There was a finding that all males have microplastic particles in our testes.
It became a meme.
Everybody laughed.
New meme overtakes old meme.
We forget about our plastic testes and move on.
But, is there any issues going forward, that anyone is aware of?
Probably fertility. It’s almost certain that the decreased average sperm count is related to microplastics. It’s less clear if it’s related to our elevated rate of prostate cancer, but I’m cool with blaming big oil for that, too.
Or the lack of exercise. Or the lack of zinc. Or the obesity epidemic.
No not the obesity! You are hurting the slop gobbling agenda!
You don’t want to run afoul of big slop
Death to big slop.
But I like Big Slop…
Can something be done? Possibly, who knows?
Will something be done? I wouldn’t hold my breath.
This isn’t the only potentially human civilization-ending event I first heard about this past month, and that doesn’t include climate change that we’ve known about for literally decades, which many of the major players involved including the USA and China still don’t seem to care much about even now.
There is a saying: “put your money where your mouth is”, meaning that if people want to truly “care” about something - e.g. to be Pro-Life - then we need to actually get up off the couch and do something about what we otherwise claim to but don’t really care. For instance we could… I dunno, wear masks when we feel the slightest hint of a respiratory illness coming on - cheap, trivially easy, and can save literal lives. And not to trivialize this, some people truly do care - even as I type this I’m listening to a livestream talking about restoration taking much more effort but yielding much greater results than merely shaming people by pointing out something bad.
However, and a bit ironically, Big Tobacco and Big Oil and Big Sugar and Big Tech and Big Plastic etc. all do this, investing great efforts into stopping efforts to try to stop them. Without equal or greater efforts in opposition… well, like I said, I would not hold my breath.
which many of the major players involved including the USA and China still don’t seem to care much about even now.
Thanks for sharing the link - TIL something!:-)
without a matching drop in emissions, any country/business who participates in “green energy” is just doing propaganda
I would hardly call creating measured plans then executing the key steps towards making a stable jump to green energy propaganda, unless you’re of the mind that risking severe damage an entire country’s energy grid and in turn threatening possibly the lives of millions in premature actions is much more preferable. But I’m sure you’re smarter than advocating for that
I’m just saying that creating green energy sources is not sufficient evidence that someone actually cares about climate change issues unless it has results
Is having lots more green energy not a result?
only if america does it
If you were pointing at literally any of the western nations I would agree, especially with regards to their naked hypocrisy in the fact that they’ve been further expanding their emmitive energy sources these past few years. But pointing out that China, while having large emissions due to both its large population and due to international Capital moving massive amounts of manufacturing to China over the past few decades, has not only been making its internationally promised goals towards decoupling from emmitive energy sources and switching to a green energy network but has been rapidly surpassing them to the point its leaving the entirety of the G7 nations in the dust.
The fact is that currently it is very difficult for China to lower its emissions as doing so effects not only its own country’s economic productivity but the productivity of nations around the world. We saw an economic slump during covid due to China’s anti-covid measures disrupting the production of commodities across all industries. Performing premature theatrical gestures would objectively harm more people than it would help, therefor holding such a criteria is ultimately idealistic and ethereally utopian in its logical process
alright that’s fair, i was being too bitter and critical, perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of good, and it certainly shouldn’t accuse good of being propaganda
This isn’t the only potentially human civilization-ending event I first heard about this past month, and that doesn’t include climate change that we’ve known about for literally decades, which many of the major players involved including the USA and China still don’t seem to care much about even now.
To be fair, every damn headline is framed as civilisation-ending for clicks. Nuclear war is the only one I can think of that’s both fairly plausible and could actually end it. Others are at various significant but lower levels of suck, or are just geologically rare.
In particular, climate change is going to suck hard, and I’ll miss coral reefs, but some form of civilisation will endure. I know, someone’s going to argue with me, and I look forward to making you move around the goalposts on what “end of civilisation” means.
Otherwise, yeah, you’re just right. Humanity runs on apathy.
