A new study has looked at the links between microplastics and diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s in an attempt to understand what we can do to possibly prevent such damage.
You’re missing the point. If asbestos didn’t do any harm, we wouldn’t have had to ban it.
It’s possible that microplastics do not actually do any harm. You must consider this possibility to maintain a sharp and sound mind capable of critical analysis and a healthy scepticism and scrutiny.
Jumping to conclusions that anything unnatural must be harmful like asbestos because some substances like asbestos have harmed us in the past is anti-intellectualism.
The real issue right now is that we do not know if any humans without microplastics in them, making it impossible to gather evidence from a control group population to actually be able to attribute any observed things to microplastics.
We used Asbestos for decades as we couldn’t quantify or prove the risks. Thousands got cancer and died because we waited for more evidence. Even when we had doubts.
The Precautionary Principle exists… “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.”.
Your let’s wait for proof is straight out the playbook of corporate lobbyists. A delay and profit strategy. If anything is unscientific. It’s your, we have no conclusive proof so let’s keep flying to the sun and see what happens. I value health over profit though. I guess that might be where we differ.
We cannot prove a negative, there is no way to say that something has absolutely zero risk, and no burden of evidence is ever enough for many (for instance of this: see the puberty blockers & trans HRT debates or any vaccine safety debates).
Therefore the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a risk. We can do our best to rule out what harms we can, as you said - as a precaution, but we cannot simply ban everything until proof that literally cannot exist arrives that something is risk-free.
The question is whether the risks outweigh the rewards. And the rewards of being able to use plastic everywhere are actually massive, there are so many medical and scientific applications that just wouldn’t be possible without the wonder of plastic. So much QoL enhancing stuff like access to internet and food and water in most deprived places got so much more accessible thanks to the physical and economic properties of plastic, and no I don’t mean corporate profits I literally mean it is cheaper even by labour value theory terms.
If anything is unscientific. It’s your, we have no conclusive proof so let’s keep flying to the sun and see what happens. I value health over profit though. I guess that might be where we differ.
Flying into the sun to see what happens is how we find out what happens. That’s actual science. Best we can do is rule out some risks based on what we know, which we have done and continue doing to this day.
I don’t value profit whatsoever, I’m as leftist as you and probably more so, please chill with the condescending tone, I’m on your side, but your line of argument is flawed and a one way street to reactionary thinking and stifling of human progress.
I don’t think anyone said banning plastics, but, we can easily cut down on usage for single use, or fishing nets (that get dumped to disintegrate). It’s used mostly because it’s cheap, but sometimes the recyclability decrease means there is a hidden cost, and it’s the planet that suffers. Plastic will be useful for a long time, but it’s usage should be justified, rather than for cost reasons only. There needs to be investigations into sources of microplastic pollution and legislative actions to address it. We know it’s there and it’s not good for us. There is scientific evidence in support of that. We now need to know why and how, and act.
The planet can no longer suffer from the Tragedy of the Commons. It is ours and we must protect it from exploitation by capitalists.
I like how you call out my tone, but don’t see any responsibility on yourself for how you conduct yourself. It’s your choice. Treat folk how you want to be treated. Complaining after the event is pointless.
My line of argument is less flawed than you think, I just see things from a different perspective. I see technology as acompliment to our lives. You seem to imply you have to compromise life, health, the planet in the name of progress. Progress of course is currently defined by the market and what companies invest in and lobby for. You place a lot of trust in their custodianship and are combatting anyone who resists. If you think you’re more left, I think you really need to look deeper into your perspective and what it is influenced by. Trust and entertain your imagination. We can push and move the goalposts. Define the rules. We have a seat at the table and power to influence things if we choose to use our voice.
Or they could be doing nothing harmful at all.
Yeah. Asbestos was fine and legal for a while and it worked out alright. Right?
You’re missing the point. If asbestos didn’t do any harm, we wouldn’t have had to ban it.
It’s possible that microplastics do not actually do any harm. You must consider this possibility to maintain a sharp and sound mind capable of critical analysis and a healthy scepticism and scrutiny.
Jumping to conclusions that anything unnatural must be harmful like asbestos because some substances like asbestos have harmed us in the past is anti-intellectualism.
The real issue right now is that we do not know if any humans without microplastics in them, making it impossible to gather evidence from a control group population to actually be able to attribute any observed things to microplastics.
It is you that missed the point.
We used Asbestos for decades as we couldn’t quantify or prove the risks. Thousands got cancer and died because we waited for more evidence. Even when we had doubts.
The Precautionary Principle exists… “The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) is a broad epistemological, philosophical and legal approach to innovations with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. It emphasizes caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovations that may prove disastrous.”.
Your let’s wait for proof is straight out the playbook of corporate lobbyists. A delay and profit strategy. If anything is unscientific. It’s your, we have no conclusive proof so let’s keep flying to the sun and see what happens. I value health over profit though. I guess that might be where we differ.
We cannot prove a negative, there is no way to say that something has absolutely zero risk, and no burden of evidence is ever enough for many (for instance of this: see the puberty blockers & trans HRT debates or any vaccine safety debates).
Therefore the burden of proof is on those who claim there is a risk. We can do our best to rule out what harms we can, as you said - as a precaution, but we cannot simply ban everything until proof that literally cannot exist arrives that something is risk-free.
The question is whether the risks outweigh the rewards. And the rewards of being able to use plastic everywhere are actually massive, there are so many medical and scientific applications that just wouldn’t be possible without the wonder of plastic. So much QoL enhancing stuff like access to internet and food and water in most deprived places got so much more accessible thanks to the physical and economic properties of plastic, and no I don’t mean corporate profits I literally mean it is cheaper even by labour value theory terms.
Flying into the sun to see what happens is how we find out what happens. That’s actual science. Best we can do is rule out some risks based on what we know, which we have done and continue doing to this day.
I don’t value profit whatsoever, I’m as leftist as you and probably more so, please chill with the condescending tone, I’m on your side, but your line of argument is flawed and a one way street to reactionary thinking and stifling of human progress.
I don’t think anyone said banning plastics, but, we can easily cut down on usage for single use, or fishing nets (that get dumped to disintegrate). It’s used mostly because it’s cheap, but sometimes the recyclability decrease means there is a hidden cost, and it’s the planet that suffers. Plastic will be useful for a long time, but it’s usage should be justified, rather than for cost reasons only. There needs to be investigations into sources of microplastic pollution and legislative actions to address it. We know it’s there and it’s not good for us. There is scientific evidence in support of that. We now need to know why and how, and act.
The planet can no longer suffer from the Tragedy of the Commons. It is ours and we must protect it from exploitation by capitalists.
I like how you call out my tone, but don’t see any responsibility on yourself for how you conduct yourself. It’s your choice. Treat folk how you want to be treated. Complaining after the event is pointless.
My line of argument is less flawed than you think, I just see things from a different perspective. I see technology as acompliment to our lives. You seem to imply you have to compromise life, health, the planet in the name of progress. Progress of course is currently defined by the market and what companies invest in and lobby for. You place a lot of trust in their custodianship and are combatting anyone who resists. If you think you’re more left, I think you really need to look deeper into your perspective and what it is influenced by. Trust and entertain your imagination. We can push and move the goalposts. Define the rules. We have a seat at the table and power to influence things if we choose to use our voice.