Welcome to Thunderdome

Vince wrote: Lots of questions crop up for me reading this.

Ask 'em.

Hotel giant doing away with mini-toiletries.

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote: Lots of questions crop up for me reading this.

Ask 'em.

How wide spread is this issue? The study was done on coastal birds in Australia. Where does the ocean plastic that hits Australia come from? The article claims that no matter how much or how little plastic is ingested, it didn't seem to matter. That leads me to ask the confidence that they're actually looking at the growth issues being a problem of the plastic. That wouldn't seem to track.

Vince wrote: How wide spread is this issue?

It's in drinking water around the world.

Point being, Plastic pollution is everywhere. That link has tons of data on how much plastic we're making as a planet and how we are not dealing with it properly.

Also, (Gordon pay attention) note the map showing the U.S. being the second biggest contributor of plastic waste per person daily. Then note what countries and continents deal with it the best. We use a fuckton of plastic, but we're pretty damn good at cleaning up after ourselves. However, we need to spread our efforts and methods overseas. The problem is they don't give a fuck. They have different priorities.

Leisher wrote: It's in drinking water around the world.

I was specifically asking how wide spread the bird issue is.

Vince wrote:

Leisher wrote: It's in drinking water around the world.

I was specifically asking how wide spread the bird issue is.

Seabirds being affected by plastic in our oceans around the world is a known issue and discussed in the article.

Nearly every seabird on earth is eating plastic; around 90% are carrying the material in their stomachs, according a WWF report last year that supported previous studies.

What makes this more fun is we are also eating plastic.

Leisher wrote:[
Seabirds being affected by plastic in our oceans around the world is a known issue and discussed in the article.

Possibly, but they haven't shown birds outside of the area they studied are suffering from these specific issues. I grant as a given that birds everywhere are probably eating some plastic. Since they've already stated it doesn't matter how much or how little plastic ingested causes these issues, then these specific issues should be easily shown to be occurring everywhere.

Sorry to be such a stickler here, but they've lied too often for me to trust without verifying.

And even if you verify , you still.cant change anything.

GORDON wrote: And even if you verify , you still.cant change anything.

Irish kid on his way to proving Gordon wrong.

My prediction is that within 5 years this method will not be implemented in any meaningful way.

Leisher wrote:

GORDON wrote: And even if you verify , you still.cant change anything.

Irish kid on his way to proving Gordon wrong.

Pshaw.

Vince wrote: My prediction is that within 5 years this method will not be implemented in any meaningful way.

I very much hope you're wrong. It'd be nice if science found solutions for pollution since humans refuse to do shit about it.

If this is for the microplastics in waste water only, I guess the turtles and birds will still be choking on the bigger stuff?

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote: My prediction is that within 5 years this method will not be implemented in any meaningful way.

I very much hope you're wrong. It'd be nice if science found solutions for pollution since humans refuse to do shit about it.

Only thing to do is wipe out most of the 3rd world. NEVER going to fix problems from those areas. They're going to pump plastics into the water a million times faster than micro plastic machines are going to clean it up.

Vince wrote: If this is for the microplastics in waste water only, I guess the turtles and birds will still be choking on the bigger stuff?

Someone has also developed a bacteria that eats plastic, but I think it's still in research to make sure it only eats plastic and what the side effects could/will be.

GORDON wrote:

Leisher wrote:

Vince wrote: My prediction is that within 5 years this method will not be implemented in any meaningful way.

I very much hope you're wrong. It'd be nice if science found solutions for pollution since humans refuse to do shit about it.

Only thing to do is wipe out most of the 3rd world. NEVER going to fix problems from those areas. They're going to pump plastics into the water a million times faster than micro plastic machines are going to clean it up.

Here's something we can 100% agree upon. If you reduced the population by 50% overnight, that would honestly go father towards helping the environment than anything else.

They're actively wishing they had MORE access to plastics that they can dump.

I realize my thoughts have taken a dark turn lately, but seriously it's to the point where there's too many people, and I'll be criticized for saying it right up to the point they choke the planet.

GORDON wrote: I realize my thoughts have taken a dark turn lately, but seriously it's to the point where there's too many people, and I'll be criticized for saying it right up to the point they choke the planet.

The green extremists have been agreeing with your stance here for a long time.

It's mainstream, now. Every day we're getting bombarded with "point of no return" apocalyptica. That we're going to destroy humanity on earth. And then people say save the turtles? Tells me if they're right then there's no hope, and there's also no one sane with a plan running the show.

And it took me a while to become inured to the idea that not every human deserves to breed.

GORDON wrote: It's mainstream, now. Every day we're getting bombarded with "point of no return" apocalyptica. That we're going to destroy humanity on earth. And then people say save the turtles? Tells me if they're right then there's no hope, and there's also no one sane with a plan running the show.

And it took me a while to become inured to the idea that not every human deserves to breed.

It's been mainstream for a while. This goes back to my saying they've been lying so long that many don't listen to them anymore. Paul Ehrlich had the number at one billion, I think, when mass starvation would occur. I think his best selling book came out in the late 60's. Today we're at 7x that population and global obesity is a bigger issue than global starvation.

I'm kind of Zen about it. I think nature will adjust. The infant mortality in the inner cities is rising. There are probably a number of underlying specific reasons for this, but I think it all falls under the category of human saturation in those areas. Even now the population of western culture is in decline. As soon as these other cultures overwhelm things, there will be massive global wars with huge die-offs of humans again and things will balance again.

In Europe there is a mutated crayfish that just clones itself continuously. They sell them as pets, I think. People are freaking out because they're causing massive disruptions in the ecosystems where they show up, but the biologists aren't too upset. Apparently this happens every so often. It's happened before. They do some damage for a while, and then they'll run out of resources in the area and starve off and everything sort of resets. Eventually they will become afflicted with a disease that they are susceptible to and because they are all clones it will pretty much wipe out that strain of them. Then in some number of decades another version of the clone will pop up and it will start again.

I'm more concerned with what we do thinking we're helping. If given the choice of wiping out mankind and saving mankind but losing our humanity in the process, then I don't think we're worth saving as a species.