Yeah, the increasing likelihood of Russia or China using nukes to get their way was what I was thinking, especially with talk that the Western nations might be giving Ukraine the go-ahead to use those weapons to strike within Russia itself.
The plastic sperm issue actually doesn’t sound so bad in comparison, bc fertilization treatments might work even if needing to extract outside of the body first. Overall, it still sounds less dangerous to me than e.g. a young woman living in Florida these days without access to money to leave the state for medical care.
I frankly have no idea what to expect about climate change at this point - we’ve blown far past all the targets and seem now to be in uncharted territory, according to what little I understand. I do notice far fewer birds, bees and other insect life, and I recall hearing how in the Antarctic a few months back there was a single day where the temperature spiked by +70 degrees F (~40°C). I can only imagine what that would do to e.g. Texas if it went from already 100 to then 170 degrees, even if only for a few hours. “Coral” is the least of the issue iirc, they were (by virtue of being sensitive) mainly indicators of the actual events, which we won’t know until we see it, but scientists are saying that it’s no bueno. Anyway, it seems like the changes could wipe out all mammalian life on the planet, but then again maybe not!?:-P i.e. it could be really bad, but it could be less so, we just don’t know, and as you said, we mostly barely care (“we” meaning voters, so chiefly Boomers & evangelical Christians, as Trump and the Republican party’s biggest bases).
And yet we seem to care a great deal about tHe EcOnOmY tHo - so it’s a choice of prioritization to pick what “matters” to us.
Yeah, I’ve noticed the lack of insects, and also different plants growing than I remember from when I was a kid, not all too long ago. Every once in a while someone will be talking to me about the weather and how freakish it is, and they’ll suddenly get quiet if I use the word “climate” instead of just weather, because they were (and maybe still are?) denialists.
The thing about mammals is that at least some - ourselves included - can migrate. If we have to, we’ll set up banana plantations on Antarctica, and there’s no known scenario where it gets that bad. Others are not so lucky, though.
Right, civilization might survive… maybe, possibly, hopefully, just like if we all were to play Russian Roulette. Still doesn’t sound like a smart idea to me to mess with something known to be so dangerous.
At the absolute minimum the changes will be cruel, and hundreds of thousands of people are already dying from each of many individual events like hurricanes outside of their normal seasons, at intensities never before seen in a particular area.
So my thought: at the very least we could care? Except I was wrong - we can go lower, so much lower. We do have the satisfaction though that whatever comes, we brought it upon ourselves.
If it makes you feel any better, modern climate and economic studies have shown that even a full scale nuclear war involving every nuclear power at the height of the Cold War and when nuclear stockpiles were far larger than today we still wouldn’t have come very close to actually killing off all the humans on earth, with the vast majority of the casualties being owed to famine in regions that were/are heavily dependent on western fertilizer. Indeed entire nations in the southern hemisphere tend to get through such senecios without much of an direct effect from world war three.
Mostly this change from earlier predictions came from being able rule out the theory of a nuclear winter as climate modeling became more accurate and we could be sure that the secondary fires from such a war could not carry ash into the upper atmosphere in significant quantities, which was practically shown when a climate change fueled wildfire in Australia got so large that it should have been able to carry the ash into the upper atmosphere under nuclear winter theory but none was observed, validating modern climate models.
Also, dispite what some less scrupulous journalists trying to drum up clicks have posted on the Ukraine War, the Russian government itself hasn’t really made any major signaling moves with regards to bringing nukes into the conflict, and indeed has maintained and repeatedly reiterated Putin’s 2010s no first use policy when asked.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not the result of some greater Russian morals or whatever, but just a consequence of the inherent risk that such posturing could lead to nuclear escalation and breaking the nuclear taboo or even just other nations actually believing they plan to, and such scenarios end very badly for Russia in general and Putin in particular.
