Is the world being destroyed?

@Walter Hinteler,

There is a big difference between pop-science designed to alarm and real scientific articles designed to inform. The article posted by Walter is much better written than Hightor's article (and it shouldn't suprise you that one doesn't support the other).

The importance in scientific literature is to inform. A couple of things make Walter's article good.

1) It mentions interesting research suggesting that plastics don't harm certain aquatic birds, and it also metions detrimental effects to the health of other species. In both cases it does so as a matter of fact "we saw an inverse correlation between plastics present and stored body fact". It doesn't exagerate the effect to make a point.

2) It gives a varied view of the research being done, and mentions the researcher by name.

3) I learned a couple of things from reading this article. The discussion of the types of plastic trash, and the search for the pathways of plastic into ecosystems was fascinating (they said that it was difficult).

The conclusion the writers reached (which hopefully anyone discussion this article will actually read) was thoughtful and balanced. This was the place where they expressed their opinion (as is appropriate) The body of the article wasn't an alarmist political rant. It was a balanced diescussion of the research being done, and the results.

Thank you Walter.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

I could have supplied links to several studies, quite a few actually, but figured maxdancona would accuse me of "argument by Google" or something. The most serious threat is to zooplankton, as they form the base of the marine food chain. I didn't see anything in the studies that said that ingestion of microplastics was good for marine life. As with all these types of warnings, by raising the alarm, more attention may be directed at this problem.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The world is doomed. Humans are running out of resources and will only last a "few generations". Our seas are being filled with plastics which is killing all of the wildlife. Population is exploding. Temperatures are rising. Bees are dying.... I am mad as hell. F*** school F*** softball F*** cheer F*** everything.

Just to make it clear.... I am not rejecting the need for conservation, or the impact that modern life is having on our planet.

I object to the overwrought, adolescent, fatalistic view that the planet is being destroyed and that the human race is on the brink of extinction.

I support conservation efforts. I want us to limit output of greenhouse gasses to lower the impact of climate change. I want us to continue to study the impact and sources of plastics in ecosystems. I have have no problem with efforts to make the world better for humans and the environment.

I don't like these pseudo-scientific alarmist posts with apocalyptic visions of the future that push far beyond anything called science. I don't think they are appropriate or helpful.

2 Replies

@hightor,

Hightor,

Do you think that it is appropriate to lie to the public so that "more attention may be directed at this problem". By lying I mean either exagerrating the facts, or making up facts to support your argument.

There are millions of people who believe there is a visible pile of garbage the size of Texas floating in the Pacific Ocean that can be seen from space.

That is a flat out lie that was designed to get people worried about plastics in the ocean. In my opinion, lying about science is a bad thing to do.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

you seem to infer that science is in your corner when IMHO, I see most denial of "Climate Change, Extinction of plants and animals, oceanic gyres of plastics, and a worldwide syndemic " is not a "liberal" brain child. It appears that the Conservatives heavily push a denial based science where the critical outcomes gradually, and not so gradually come to pass.

Even now as we clearly can feed the effects of runaway climate changem the Trumpies have their haeds up their asses so they dont have to listen to science.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The article posted by Walter is much better written than Hightor's article (and it shouldn't suprise you that one doesn't support the other).

f you'd looke at the date of the publication, you'd noticed that it was published in 2015.
There are a lot more research papers and reports published during the last couple of years,

Since 2014, the Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research focuses with the BASEMENT project on the influence of microplastiv on the marine environment (and published several papers and reports since that time). ANDROMEDA is another project by JPI-Oceans (there are two more on this subject, I think, which started in 2014).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Science is not politics. Political liberals misstate science to make political points. Political conservatives misstate science to make political points.

If science is perfectly supporting a political ideology, you are doing acience wrong.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The "oceanic gyres of plastics" meme is a good example of my point. Mamy people belive that there is a visible "floating island" of trash the "size of Texas" that you can moor a boat to and can be seen from space. That is simply untrue, a fabricated lie to cause alarm.

The fact is that it is diffocult to detect this region from a boat, these are tiny particles that are dospersed and difficult to see with the naked eye.

That doesnt mean that this "patch" of barely visible microparticles isnt important.

I am just saying that the mental images of piles of garbage swirling in a "vortex" in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are fiction designed to provoke alarm.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I don't know how many seamiles you travelled in how many oceans, max.

I admit that my experiences are limited to the Baltic Sea and the parts of the Atlantic (roughly from the Gulf of Biscaya to the northern parts of the North Sea).

But what I did notice was that in 60's/70's/80's the dangers really was from "plastic", visible and invisible (ever got parts of a plastic fishing net in the propeller?).
And 'yes' there were "piles of garbage" like there are today, from plastic bottles over oil barrels (mainly in last century) to containers.
No 'mental images' needed but a good eyesight.

But now back to micro- and nano-plastic.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter, you are missing the point (or avoiding the point).

There is a widespread belief that there is a swirling pile of trash in the Pacific ocean the size of Texas. The fact is that there are a couple of regions with elevated concentrations of barefly visible microparticles.

My point isn't about trash in the Baltic. I am sure your anectdotes are true and just as disturbing as you say. But they aren't relevant to the point.

The point is the people exagerrate and fabricate scientific "facts" to fit a political narrative. The swirling vortex of trash in the Pacific Ocean visible from space is a perfect example of this.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I am advocating for a balanced and moderate view of the facts.

1) We should put science above politics (this means accepting the science even when it supports the other political "side").

2) We should accept the science for as far as the science goes and no further.

