Nahtnah

3. At least several hundred billion tons of commodity plastics have been mass produced over the last 70 years with little to no quantified, attributable environmental damage from these plastics. Most microplastic is essentially inert dust that is no different from other organic or inorganic dust such as pollen or clay. Plastics are not allergens because they are non reactive and do not stimulate an immune response. It is very likely that blood of animals contains plastic molecules along with thousands of other molecules in trace quantities doing no more harm than natural silt in a river system.

You're missing a couple points yourself. For example, the article is talking about phthalates. These are additives added to plastics. These leech from microplastics. So your rant about how plastics are inert shows you didnt even understand the article yourself tbh.

There is plenty of evidence that these compounds are harmful and affect the biology. See the section on wikipedia on phthalates. What there isnt is much evidence and experimentation showing theyre NOT harmful.

Sure, but I didnt claim he made a valid argument either. What I am claiming is when someone says things like

"The question of what this would do in the human body, which is full of polymers with very sensitively evolved mechanical properties, was obvious - yet it was not asked in a funded capacity until we had been letting it accumulate in our kids for decades"

which the article I linked supports, people come out of the woodwork to argue we need "more evidence/an exact biochemical pathway" when we dont have the understanding/technology to actually do that.

You're assuming were not all being poisoned, lol. Did you even read what I wrote.

There's plenty of evidence we're increasingly fucking with our bodies, again see the rising rates of cancer in youth. Yes, there are likely many causes for that. You'd have to be criminally negligent to argue a class of chemicals like phthalates is in the clear. Yes, the details are complicated. Yes, the dose makes the poison. Yes.

I believe we're smart enough to find a way to have/eat out cake, but smart people are arguing in this classic way about details that miss the main point people should care about, downplaying the issue in a way that laypeople cant understand the nuance of. So we keep following the $$$ and likely poisoning ourselves.

You're arguing as if you understand all the side effects of the biochemistry on the biology. None of us do. Theyre correct about one thing: its probably not good for you.

But sure, you might be more right on the basics of the biochemistry.

I guess I'm just frustrated about the state of the world - im not a degrowth person I just want a better balance.

There seems to be plenty of evidence for, for example, their role in endocrine disruption.

Eh, the analogy is farrr from perfect. You're basically assuming you can reduce neurons to LTI systems. Which you obviously very much cannot.

Check out Line War, fwiw

Agreed, it's not optimal. I've been thinking about this alot lately actually, I think there's always going to be friction of this sort. You could argue it exists at all levels, for example when fighting infections your body often damages/kills it's own cells. Ofc. you can die from an overactive/badly tuned immune system, but more often, people die from not having a strong enough one! But we're not cells, are we.

I think his point is there's a similar distinction between monitoring a group of people who attacked democracy, and dragnet surveillance of the entire population.

Fair enough. But I have to say - your first line makes no sense. Two of the three things you mentioned, I assume you know, don't work 100% of the time. And IUDs are a giant lol from me, many dudes don't even like putting on condoms and you want women to stick this plastic thing in their vagina? So it's all on the woman, and then if she gets pregnant, its STILL all on her, and all decided by a bunch of 'religious' white guys.

Is your argument women just shouldn't have sex?

Besides the point I agree, but goes to show since this argument was introduced by you as blow back against vaccines and the politics of the current conservatives, that maybe 'their' political rhetoric is a bit wonky. That's the asymmetry I was pointing out in my original comment.

You can't just 'both sides' everything blindly.

One has very little to do with the other besides having to do with body autonomy. Also, people were never forced to get vaccinated. I would always be against that. Women are being forced to come to term.

It's unfair to women for a bunch of nerdy guys to rhetorically equate the two. And by going after abortion, looks like GOP might have made a rod for THEIR own back. We'll see.