I keep up with it - whether nuclear winter would happen is still controversial. It all comes down to how much of the houses-and-people smoke reaches the stratosphere, and there’s actually a ton of variables to do with ash type, rubble, sunlight absorption and so on that make it tricky. It’s not exactly the same as a wildfire.
I don’t really expect Russia to do it, no. It’s just kind of an omnipresent long term risk. And yeah, it certainly wouldn’t be the end of all humanity, and Australia would have a chance to pull through, although they’d have to fend off a lot of hungry invaders. There’s no worse scenario, though, except something cosmological deciding to show up this year out of 4.5 billion. If I hadn’t of mentioned it someone 100% would have come at me with it as a thing that could end civilisation, if not neccesarily the species.
Not mine. Mine so big, they got their own municipal recycling program.
unusually enlarged testes are a sign of cancer
I got checked. They’re as smooth as ostrich eggs.
And have no more odor than a hot biscuit
Those balls ain’t right.
They blew off my shins in Vietnam!
Think of the profits corporations will be able to make curing the impacts of this!
I’m guessing it’s unknown. There’s microplastic in testes, and it’s not good for fertility. Getting that far probably required a lot of research. Understanding the mechanism and projecting it forwards will require way, way more.
It’s irreversible at this point and nothing you can do except hope it won’t affect your health.
It’s only fair that it’s happening to humans since we are destroying the planet.
It’s also happening to practically every other animal, and some of them were more sensitive to the effects before people.
it’s gonna keep looping through the foodchain until some microbe finally figures out an easy way to break them down… fun stuff.
Preliminary testes have suggested it will be an issue, but we need another few rounds of testes to be sure.
Please send any testes you have laying around to PO box 609 for testing.
For science!
I tried but the post office sent some nasty email about some dude they called Inspector General. I think it got autocorrected from Inspector Gadget but whatever, apparently they frown on the unfrozen body parts thing.
I think micro plastics in our anything will probably be an issue
How about in our emigdola? So anyway did you say something? What was the question ❓
Well perhaps the microplastics will reduce the overall fertility rate of the human population at large. Perhaps life itself will get so difficult for the average person, they’ll be discouraged from having babies, and perhaps only then will the worst effects of climate change will be narrowly averted…maybe.
One of the worst things you can do to the environment folks. Don’t bear children. Don’t invite another being into this madness and suffering.
One of the worst things you can do to the environment folks. Don’t bear children. Don’t invite another being into this madness and suffering.
As is continuing to live so why don’t you follow through on that line of thought here
Because I hold out hope that the living can change things. But only us, this generation, right now has that opportunity. Having children forces you to focus on raising them rather than fighting the good fight against climate change and the forces that keep it in place. Instead, I’d say your energy is better spent protesting loudly and relentlessly against the forces that enforce the status quo.
But hey, good luck trying to stay optimistic about that next generation not hating your guts as you raise them in an ever darkening world, if that’s the gamble you’d like to take.
Idk about you but I watched the sopranos senior year of high school, and the premise of that show is literally “the party’s over”. I still love my parents.
No one hates their parents for having them.
The idea that energy spent protesting or engaging with work to change our global system is premised on two plainly false underlying ideas, that more time spent will result in faster or broader change (or any change at all) and that people can’t do two things.
My parents had hobbies, one of my childhood friends parents was always out at some protest or other.
Theres obviously room to work towards a better society while also raising children.
Idk about you but I watched the sopranos senior year of high school, and the premise of that show is literally “the party’s over”.
Didn’t watch that show, but I’m assuming you mean “the party’s over” as in the world is already fucked. Fuck that noise, even if it were, then the question only is “how hard did you fight to leave this world better than you found it anyway?”
I still love my parents.
Good for you.
No one hates their parents for having them.
Hard disagree from my own experience. I’ve met plenty of people across different backgrounds who hate or resent their parents for bringing them into this world, and then gave some half hearted “Your generation will figure out climate change” schtick when confronted with the naive question, “Why aren’t we all doing something about it?” The hate and resentment comes when you realize they were selfish and weak. If they really wanted kids, why not adopt? Oh but MY genes. MY heritage is what matters. Why?