3) Yes, science says that the mean temperatures on Earth will rise by several degrees. Yes the science says that the oceans will rise up to a meter or two, and there will be changes to climate patters.

4) No, the science does not say that even in the worst realistic prediction that humanity will become exinct or that civilizations will collapse. That is science fiction.

5) Yes science shows a marked increase in microplastics in the evironment. And yes, there is too much garbage in the evironment. Yes there have been some limited negative impacts on species.

6) No, science does not show widespread toxicity to wildlife from plastics. It shows a limited reproductive decrease in some animals, but not to the point of a widespread threat. In many species plastics show no harmful (or beneficial) effect).

If your goal is to spread alarm for political gain, you can take certain lines from certain studies. And you can exegerate microplastics into fictional floating islands of trash.

If your goal is to be informed, you will take a balanced look at the science. You will question your own political bias and listen to the answers from actual scientists.

If you are taking all of the sensationalized, alarming damning snippets from the popular science press... that isn't science. That is a fictionalized horror landscape that doesn't reflect reality.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I object to the overwrought, adolescent, fatalistic view that the planet is being destroyed and that the human race is on the brink of extinction.

I don't think I've read anyone expressing that view here. Even the OP posed the topic as a question.

Quote:

I don't think they are appropriate or helpful.

We're so lucky to have a schoolmarm around to tell us what's appropriate and helpful.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If your goal is to be informed, you will take a balanced look at the science. You will question your own political bias and listen to the answers from actual scientists.

Just the idea that I would only read from a politically homogeneous group of scientists who are prone to produce biased research and would overlook flawed results simply because the findings align with my own political worldview is ridiculous.

I don't take a balanced look at the science but read it as written.
When I read science, I read science and not a political opinion (even if it's a report in political sciences).

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I am glad to hear that.

My understanding of the point of this thread is that humans are "destroying" the planet. I am pretty sure that Hightor suggested that human civilization would collapse in a "few generations".

My impression is that this thread is pushing an apocalyptic view of human progress.

If this thread is just a repository of bad news (ignoring any good news), then may be my objections are inappropriate.

1) The scientific community has identified human caused climate change as one of the most serious issues we face. The are predicting serious storms, rising oceans (of maybe a meter or two), climate upsets to ecosystems with serious impact on human societies. This is considered to be settled science by every major scientific institution.

2) The scientific community is not predicting the end of humanity or the collapse of human civilization from even the worst realistic predictions of climate change. There are a few rogue scientists predicting the apocalypse. The sciencie community at large is not making these end of world predictions.

0 Replies

In issue after issue political interests exagerrate the science....

There is a end of the world myth that honey bees are about to disappear and that this will make society collapse.

The entymologist community isn't saying this. There was some truth behind this story (althought that is changing)... but the calamitous predictions of doom were always fiction.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is a widespread belief that there is a swirling pile of trash in the Pacific ocean the size of Texas.

Someone on Quora asked, "Is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch a hoax? Why aren't there any photos of it? Only close ups of beaches?"

This seems to be a perfectly good explanation:

Quote:

Because the garbage patch is not sufficiently dense to make a good photo - it just looks like the sea, with maybe one or two visible plastic items. There is an enormous amount of plastic that has ended up in the gyre, but it’s also hundreds of km across; and much floating plastic is not visible from the surface anyway - it floats just at or below it. The combined result of these things is that any photo of the ‘great garbage patch’ has very little visible garbage. Beaches collect much denser assemblages of plastic and thus make much more effective photos when one is trying to illustrate the (genuinely massive) problem.

maxdancona wrote:

The swirling vortex of trash in the Pacific Ocean visible from space is a perfect example of this.

It's possible that that particular story gained traction after the magnitude 9 earthquake that struck Japan in 2011. That generated lots of visible debris and people might have assumed it was the Pacific gyre but it was off the coast of Japan.

According to National Geographic:

Quote:

For many people, the idea of a “garbage patch” conjures up images of an island of trash floating on the ocean. In reality, these patches are almost entirely made up of tiny bits of plastic, called microplastics. Microplastics can’t always be seen by the naked eye. Even satellite imagery doesn’t show a giant patch of garbage. The microplastics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can simply make the water look like a cloudy soup. This soup is intermixed with larger items, such as fishing gear and shoes. The seafloor beneath the Great Pacific Garbage Patch may also be an underwater trash heap. Oceanographers and ecologists recently discovered that about 70% of marine debris actually sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

Quote:

My impression is that this thread is pushing an apocalyptic view of human progress.

I don't think anyone but you is pushing a particular viewpoint. I restarted abid007's long dormant thread as a way to collect articles dealing with the topic of collapse, so as not to clutter up the thread about global warming with material only tangentially related. My only specific claim is that human progress is paradoxical – I'm not trying to push that as a political or ideological message, it's just something that is well-illustrated by these accounts.

2 Replies

@hightor,

It’s possible to detect aggregated patches of macroplastics floating in coastal waters using optical data acquired by satellites. (Dr Lauren Biermann of Plymouth Marine Laboratory used optical data acquired by the European Space Agency in her groundbreaking research.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

You are really good with non-sequitors Walter.

That is a cool piece of engineering though.

0 Replies

@hightor,

I came to this zombie thread because you seemed to be arguing that human civilization is on the brink of collapse in (and I quote) "one or two generations.

If it weren't for the hyperbole, I probably wouldnt have found this thread interesting enough to jump into.

This whole thread reads like ecological outrage porn.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If science is perfectly supporting a political ideology, you are doing acience wrong

based upon what ive read from your pov, i think you should take some of what you preach about others, to heart

0 Replies

Is the world being destroyed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know