Post by robeiae on Dec 1, 2016 9:28:19 GMT -5
A CNN investigative piece on the current state of the Midway islands, relative to their exposure to garbage: www.cnn.com/interactive/2016/12/world/midway-plastic-island/
Basically, it turns out that the Midway islands (more properly, "Midway Atoll") are strategically located with regard to the big Pacific garbage swirl, or whatever it is called. As such, garbage from the Americas, Asia, and even Oceania can and does end up on the beaches and tidal pools of these islands, which are a wildlife refuge and home to lots of birds (albatrosses), as well as monk seals. And as one might imagine, the trash accumulation isn't good for the wildlife. Read the whole thing. It's chilling, imo. Some highlights:
The piece highlights the current major plastic polluters, but they can hardly be held responsible for this on their own. Most people use plastic of one sort or another every day, plastic that goes into trash bins--at best--or is dropped on the ground, on the beach, in a canal, etc.
This isn't new stuff to many people, I am sure. And one might wonder why I started this thread in the philosophy room. To be sure, there are ethical considerations with regard to pollution, but that's pretty basic stuff. Ditto for man's responsibility to the environment, I think. There are degrees, to be sure, but I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that there is something very wrong about all of this.
But here's another angle to discuss, mostly with respect to these "nano plastics": is plastic "worth it"? Was it once, and now is not? Was it ever?
Here's another piece on nano plastics: phys.org/news/2015-11-real-nanoparticles-plastic-environment.html
I'm not one for fear-mongering, but I have to admit I find this stuff really, really disturbing. If the food chain is slowly soaking up nano plastics, that's going to keep building up. Obviously, we don't know the long-term effects of this on animal life, but it's not looking good to me. Is it possible that over the long haul, plastic will lead to total infertility? I don't see why not.
That said, plastic has had a profound impact on standards of living around the world. It's impossible to fully quantify this, but just consider how much plastic is used in medicine. Plastic saves live. Lots of lives. And it's been doing so for a while now.
It's easy to say "goddammit, we have to stop making plastic, stop using plastic," especially if it turns out that nano plastic exposure leads to serious health issues. But there really isn't anything waiting in the wings to fill the role plastics now fill.
So the question: given something that can be incredibly beneficial in the short term but potentially very harmful in the long term, how should one decide whether or not to make use of that something? Corollary: Is one's ethical duty greater to the current or future populations, when it comes to such choices?
Basically, it turns out that the Midway islands (more properly, "Midway Atoll") are strategically located with regard to the big Pacific garbage swirl, or whatever it is called. As such, garbage from the Americas, Asia, and even Oceania can and does end up on the beaches and tidal pools of these islands, which are a wildlife refuge and home to lots of birds (albatrosses), as well as monk seals. And as one might imagine, the trash accumulation isn't good for the wildlife. Read the whole thing. It's chilling, imo. Some highlights:
Nearly every piece of plastic ever made still exists today. More than five trillion pieces of plastic are already in the oceans, and by 2050 there will be more plastic in the sea than fish, by weight, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Some 8 million tons of plastic trash leak into the ocean annually, and it's getting worse every year. Americans are said to use 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour...
When you tear open the fragile ribcages of the birds who did not survive -- as oceanographer Matthew Brown did in front of us -- the sheer volume of plastic waste now in our world becomes apparent.
Inside the slight skeleton of one albatross, we found bottle tops and a cigarette lighter amongst seemingly endless tiny shards of plastic. It's as if plastic actually was the bird's diet.
These brightly colored plastic fragments were picked out of the sea by the bird's parents, who mistook them for food, then fed them to their offspring. The birds can't digest the plastic pieces but they still feel full, which causes malnutrition and death, according to researchers...
ally
These smaller particles are what end up in the food chain. The smallest ones, called nano-plastics, sink deep into the ocean and can end up in plankton. Larger pieces, known as micro-plastics, float in a soup, suspended in water, and are eaten by fish. The fish then get eaten by "apex predators" higher up the food chain -- including humans, or the Hawaiian Monk Seal.
Some 8 million tons of plastic trash leak into the ocean annually, and it's getting worse every year. Americans are said to use 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour...
When you tear open the fragile ribcages of the birds who did not survive -- as oceanographer Matthew Brown did in front of us -- the sheer volume of plastic waste now in our world becomes apparent.
Inside the slight skeleton of one albatross, we found bottle tops and a cigarette lighter amongst seemingly endless tiny shards of plastic. It's as if plastic actually was the bird's diet.
These brightly colored plastic fragments were picked out of the sea by the bird's parents, who mistook them for food, then fed them to their offspring. The birds can't digest the plastic pieces but they still feel full, which causes malnutrition and death, according to researchers...
ally
These smaller particles are what end up in the food chain. The smallest ones, called nano-plastics, sink deep into the ocean and can end up in plankton. Larger pieces, known as micro-plastics, float in a soup, suspended in water, and are eaten by fish. The fish then get eaten by "apex predators" higher up the food chain -- including humans, or the Hawaiian Monk Seal.
The piece highlights the current major plastic polluters, but they can hardly be held responsible for this on their own. Most people use plastic of one sort or another every day, plastic that goes into trash bins--at best--or is dropped on the ground, on the beach, in a canal, etc.
This isn't new stuff to many people, I am sure. And one might wonder why I started this thread in the philosophy room. To be sure, there are ethical considerations with regard to pollution, but that's pretty basic stuff. Ditto for man's responsibility to the environment, I think. There are degrees, to be sure, but I doubt anyone would seriously disagree that there is something very wrong about all of this.
But here's another angle to discuss, mostly with respect to these "nano plastics": is plastic "worth it"? Was it once, and now is not? Was it ever?
Here's another piece on nano plastics: phys.org/news/2015-11-real-nanoparticles-plastic-environment.html
I'm not one for fear-mongering, but I have to admit I find this stuff really, really disturbing. If the food chain is slowly soaking up nano plastics, that's going to keep building up. Obviously, we don't know the long-term effects of this on animal life, but it's not looking good to me. Is it possible that over the long haul, plastic will lead to total infertility? I don't see why not.
That said, plastic has had a profound impact on standards of living around the world. It's impossible to fully quantify this, but just consider how much plastic is used in medicine. Plastic saves live. Lots of lives. And it's been doing so for a while now.
It's easy to say "goddammit, we have to stop making plastic, stop using plastic," especially if it turns out that nano plastic exposure leads to serious health issues. But there really isn't anything waiting in the wings to fill the role plastics now fill.
So the question: given something that can be incredibly beneficial in the short term but potentially very harmful in the long term, how should one decide whether or not to make use of that something? Corollary: Is one's ethical duty greater to the current or future populations, when it comes to such choices?