Why not fight the good fight and protest instead? Meh, it’s just easier to live a comfortable life today than fight for a better tomorrow I’ll never live to see. I’m still a good person! I raised a beautiful family of people who will likely make the same selfish decisions, but because I cared and looked after them and them alone, I swear, there’s no way you can question my goodness!
Again, fuck that, hell yes I can and should question that bullshit, and break the fucking cycle of selfish idiocy. Not having more kids is the absolute least I can do.
Theres obviously room to work towards a better society while also raising children.
You live a privileged life for being able to fantasize that that is he case for the majority of people. Most people make little to no money, and had they not had children, might look at their shitty circumstances and had enough time and willpower to take a chance and upend the systems that oppress them. Instead, out of fear for their children’s wellbeing, they bow their heads and accept increasingly shitty conditions, all the while praying that somehow life will magically be better for their children. No, you can’t exert the kind of political pressure necessary when there are many more sociological pressures to simply feed your kids. The kind of pressure needed to actually change things requires your undivided attention and an exorbitant amount of your time.
The first like five minutes or something of the shows first episode has the main character explaining how he feels like he got into the mob after the good days, that it’s all downhill.
I brought it up to establish that the kind of thinking you’re doing isn’t new. The way it does that is not just by simply being 25 years old, but the context of that monologue: he’s going into therapy to address his feelings. Because therapy and the ideas that everything’s going to shit and you’re late to the party we’re already well established concepts by the 1990s.
So a 25 year old show can traffic in those ideas not as cutting edge thought, but as old well trod ground so much so that the very ways society addresses those ideas are ripe for satire.
That’s not to say that there wasn’t a winnowing down of the opportunities presented to Americans that coincided with the dot com boom and bust, just that the idea that things are going downhill isn’t anything new. The world has been ever darkening for decades now and as I said before, people don’t hate their parents for bringing them into the world.
Now you had a long response to this and I’m not going to argue that your experiences are wrong. We have different experiences though, and we have different conclusions about them.
It’s not easy to adopt. The poorer you are, the harder it is. When you look into the process of adoption closer than “I want a kid”, there are some serious systemic issues that crop up. I’m not arguing that it’s not worth adopting, just that an ethical person considering adoption might end up working within the foster system instead. If that gives you an idea of how fucked the adoption industry is, that’s kinda what I was going for.
I would also question the tactical usefulness of antinatalism when it’s a strategy embraced by the bourgeoisie to extract more out of the downhill trend. There’s no need to pay people enough to support a family when it’s a completely legitimate choice not to reproduce (never mind that people who don’t have enough money to support a family never get to exercise that choice).
If the group destroying the future is making short term money on people not having kids, who’s really being helped by not having kids?
If our goal is the emancipation of the working class, how does embracing the destruction specifically of that class by giving up on reproducing that class move us toward that emancipation?
The amount of labor involved in social reproduction is significant, but has literally never stopped people from participating in collective action in the past. I can’t help but look at your argument that people can’t work to change society if they have to do family labor as absurd and ahistorical.
I mean, look at the panthers, their most significant program was feeding children.
I gotta take a moment and respond directly to your personal attack that I lead a very privileged life. I’m not gonna get into the poverty Olympics or dox myself, but you don’t know me or anything about my life.
Now you had a long response to this and I’m not going to argue that your experiences are wrong. We have different experiences though, and we have different conclusions about them.
Fair enough. I will say that the novelty or whether things haven’t always been in decline doesn’t denote that therefore, having children doesn’t inherently contribute to worsening the climate crisis. It does. Faith that things will somehow be resolved by future generations and not by the present one is a lazy, kick the can down the road approach that I am obviously very critical of.
It’s not easy to adopt. The poorer you are, the harder it is. When you look into the process of adoption closer than “I want a kid”, there are some serious systemic issues that crop up. I’m not arguing that it’s not worth adopting, just that an ethical person considering adoption might end up working within the foster system instead. If that gives you an idea of how fucked the adoption industry is, that’s kinda what I was going for.
