This article is such a weird take in my opinion and I think it actively proves why our current media environment is harmful. It seems to be making the assertion that people are over reacting about microplastics due to the challenge made in the paper about the way these things were being measured. Note: no where does this paper challenge that microplastics are 'actually' harmful, only that we aren't measuring that properly. To then extrapolate that to "Our stance towards modern technology is toxic" is kind of wild considering we just came out of the lead gas era...
That site is a political advocacy org for a certain brand of economic liberalism. At least they're pretty open about it:
> The Argument is a mission‑driven media company based in Washington, D.C. We make a positive, combative case for liberalism through sharp, well-argued opinion pieces, original reporting, and multimedia content that confronts the illiberal drift in our politics.
We aim to persuade, not preach; argue, not just diagnose. Our coverage will focus on the politics and economics of growth, technology and society, gender and family.
I am sympathetic to the criticism of the naturalistic fallacy, however there are some aspects of modernity that are unquestionably toxic, like air pollution.
Ditto. The entire issue with microplastics is that at certain scale they might have all sorts of bio-active aspects, like BPA and _other_ chemicals used in plastic.
I wish we did more to honor "Unknown unknowns" and make changes more gradually, especially when the difference is barely consequential. Plastic is essential for many things, but not for shopping bags, drink bottles, etc. We over-use it like crazy, and at this point if we find out that omnipresent plastic pollution causes issues, we better hope we find a solution quickly because we won't be able to get rid of the plastic.
This article is such a weird take in my opinion and I think it actively proves why our current media environment is harmful. It seems to be making the assertion that people are over reacting about microplastics due to the challenge made in the paper about the way these things were being measured. Note: no where does this paper challenge that microplastics are 'actually' harmful, only that we aren't measuring that properly. To then extrapolate that to "Our stance towards modern technology is toxic" is kind of wild considering we just came out of the lead gas era...
That site is a political advocacy org for a certain brand of economic liberalism. At least they're pretty open about it:
> The Argument is a mission‑driven media company based in Washington, D.C. We make a positive, combative case for liberalism through sharp, well-argued opinion pieces, original reporting, and multimedia content that confronts the illiberal drift in our politics.
We aim to persuade, not preach; argue, not just diagnose. Our coverage will focus on the politics and economics of growth, technology and society, gender and family.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/about
I am sympathetic to the criticism of the naturalistic fallacy, however there are some aspects of modernity that are unquestionably toxic, like air pollution.
Ditto. The entire issue with microplastics is that at certain scale they might have all sorts of bio-active aspects, like BPA and _other_ chemicals used in plastic.
I wish we did more to honor "Unknown unknowns" and make changes more gradually, especially when the difference is barely consequential. Plastic is essential for many things, but not for shopping bags, drink bottles, etc. We over-use it like crazy, and at this point if we find out that omnipresent plastic pollution causes issues, we better hope we find a solution quickly because we won't be able to get rid of the plastic.
"Person already sceptical of microplastics papers is convinced by a single counter-paper that he was right all along", news at 11!
I'll place my bet now about PFAs.