           | contributions from the car.
           | 
           | By your reasoning, if the micro plastics from cars increased,
           | so could the micro plastics from the road, even to
           | astronomical levels, so long as it's less than the cars.
        
         | suyash wrote:
         | Every action has a consequences, these are what we call
         | 'unintended consequences'. It's good that this is making news
         | on BBC, hopefully Governments around the world will take heed
         | and correct this policy.
        
         | switch007 wrote:
         | My carpet fitter tried to sell me on recycled plastic underlay.
         | 
         | They only want to sell it because it's dirt cheap and
         | lightweight.
         | 
         | Zero cares about what I'll be breathing in for 10 years
        
           | coffeebeqn wrote:
           | What do you think the carpet is made out of?
        
         | andrewstuart wrote:
         | The linked BBC article seems to be dead - anyhow the BBC is
         | praising plastic roads as "saving us from the plastic waste
         | problem"
         | 
         | https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=plastic+roads
         | 
         | Here is a better article "The plastic road to hell is paved
         | with good intentions "
         | 
         | https://www.ehn.org/recycled-plastic-roads-2658987942.html
        
       | suyash wrote:
       | Wow, so no even vegetarian diet is safe from micro plastics
       | anymore. Anyone know if organic food soil is treated with this
       | nasty 'sewage sludge' ?
        
         | colechristensen wrote:
         | It never was? Plastics are everywhere.
         | 
         | And most of the mineral nutrients in your food were indeed
         | something's poop at one point. I'm not sure how you want to
         | escape that.
        
         | majjam wrote:
         | The article says so: " Sewage sludge is the byproduct left
         | behind after municipal wastewater is cleaned. As it is
         | expensive to dispose of and rich in nutrients, sludge is
         | commonly used as organic fertiliser in the US and Europe."
        
       | JoeAltmaier wrote:
       | Lots of speculation about how evil microplastics are. I worry
       | it's theatre that's preventing real discussions about real
       | problems.
       | 
       | Hey go ahead and disagree, but maybe post a link to some evidence
       | beyond 'microplastics exist'?
        
       | garbanz0 wrote:
       | Microplastics are so pervasive that they're even found in human
       | breastmilk now. Maybe it's fatalistic, but what is the point of
       | worrying about this on an individual level beyond limiting use of
       | certain plastic products? And it's not just microplastics - we're
       | seeing other news about "forever chemicals," hormones in our
       | food, the _global_ drop of average male sperm production by 50%
       | (!!!), etc.
       | 
       | At a certain point, apathy sets in. If this is our generation's
       | mesothelioma, so be it.
        
         | lnsru wrote:
         | I am absolutely with you. Total apathy. I can't do anything. My
         | 100% waste goes to local recycling system. I pick up thrash
         | when I am in the nature and bring home. Even left by others. I
         | avoid synthetic clothing and wear only when I really need it.
         | And still micro plastic in the air everywhere. How is this
         | happening!?
        
         | Traubenfuchs wrote:
         | We are doomed. The only conscious choice is not having more
         | children to live on this dying planet. I see this is a fact.
         | All our efforts to "save the climate" or ban some especially
         | dangerous chemicals are lipstick on the pig.
        
           | Empact wrote:
           | Congratulations on being the first person in human history to
           | call the end times correctly.
           | 
           | Again and again we've shown we can make these transitions,
           | including surviving a major ice age. While there's good
           | reason to worry, as lack of worry denotes foolhardiness,
           | despair is both self-defeating and counterfactual to the
           | whole of human history.
           | 
           | This time it may well be different, but if it is, then your
           | attitude is guaranteed to lead to failure, as we will then
           | not take the necessary steps to secure the future.
           | 
           | My money is on a technological solution overall, but there
           | are many things regular people can meaningfully do, such as
           | driving less, giving up one or more cars, or choosing to
           | build or renovate toward highly insulated, potentially net
           | carbon sequestering house as with the passive house standard,
           | switch to heat pump based a/c and water heating, and
           | voluntarily contributing to carbon sequestration efforts such
           | as through YC alum Wren https://www.wren.co/join/Empact
           | 
           | If you think that's not enough, and perhaps you're right,
           | what lever do we need to press to make change? It is our
           | responsibility as the current generation to identify and
           | press that lever to secure the future for our descendants.
           | 
           | Politically, my money is on the Citizen's Climate Lobby
           | effort to bring about a carbon tax, and the American
           | Conservation Coalition for its effort to raise the prospect
           | of environmental policy in the Republican sphere. If enough
           | people vote on this issue alone[1], as the second amendment
           | and abortion communities have effectively done over the past
           | forty years, then we have a chance to shift policy in the
           | direction of conservation/protection.
           | 
           | For me that means: a carbon tax to reduce demand, unleashing
           | zero-carbon sources like nuclear to further out-compete the
           | fossil fuel plants, while also embracing efficient
           | infrastructure like pipelines to efficiently convey that
           | supply we continue to use. On this last point, remember that
           | the demand is constrained via a carbon tax.
           | 
           | The world needs our earnest efforts. You can keep your
           | despair.[2]
           | 
           | [1] particularly in the primaries, as most house districts
           | are now non-competitive between the parties
           | 
           | [2] Incidentally, I think the hysteria on the left is also
           | counterproductive, as "the sky is falling" only reaches so
           | many people before it discredits the speaker, and the goal
           | should of convincing the middle does not require them to be
           | terrified - IMO the easiest way to do that is to make the
           | behavior high-status and motivate people that way, e.g. see
           | Tesla, solar panels, etc.
        