This is a very fair argument in which I am in general agreement with. I would also point out that the decision to therefore “have my own genetic kids” is not the right approach because, again, having children inevitably contributes to worsening the climate crisis.
I would also question the tactical usefulness of antinatalism when it’s a strategy embraced by the bourgeoisie to extract more out of the downhill trend. There’s no need to pay people enough to support a family when it’s a completely legitimate choice not to reproduce (never mind that people who don’t have enough money to support a family never get to exercise that choice).
If the group destroying the future is making short term money on people not having kids, who’s really being helped by not having kids?
There’s no incentive to pay people enough whether they have kids or not. There are no laws incentivizing nor disincentivizing employers to pay their employees more based off of them having children.
The people in power are incentivized to encourage the general populous to have children for many reasons, but one of them is simply that, like your job and other obligations, having children forces you to divide your concerns away from protests and other forms of activism, as I mentioned earlier. You’ve criticized that my argument that the assumption that change can only happen with more immediate action (“faster”), more time spent, and with undivided attention (ie “can’t do two things”) is plainly false.
I’d argue that while beneficial societal change does happen slowly over time due to long uphill battles by protesters, that this change would have been more dramatic and rapid had people had had less obligations to keeping the bourgeoisie wealthy and with a fresh supply of future workers, and therefore had more time to devote to protests and activism. But I’ll concede this is a hypothetical.
If our goal is the emancipation of the working class, how does embracing the destruction specifically of that class by giving up on reproducing that class move us toward that emancipation?
Well, to be fair, the original argument I was making was that the point of not having children was to leave the Earth itself better off than when we came to be on it regardless of whether we go extinct or not.
The decision to not have children in this context is an act of defiance, a breaking of a malicious cycle of contributing to a global society that has over generations come to the conclusion that modern comforts, societal hierarchy, and inherited cultures, are more important than ensuring the longevity of the human race and the majority of life on Earth as we currently know it.
The only ones who ultimately benefit from this endless cycle are those who have figured out how to exploit the majority of people and resources around them to their whim. The decision to not have children isn’t a decision to somehow deprive the powerful of anything, other than future participants in their game.
The amount of labor involved in social reproduction is significant, but has literally never stopped people from participating in collective action in the past. I can’t help but look at your argument that people can’t work to change society if they have to do family labor as absurd and ahistorical.
My argument is that the change a person can make is proportional to the time they can devote to it. Protests that are most effective are literally the ones that occur where people have nothing but time. They walk out of their jobs, they refuse to work, and yeah, they take time away from their families to do so. All I’m saying is that if you have no children you’re obliged to take care of, you have more time and energy to devote to the cause, and can thereby make for a more effective societal movement.
I mean, look at the panthers, their most significant program was feeding children.
Good example, and I won’t argue it. As mentioned previously, my take that these movements would have been more effective had they had more time had they not had children is a hypothetical that I strongly believe to be true, but has no historical basis because the majority of people end up having children.
That said, I’ll concede that having children of your own often inspires those who would otherwise not have participated in social activism to do so. I would contest that you can achieve more by fighting for the children of others than by dividing your attention between raising your children and fighting for their future.
I gotta take a moment and respond directly to your personal attack that I lead a very privileged life. I’m not gonna get into the poverty Olympics or dox myself, but you don’t know me or anything about my life.
Fair enough. You’re right and it was mean spirited and wrong of me to do so. I’ll not make excuses and simply apologize for doing so. I got overly heated up in making my argument, and should have never made it about you personally. I apologize.
so if the whole argument youre making is that people shouldn’t have children because then they have more time to devote to fulfilling the campsite rule is anyone actually doing that?
