Right so we fill the oceans with plastic eating bacteria? It might work, but it might also produce unintended negative consequences. Have you heard of the Cane Toad?

The plastic has apparently permeated the bodies of all the sea creatures in the form of micro plastic. Those who eat fish may be full of it too. Big job for the bacteria!

:up: Pertinent questions!

I think the microplastic is probably in you and me as well.

The bacteria will get to it eventually. I don't think it needs to be dumped anywhere.

Oh, so the bacteria are already working on the problem and we don't need to do a thing? Sounds good!

can they start on solid plastic items (bottles, plastic parts, etc)? — Bitter Crank

They were first discovered in Japan at a plastic recycling plant. Yes, they eat bottles.

. how long does it take the bacteria to eat 1 kilogram of plastic? — Bitter Crank

Why? Are we in a hurry?

any plastic? There are dozen of varieties. — Bitter Crank

I'm guessing now that one type has evolved, more will follow. Bacteria mutate pretty frequently.

what are the breakdown products? — Bitter Crank

Plutonium! No, I don't know. Water and carbon dioxide probably.

Why? Are we in a hurry? — frank

Depends on if we care for our children. I think there was a recent article about how this is all fucking with their brains. I'd look it up, but I'm too lazy.

. I'd look it up, but I'm too lazy. — James Riley

It may have fucked with your brain.

Oh, so the bacteria are already working on the problem and we don't need to do a thing? Sounds good! — Janus

:up:

It may have fucked with your brain. — frank

Yeah, I mean here I am, arguing with a fucking moron named "frank" so it could very well be. Here's an article about the plastics found in the franks in franks diapers. The verdict is still out on harm, but I think you are a case study proving damage: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/23/22689941/babies-infants-poop-microplastics

Then that means the Petoleum Hydrcarbons Industry's lack of accountability is a fundamental issue.
Why isn't it held accountable? Maybe because governments aren't being held accountable? So government lack of accountability is a fundamental issue of our time.
Why isn't government being held accountable? Could it be because "we the people" don't stand up to them? Why don't we stand up to them? Could be because most of the world is preoccupied with basic survival? Then that is also a fundamental issue.
And the less poor are divided, distracted, and unclear about the issue at foot, no? So lack of solidarity if a fundamental issue.
Solidarity leads to power. Power leads to ability to hold people accountable. Accountability leads to Petroleum Hydrocarbons Industry ceasing to cause Climate Change.
This is probably super ultra overly simple... — Yohan

No, I think this is exactly the right line of questioning.

To clarify: when I say climate change should be considered the issue of our time, I don’t mean in a vacuum. Along with it comes everything you mention. It’s daunting and discouraging to most people because it feels so immense. That’s part of the problem.

But really what it comes down to is the things you mentioned: education, organization, solidarity, conversation, holding those in power accountable (and making sure those who ARE in power don’t deny global warming),

But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness.

Depletion of aquifers, depletion of fisheries and plastic pollution of oceans and destruction of soils by "Big Agra" are also existential threats. — Janus

Potentially. Some of this is overlapping with global warming as well. Our destruction of the environment and exhausting of resources is leading to massive destruction on several fronts. No doubt.

I don’t see plastics in the ocean as existential, as awful as it is — but I’m open to hearing that argument.

Basically the only solution to the problem would seem to be a drastic reduction of human population, — Janus

I don’t think so. It’s not the vast majority destroying the environment, it’s a handful of countries and a handful of people within those countries.

Better decisions can and should be made. There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.

Yeah, I mean here I am, arguing with a fucking moron named "frank" so it could very well be. — James Riley

Frank would fit in much better on Twitter: short, usually irrelevant, and generally stupid posts. Imagine him, NOS, and the handful of clowns that come back under different names having their own group?

It’s like kids trying to join in when adults are talking. Probably shouldn’t pay much attention.

