That doesn’t really get to the impact of the plastic. Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood. It’s there, but mostly it just seems to be inert. There are thousands of problems we are creating that we know are causing widespread extinctions. I’m not opposed to reducing plastic use, but forcing a major inconvenience for dubious results burns a lot of goodwill. That’s why this is a popular wedge issue for the right, even though it mostly affects liberal coastal cities.
Comment on I'm doing my part
skisnow@lemmy.ca 4 weeks agoThere is almost no way it represents any practical differences to wildlife.
Source: your ass?
RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
skisnow@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Something like 100% of humans have plastic in their blood
It blows my mind how you’re saying that like it makes it ok
RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Well the sentence after that is rather critical. It’s not that 100% of humans have it, so who cares about animals; it’s that we have an enormous highly-scrutinized test population, and in general the impacts are mild to imperceptible. I’m not blowing off this concern; we need to keep studying it in humans and animals (and the results may be different!).
But right now there are scores of critical world issues that can be tangibly addressed. Asking people to make lifestyle changes for possibly zero meaningful impact is actually counterproductive.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Source: the about an hour of research I did on straws to write the response. I mean I read a fucking thesis on it and probably 4-5 articles.
So maybe shove it up your ass