Is there any indication that the time and energy people spend on families wouldn’t just be spent doing anything else in the world?
if you want some good examples of incentives for the bourgeois classes to encourage antinatalism, look at wages by sector in any country that has a low replacement rate. businesses benefit in the long term from hiring immigrant workers and temporary workers because there are fewer native workers who tend to demand higher pay and benefits.
the word in biology for reproductive strategies where many individuals work to ensure the success of others offspring with no intention of reproducing themselves is “eusociality”. it’s what bees and ants have.
I saw it articulated as “the greenest thing anyone can do is not have kids.” Pretty cynical, but also true. Unfortunately, there tends to be a lot of overlap between truth and cynicism.
“Bad for the environment” means “Bad for us humans”, nature will take care of itself, just not in a human scale lifespan. So not populating because of the environment doesn’t make sense. Why have a better environment for humans if there are no humans? I’m not saying we don’t need to look after the environment, on the contrary, we need to better ourselves and the environment because otherwise we go extinct anyway.
You think only humans are affected by microplastics? You think it got into our blood streams and no other animals?
Oh no, I’m saying on a scale big enough micro plastics don’t matter. But you are missing my point, we DO need to take care of microplastics, because we want to repopulate… the poster I’m replying to is trying to convince us not to bear children. Edgy, but also quite stupid.
Your statement is exhibiting a narrow anthropocentric point of view. Obviously, human beings aren’t meant to be here forever. Just like any individual life form, we live for a moment and then die.
The question is not “how can we survive for the longest amount of time possible?”, it’s not even “how can I get the most out of my time living?”, it’s “what do I leave behind for those that remain?”
In the case of human beings as a species, our best selves are those that leave a positive impact on our environment, stewards of the Earth. But we obviously aren’t exhibiting our best selves.
“The Earth will be fine.” is a pointless statement akin to “The next generation will figure out this mess.” Both statements hand wave away the complicated problem that needs to be solved right the fuck now.
A better statement to ponder is the difficult question of “how do we leave this place better than we found it even if we do go extinct?” And on a more individual level, “what decisions and actions can we take to make sure the world is better off for those that will come after me?” Which then begs the follow up question, “What does a better world look like?”, and also “How can we get there?”
Whining about what you can’t do, or isn’t feasible in the paradigm that is modern civilization is pointless. You can’t have modern capitalism and leave the Earth a better place than it was before.
Very soon, something major will have to change sociopolitically and economically if we’re going to simply go extinct with dignity. Let alone preserve the climate for our children.
So first you say: Don’t bear children. And now you’re trying to counteract my point by saying: think of the children… I’m positive you didn’t even read beyond my first sentence. Cause I’m literally saying we need to get our shit together.
Then let’s go over your post, line by line.
“Bad for the environment” means “Bad for us humans”, nature will take care of itself, just not in a human scale lifespan. So not populating because of the environment doesn’t make sense.
That’s incorrect. Nature is an ambivalent unfeeling aspect of our reality. This is the hand waving comment I was referencing earlier. It amounts to “The Earth will be fine. Humans should only focus on the environment as much as it relates to humans.” I heavily disagree. Humans should focus on the environment to ensure that it remains in a state that sustains as much biodiversity and life for its own sake.
Why have a better environment for humans if there are no humans? I’m not saying we don’t need to look after the environment, on the contrary, we need to better ourselves and the environment because otherwise we go extinct anyway.
I believe I addressed this as well. This is anthropocentric thinking. “Human beings should only care about human beings” sort of thinking. My argument is that the fight for a “better environment”, as you put it, is not for the sake of preserving human beings, but rather for the sake of leaving the Earth in a state that is better for biodiversity as a whole, that is a better world period, whether human beings go extinct or not.
Ultimately I hold human beings to a higher standard than the average person. I believe we are beings capable of great compassion for other living beings on this Earth, but most seem to think we are little more than a thinking animal. I am less concerned with preserving human survival, and more concerned with the legacy humans leave once we are gone, even if there is not a soul to appreciate it, it is still worth doing in my opinion because I believe that is the pinnacle of what humans are capable of, i.e. Compassionate Selflessness.
