Can we still reverse the course of pollution?

[Zantos]

Came across an pretty scary article today. For the first time, microplastic particles were found in unborn babies. The pollution is now to the point that we have an unprecedented issue to contend with. As stated, they have no idea what this could even mean for the babies themselves. All they know is that it entered the bloodstream of the mothers through breathing or being eaten.

I think that we are getting dangerously close to the point that we can't fix it and it will be our downfall. At the point that its so far spread that its able to get into our bloodstreams just from breathing, we have a lot we need to start thinking about.

[Yadryonych]

Can we still reverse the course of pollution?

Considering all the food is packed in plastic, living place is basically wrapped in plastic and even clothes are plastic, no, not really. Unless you are willing to roll the mankind about 100 years back, then sure

[Shadowferal]

For the most part I tend to believe that we're past the point.
The past summer does indicate air pollution can be stalled if everyone just stopped moving...driving and using vehicles. The skies became clean and actually blue, a shade I've not seen before.
But the oceans? That's too much.

[StayTuned]

Sure, we just don't have the technology (yet).

Oceans can be cleansed, but we can't scale the needed hardware.

The air, too. But again, we can't scale the hardware.

And since I don't believe batteries will ever be enough to power commercial airplanes or tankers... I don't think we can get rid of all polluters until we discover a new clean source of energy.

Lastly, everything is made out of oil. This dependency will be our downfall.

[kail]

If it ever stops being a political divide, sure.

[Krakan]

We can't even hold china accountable for covid good luck with pollution

[PC2]

Can we still reverse the course of pollution?

Of course yeah, over the long term we can always find better ways to optimize the environment that surrounds us. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the ground/soil, the water system, or gases in the atmosphere.

The claim that we've peaked in terms of our ability to improve our environment is utterly ridiculous and preposterous, imo.

[Graeham]

Technically, yes. Though it would mean businesses making things with the intention of lasting for years rather than being built to be replaced after a year or two. Plastic bottles could be replaced with glass bottles - and they're easier to recycle, too.

Of course, disposable face masks aren't helping pollution levels since many of them are just thrown to the ground after a single use.

[Yadryonych]

Of course, disposable face masks aren't helping pollution levels since many of them are just thrown to the ground after a single use.

Thank you so much, I completely missed this point.

Microplastic found in people after a year of breathing through a plastic mask? Please colour me most surprised you can possibly imagine

[Yadryonych]

Congratulation on not understanding a damn thing about microplastics.

True, microplastic can only come from bad things. Plastic bottle floating in the ocean? Very big microplastic. A frying pan coated with teflon? no way

[Mihalik]

True, microplastic can only come from bad things. Plastic bottle floating in the ocean? Very big microplastic. A frying pan coated with teflon? no way

I recommend you read up a bit on what Teflon is.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course yeah, over the long term we can always find better ways to optimize the environment that surrounds us. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the ground/soil, the water system, or gases in the atmosphere.

That is, historically, presently and demonstrably false. We can consume and degrade the environment but we have never improved upon it because that would require us to stop using things from it, or from putting things into it that would upset its natural balance.

Irrigation, fertilization, water usage etc are all massively environmentally destructive and as we continue doing it we do so at the cost further damage. It's basic fucking thermodynamics in partially closed systems. For fuck sake.

The fact that your immediate environment is hospitable to you, comes at the cost of massive system wide damage.

For fucking fuck sake, please fucking stop with this shit and pick up a fucking book.

I explained to you how you ceaselessly spout nonsense a million times already.

There is such a thing called "sustainability" but that does not improve on anything, it just maintains a balance, we are so far from that, that we could channel the resources of 3 plant Earths into one and we still wouldn't be sustainable.

Stop. You've been spouting the same idiotic nonsense on these forums for at least half a decade. Persisting in this degree of retarded idiocy requires a concentrated effort.

[PC2]

That is, historically, presently and demonstrably false. We can consume and degrade the environment but we have never improved upon it because that would require us to stop using things from it, or from putting things into it that would upset its natural balance.

That's the naturalistic fallacy though. You're assuming that the pre-civilization or pre-industrial environment was perfect and desirable and therefore anything we do to transform it for human purposes must be "degrading" it. It reminds me of Christian thinking where babies are born innocent and pure but over time they are corrupted by the evil sins of mankind.

Irrigation, fertilization, water usage etc are all massively environmentally destructive and as we continue doing it we do so at the cost further damage. It's basic fucking thermodynamics in partially closed systems. For fuck sake.

The fact that your immediate environment is hospitable to you, comes at the cost of massive system wide damage.

For fucking fuck sake, please fucking stop with this shit and pick up a fucking book.

You seem kind of angry. Environmentalists are often hysterical and they always think the world is coming to an end...

There is such a thing called "sustainability" but that does not improve on anything, it just maintains a balance, we are so far from that, that we could channel the resources of 3 plant Earths into one and we still wouldn't be sustainable.

I don't believe in "sustainability" or "safe equilibriums". I believe in perpetual change and progress and moving towards new ways of life. Sustaining the environment of the past and present is undesirable.

You've been spouting the same idiotic nonsense on these forums for at least half a decade.

