71–74 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question was about mechanics of microplastics being different than other materials such as wood or other inorganics.
how is that relevant to the discussion of the introduction of plastics? wood is not a new material; we are not discussing a rationale for questioning the manufacture of wood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Studying a single subject does not make it “poorly done”. That’s not how science works. A well done research experiment isn’t going to test everything known to man. They’re focused on microplastics and they’ve shown what microplastics can do in the human body. And even if other substances cause the same issue, it doesn’t negate that microplastics cause the issue. If others have a hypothesis that “microsilt” (is that…
That's one of my pet peeves on hn, the comments on microplastics studies, or I guess any in-progress science in general. If it's a study on the level of microplastic contamination the environment, or levels and sources of exposure, or to what extent it enters the body, people complain that we don't know yet if they cause harm. When is a study on potential harm, people complain that other substances might also cause h…
I think this is one of the big disconnects caused by a lack of good scientific education. A scientist’s default state is “I don’t know.” The rest of our institutions, if you say “I don’t know”, they want to kick you out of office, fire you, or call you incompetent.
Truth is discovered step wise, little by little, with lots of groping around in the dark. But our society seems allergic to the concept of not having all the answers served up to us on a dinner plate.
Carl Sagan often was asked, “Do you believe there’s extraterrestrial life” He’d answer, he didn’t know and explain what the data was. The questioner would usually press him asking, “but what’s your gut feeling?”. Here’s his reply:
But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most things we designed are just so fucking inefficient and borderline insane, Are they though? We're quite good (and dare I say it: 'efficient') at feeding, housing and transporting huge populations. Almost all the inefficiencies you mentioned are preference and/or comfort based. Society is not separated from laws of physics and economics. Everything is balanced against the cost of those services - when/if costs go…
> The human part of car ownership is freedom. I'm sure the car marketing department agrees with you. Unfortunately, the reality for most people is not about freedom, it's about necessity. A car is simply the only way to get around; there are no other options. Freedom can't exist without choice. If you actually observe daily car users you'll find they are angry and frustrated. I find these daily frustrations occupy a…
You mean the early 20th century? In the mid-20th century far more than 10% of the population owned a car.
On the other hand you appear to have swallowed the WEF propaganda about increasing density to factory-farm levels and making the population truly own nothing, because then they'll be easier to observe and control. That's not freedom.