Now let’s address your latest comment:
So first you say: Don’t bear children. And now you’re trying to counteract my point by saying: think of the children…
Not having children is thinking of the children. Just think about it. If I tell you that having children will make the environment worse, and encourage you to not have children. Ultimately those children that do end up being born in that world with less people in it will inherit a world with an environment under less strain from less human beings.
I’m positive you didn’t even read beyond my first sentence.
Well I did read your post, and I stand by my initial response.
Cause I’m literally saying we need to get our shit together.
On that we are in agreement. The point on which we differ is on whether advocating for not having children is reasonable. I’ve made my case on this point, and unless you have anything to elaborate on, I don’t see how you’ve made a reasonable argument to the contrary. But of course, feel free to respond.
And also, in response to your separate name calling:
Oh no, I’m saying on a scale big enough micro plastics don’t matter. But you are missing my point, we DO need to take care of microplastics, because we want to repopulate… the poster I’m replying to is trying to convince us not to bear children. Edgy, but also quite stupid.
Another hard disagree. The human population is far beyond what it can sustain without oil. Oil goes into our fertilizers, our medications, our daily used plastic packaged products, etc. Without oil, we would not be able to feed and sustain the population we have now, the majority of which live in relative squalor. And we WILL need to vastly cut back on our oil consumption to stabilize the climate. Depopulation will either be forced through mass starvation due to lack of oil and degradation of our environment, or will be chosen by those who opt out of having children.
Repopulation is something touted by the rich to ensure a continuous supply of wage/literal slaves and armies for future nation states to hold dominance. Depopulation will be necessary in order to ensure the survival not only of the human race but also the majority of the currently existing life on this planet, as well as ensuring that the quality of life for those that do live in such a world can be expected to be better than what we have today.
Edgy? Meh, your perspective. Stupid? Debate me.
You need a lot of words to correct yourself, you may sound smart, to me you sound like a hypocrite. let me go ahead and try to summarize, what you actually try to say is: we should bear less children, instead of your first statement no children at all. On that we can agree.
Correct myself? Nope. Just reinforced my arguments.
And I’ll stand by my original statement. Don’t bear children. Leave the earth better off than when you found it, not having children is one of the easiest way to do that.
The only way I’m a hypocrite is if I’m a parent, which I guess you’ll just have to take my word on it when I say I’m not. Thank goodness I’m not. But hey, you and I aren’t ever gonna get along anyway, right? So you think whatever you want of me.
Lastly, can we all just take a moment and appreciate that we got into this because of a question about the effect on fertility rates due to microplastics in our testicles?
Leave the earth for whom then? No one? Everything else but humanity? It’s such a destructive and pessimistic take. And no, we are not gonna get along then. I have a bit more faith in humanity and our intuitive ability to adapt.
My fear is not enough to be noticeable. More than enough to matter.
Ancient romans and lead pipes come to mind
Soon we will all be plastic. Its already in our food and water.
What i really think about is these are only the effects so far from the plastics that have started to break down from when plastics were created (smaller quantities). What happens when the plastics of today start to break down (larger quantities).
Kind of like the effects of oil (air pollution) being felt 30-50 years down the line.
On the upside - they won’t be as harmful as the PFAS in our systems.
On the downside - they’ll still probably be harmful.
Mother nature - y’all motherfuckers are on your own.
DOW CEO - hey maybe the PFAS will eradicate the microplastic cancers! This could be win win, let’s see what happens!
Not a problem for 50% of humans.
Unless they want to breed healthy offspring maybe? Who can say.
I think the implication is that 50% of people don’t have testicles.
I think that the point being made is, that even the part of the population that does not have testicles, needs healthy testicles in order to breed and thereby can be potentially affected by them being damaged by by micro plastics, even though they dont have them
And if they want kids then they still need a partner with functioning testicles.
True, but what would be the issue to have microplastics ejects into you
deleted by creator