That's because I think people are confused about how we should be approaching these issues. We absolutely should be figuring how to get rid of pollution but I advocate for an innovation-based strategy where as environmentalists tend to be anti-human because they want policy that reduces human activity. Often times they view the human species as a negative force on planet Earth when in reality we're the only species that is capable ensuring the long-term survival of all (known) life.

[Shadowferal]

I don't believe in "sustainability" or "safe equilibriums". I believe in perpetual change and progress and moving towards new ways of life. Sustaining the environment of the past and present is undesirable.

Always easy to be against clean air and clean water in rural California...

We absolutely should be figuring how to get rid of pollution but I advocate for an innovation-based strategy...

Which is nothing but bullshit.
If it's not happening now on a grand scale then it won't happen later.

But then again, we currently have to wear face masks, with local economies grinding to a halt and you've actually claimed that this year was a great year...that's how delusional you've always been.

[PC2]

Always easy to be against clean air and clean water in rural California...

Well I am 15 minutes outside of city limits. The tap water is about as clean as bottled water and the air is always clean except when there is a fire once or twice a year. My points are about every state and country though, local details are not relevant.

If it's not happening now on a grand scale then it won't happen later.

Nah that's just pessimism about the future. For example China and India may be heavily polluted right now but that doesn't mean their environment will be contaminated forever. Once the technological solutions are found they will be able to drink tap water as well.

But then again, we currently have to wear face masks, with local economies grinding to a halt and you've actually claimed that this year was a great year...that's how delusional you've always been.

No I'm saying if you exclude Covid we are living in the best time to be alive. The people who think life is getting worse are basically just ignorant and they think the past was way better than it actually was.

[Vash The Stampede]

Like I've said before and will say again, and that is capitalism causes pollution. Capitalism needs to be under control in order to reverse pollution. As of 2016 the Chinese government stopped taking in plastics to recycle from around the world because it's an expensive process and it costed the Chinese government in the form of healthcare. It also costs more to recycle plastic than to make new plastic. So we now burn plastic yet again, despite that we separate it from our waste. Either that or we bury it.

During the COVID pandemic we learned that people can work from home, which has the added benefit of not burning fuel and degrading our cars. Yet we now punish those for doing so by taxing them. In China the government began to tax people who work from home while here in the USA we started to increase the tax in fuel. How can we pretend that we care about pollution when we're actively making it harder for people to do the right thing?

Another example is the right to repair. Turns out you don't need to buy a new iPhone or new gadget when it comes out. You could just repair the old one or continue to use it for as long as it serves its purpose. For a lot of people we now buy things due to FOMO, (Fear Of Missing Out). We encourage people to buy new cars, new devices, or new anything instead of continuing to use the old product. Companies are making it harder to repair these devices and maintain them, especially Apple. Cash for Clunkers is another prime example of how we're not helping the environment by encouraging people to go out and buy new things. The Cash for Clunkers program was horrible in that it gave you money for your old car, so you'd buy a new one. But those old cars weren't resold but instead were destroyed to prevent resale. You aren't saving the environment by forcing people to buy new and expensive cars.

You can't actively have a functioning capitalist society while also having one that doesn't heavily pollute. A Green new deal just isn't compatible with capitalism. Someone has to pay for cheaper solar panels. Governments have to pass laws so that people can repair their products. Governments need to force corporations to use the more expensive cleaner technology. Someone has to actually recycle our recycling. We won't because it isn't profitable.

[tromage2]

The best thing that can happen for this planet is that the covid vaccin makes people sterile so that 70% of humans cant get childeren anymore on the planet. Alot might get upset but in the back of our minds we know that this is something that really needs to happen at some point.
Then the pollution can be stopped and the planet improves in 50 years.

[Ursus]

The best thing that can happen for this planet is that the covid vaccin makes people sterile so that 70% of humans cant get childeren anymore on the planet. Alot might get upset but in the back of our minds we know that this is something that really needs to happen at some point.
Then the pollution can be stopped and the planet improves in 50 years.

I don't know about that, then the anti-vaxxer nutjobs would inherit the planet and who knows what they would do with it.

[D Luniz]

we can always reverse it
but in a way, its like cancer
the earlier you deal with it, the easier (and cheaper) it is to deal with

pity we have groups that have done nothing but shift from 1st denial, then delay, then claiming it would be to hard, then claiming it would cost to much, and now are claiming we just cant

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about that, then the anti-vaxxer nutjobs would inherit the planet and who knows what they would do with it.

they would die in massive numbers from wave after wave of diseases we forgot still exist, but weren't removed from the wild, people don't remember, smallpox is the ONLY human disease we've wiped out, others are still there, they are just rare atm.

[PC2]

The best thing that can happen for this planet is that the covid vaccin makes people sterile so that 70% of humans cant get childeren anymore on the planet. Alot might get upset but in the back of our minds we know that this is something that really needs to happen at some point. Then the pollution can be stopped and the planet improves in 50 years.

That's called anti-humanism. The idea that we need to be anti-human and we need to depopulate the planet in order to be pro-human at some later point in time is just a huge misunderstanding. Incremental growth is actually more sustainable than shrinkage.

[Mihalik]

sip.

More idiotic drivel attempting to magically wishful think away basic physics.

You are literally delusional. Or a moron. Or both.
[Infraction]