         | fleddr wrote:
         | I do think there's a limit to how much doom and gloom an
         | individual can productively handle and I suppose this also
         | applies to society as a whole.
         | 
         | People seem to accept that it's all downhill from here, and
         | sometimes even cynically applaud it. Like with the male sperm
         | story. It's catastrophic and accelerating, yet got near-zero
         | attention. The few responses to it seem to celebrate it.
         | 
         | Humanity lacks a story for the future. It can't just be "it's
         | going to get so much worse" nor can it be "if we try really
         | hard, we may slow down the decline, but a decline it will be".
         | Those stories just aren't good enough. Nobody invests in a
         | sinking ship.
        
           | peytoncasper wrote:
           | "People seem to accept that it's all downhill from here"
           | 
           | Strange, I know plenty of people that do see an upside,
           | including myself. It's a choice to believe things can and
           | will get better.
           | 
           | Unless you have a crystal ball, we're both choosing to
           | believe in an unknown future. So choosing to believe it will
           | get worse is no different from believing it will get better.
           | Although one is arguably better for mental health.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | Der_Einzige wrote:
           | The real story is the massive increase in LGBT identification
           | across the youth. I strongly believe that a large component
           | of this is biological due to hormonal changes.
        
             | threadweaver34 wrote:
             | It's important we understand what's going on for the future
             | of the species, but the research is political suicide.
        
             | not_enoch_wise wrote:
             | Thank you for not wasting a single valuable second backing
             | your belief up with evidence.
        
             | mlindner wrote:
             | I'd say the cause is societal because it's popular to
             | become part of a protected class. You can't change your
             | race but you can change this.
        
               | xwdv wrote:
               | I'm honestly surprised why you can't change your race.
               | Race, like gender, isn't really a _real_ thing beyond an
               | abstract human concept.
               | 
               | If you want to identify as black why not simply say you
               | are black? Especially if you can pass as black without
               | further modifications?
               | 
               | Most people's lineages aren't even so pure that you can
               | say they are a pure example of a certain "race" anyway.
               | We just accept people at face value. You could be 50%
               | black and say you're black and people accept it
               | wholeheartedly (i.e. Barack Obama) So why not 40%? Or 5%?
        
         | mlindner wrote:
         | The male sperm issue isn't from environmental issues, it's
         | psychological/societal. When you repeatedly tell men that their
         | natural state is "toxic masculinity" you'll of course drive
         | down sperm counts through depression and self hatred.
        
       | finikytou wrote:
       | Im getting really worried about the impact this will have on our
       | kidneys. I had a tap water filtering on very dusty tap water and
       | the filter was supposed to last 1 year it lasted 3 weeks.
       | 
       | I believe it might be a good analogy to how those microplastics
       | are destroying our kidneys
        
         | anonymous_sorry wrote:
         | I have no expertise in this area, but before reaching the
         | kidneys wouldn't microplastic particles have to cross one of
         | the "filters" from our gut or lungs into the blood? I guess
         | that's where I'd look for problems first.
        
         | nonethewiser wrote:
         | What is dusty tap water? And what kind of filter did you have?
         | I really wouldnt expect much from something you just bolt onto
         | the faucet.
        
       | kornhole wrote:
       | This problem was known long ago. In typical fashion like their
       | climate change reporting, BBC reports on this decades too late.
        
         | suyash wrote:
         | I remember earlier it was limited to ocean and fish were seem
         | to be polluted with micro plastics but contaminated soil in
         | large parts of the world is very scary news.
        
       | mouzogu wrote:
       | it seems almost impossible not to consume some kind of
       | carcinogen, no matter how careful you are.
        
         | vasco wrote:
         | We all have to die of something.
        
           | synu wrote:
           | Might as well be cancer as soon as possible?
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | NackerHughes wrote:
       | Isn't it great how corporations can flood our food and water with
       | poison and then brag to us about how they're doing it?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-07 23:01 UTC)