There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism — Xtrix

I would agree in so far as "capitalism" is defined as the abomination we currently live under (which includes socialization of costs while privatizing profits). But true capitalism would require all of those who currently do the damage to first pay each individual, in an arm's length transaction, fair market value for the right to damage their interests. Some, like me, would not sell and therefor the damage could not be done. No corporate veil, or big government skirts for them to hide behind with their limited liability and other purchased legislation. That would be true capitalism and not the hedonistic waste that the self-identified "capitalists" currently shove onto us.

Frank would fit in much better on Twitter: short, usually irrelevant, and generally stupid posts. — Xtrix

I agree. He's taking up perfectly good space that could better be used by nothing.

I would agree in so far as "capitalism" is defined as the abomination we currently live under (which includes socialization of costs while privatizing profits). — James Riley

So neoliberal capitalism. Yes. But I think probably capitalism more broadly as well— that is, state capitalism.

So far as I know laissez-faire capitalism has never existed. If that’s what’s meant by “real” capitalism, I consider it a pipe dream and a cover for giving away more and more to the business sector.

A move towards “regimented capitalism” the US had in the 50s and 60s during our biggest growth period would be a welcomed development.

So neoliberal capitalism. Yes. — Xtrix

I'm not sure what it's called, but I'd just like to see Liz Warren call them out and say "You want capitalism? You couldn't handle capitalism!" The corporation itself is anti-capitalism and yet the self-identified "capitalists" are all about hiding behind it. It's a creature of the state (i.e. Big Government) which they claim to hate, all while hiding behind it. If they were forced to pay their way in a true risk taking fashion, they'd take their capital and crawl back under the fridge where they belong. Anyway, yes, kill it if it can't abide it's own terms. If there is no enlightenment in enlightened self-interest then you just have greed and that is not what Adam Smith of any true capitalist was about. Greed is what we have now.

If there is no enlightenment in enlightened self-interest then you just have greed and that is not what Adam Smith of any true capitalist was about. Greed is what we have now. — James Riley

Adam Smith is the place to start. He warned a lot against most of what we consider capitalism today.

It’s institutionalized greed, yes. It’s a system — a game — with rules and laws that encourage greed. It rests on the ideas of, at bottom, materialism and human nature as basically pathological. It’s a merchant’s philosophy. It’s sick and it has dominated our thinking for over 200 years. Time for it to go.

It’s institutionalized greed, yes. It’s a system — a game — with rules and laws that encourage greed. — Xtrix

Otherwise known as the profit motive.

Yes, but arguably our proclivities aren't equally matched - greed/selfishness trumps genorosity/altruism any day. — TheMadFool

So you say— but I see as much evidence to the contrary. Just look at families— your own even— is it true that “greed/selfishness” trumps care for them? Or concern for others’ needs? Or loyalty?

I see acts of kindness and generosity all over. Some want to argue this is selfishness in the end— fine. Then in that case selfishness isn’t harmful, so who cares.

Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake— one that’s at the core of our rotten philosophy, politics, and economy. We believe it, so we act accordingly. At bottom it’s really nihilism in disguise. With the cover of “sophisticated” philosophy and science.

Life is, all said and done, selfish - evolution made us that way and now we're supposed to feel guilty about how we (mis)managed the situation. — TheMadFool

This is the influence of Rand and Dawkins and the like. But I consider it complete nonsense.

Of course greed, selfishness, excess, pleasure-seeking, hedonism, and so on, are part of human behavior. But so are all the rest. To simply define human beings as selfish animals who care about nothing else except their own material gain and perhaps reproduction is simply missing some very big parts of the story.

Which is in fact what propagandists have cultivated over the years. If you convince everyone that life is a series of accumulations of material goods, that individuals are all that exist, that selfishness is axiomatic, that there’s nothing that can be done because “that’s life,” then you get what we see today: depression, addictions, hopelessness, fear, anger, confusion, isolation, division, mistrust, and general unhappiness.

From the linked article...

When it comes to babies, a considerable amount of plastic appears to be both going in one end and out the other, according to new research that involved spatulas, diapers, and poop. In particular, the average concentration of one pervasive type of microplastic in baby stool was a whopping ten times higher than that in adult stool in a small pilot study published this week. — Justine Calma

See, that's the problem: cheap goods. Spatula City™ carries nothing but the finest rubber goods, totally free of poisonous synthetic hydrocarbons. Low-IQ parents buy spatulas from just any place--a Dollar Store, for god's sake--and let their vulnerable infants gum them to discourage annoying crying. A quality spatula from Spatula City™ is safe for Baby to gum, chew on, eat with, or use as a sex toy when they are a bit older.

Spatula City™ carries a complete line of glass bottles, rubber nipples, wooden rattles and teething rings. And of course, a spatula for every purpose.

Those who are worried by their microplastic exposure can reduce it, says Li. His work on kitchenware found that the amounts of plastic shed depend highly on temperature — which is why he’s stopped microwaving food in plastic containers. To reduce issues with baby bottles, his team suggests that parents could rinse sterilized bottles with cool water that has been boiled in non-plastic kettles, so as to wash away any microplastics released during sterilization. And they can prepare baby formula in glass containers, filling feeding bottles after the milk has cooled. The team is now recruiting parents to volunteer samples of their babies’ urine and stools for microplastic analysis.

Here's the whole article. "Microplastics are everywhere — but are they harmful?" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01143-3

I might have misunderstood. Perhaps the spatulas were used to scoop baby poop off the diaper and into a lab vessel.

Well, one still should use a quality spatula for such important research.

duplicate deleted

I see acts of kindness and generosity all over — Xtrix

Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake — Xtrix

There are some obvious reasons— mostly money — Xtrix

So, being money-minded is genorisity then?

Okay, okay, I spent like two nano seconds googling for an article that reflected something I heard recently about damage to babies brains and I grabbed that one because I'm lazy. I'm going to do it again, only without a citation, and mention something else I read but a long time ago. Apparently some plastics can mimic estrogens and might lead to a feminization of men, sterility and a lack of interest in sex. I saw that as a good thing, but, well, interesting anyway. Go plastic! :razz:

I doubt if one can avoid ingesting micro plastics which seem to be ubiquitous. We can, though, help reduce the amount of micro/nano plastics being produced

1) Buy cotton clothing. Synthetic fabrics (like polyester) shed particles from their point of production onward. Tiny bits of cotton fiber (as well as linen, silk and wool fibers) rot, so they do not have long lifespans.

2) Use metal, ceramic, or glass containers for cooking and food storage (especially microwave heating).

3) Wear leather shoes. Synthetic soles and uppers shed a variety of microfiber and nanoparticles.

4) Use cloth or paper shopping bags.

More than 40% of all plastic made is packaging

"Single-Use Plastic Is Everywhere. Here's How To Use Less Plastic : Life Kit : NPR" https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015296355/zero-waste-single-use-plastic-trash-recycle

Hormone disruption is a problem of not-entirely-understood dimensions. Some plastics disrupt hormones, as do other types of chemicals such as some herbicides, pesticides, and other chemical types. Then there are the hormones deposited in rivers from excretions of birth control and therapeutic hormone Rx.

The link is full of good advice. Thanks.

Bottled water was uncommon 40 years ago. Bottling companies created a new product market. Where once there were a few Perrier bottles on the shelf, there are now long shelves of bottle water. Fairly often the water in the bottles is simply tap water.

Stop drinking bottled water!

One of the reasons for the high level of obesity in the US is the amount of soft drinks people consume, most of it in 1-use bottles. There is nothing one needs in a Coke or Pepsi. Drink it as an occasional treat once in a while -- not as a staple in your diet.

My use of plastic film bothers me, but I haven't made much progress in switching to something more eco friendly. Wax paper works for some things, but tears very easily.

Stop drinking bottled — Bitter Crank

Amen! :pray:

This ad from the plastics industry was in today's Washington Post

Jesus, talk about retrograde! :roll: