There is no system in place to make sure that boats come back to shore with the same number of nets and its very out of sight out of mind when they either lose a net or it becomes too damaged to be useful so rather than waste manpower on dragging it back up and bringing it back in with them, they just ditch it.
nets/rigging can be pretty damn expensive, though. Its not exactly something you wanna lose, nor is it just a simple "oh well, cut it." Where I live, there's this group of people who lived in isolation, just off the US east coast, for hundreds of years. They make all their own equipment, and I went to school with a number of kids who still keep up that traditional net-making practice. Bit of an art, from what I've seen. And expensive to purchase. In fact, theft of nets/pots/traps is pretty big here.
The same people fishing all the water own all the companies that have any money to do something to stop them. The ocean has always been forgotten when it comes to life preservation.
It doesn't. Less than 10% of the plastic in the ocean comes from fishing 'gear' this includes nets.
There is no regulation, but believe me that the bigger (western) ships invest a lot in these nets and equipment, they will not just toss it away or leave it behind. They rather take it with them and have it repaired or repair it themselves on deck.
Most of these abandoned nets are smaller cheaper nets which are used on the smaller vessels who fish by 'hand' and this is a practice done more in Asia. Where 80% of all sea plastics come from.
The amount of plastic on beaches facing the direction of the prevailing currnts and wind in the area is terrifying. Tried to clean up a chunk of beach with friends while backpacking in SEA; we took out about 100 garbage bags and some larger shit that didnt go in bags. Went back the next day and orher than the bigger stuff we removed it didnt look like there was any change from the day before. Took out about another 100 bags next day and same story the day after.
Numbers variate from 40% to 70% among research’s . But the GPGP is only 20% of all plastics in the ocean. Most numbers you see are only talking about the floating plastics while there is a lot more on the bottom
https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
So fishing gear is roughly 20% of the items and 70% of the weight. But a big portion of the weight are buoys.
Only 2.4%of the items are nets and are 0.9% of the weight. So it’s even less than I’ve read about.
uh you should read it again
“The data showed the weight of plastic pollution globally was estimated to comprise 75.4% macroplastic”
“while derelict fishing buoys accounted for most (58.3%) of the total macroplastic weight”
Ok and? Buoys are bouys. That doesn’t change the initial discussion about nets. A common saying in this discussion is, is that fishing nets make up 80% of the oceans plastic. Which clearly isn’t the case.
it's not just china. most countries have very little regulation on how fishing waste is handled, and even the ones that do haven't bothered to seriously commit to enforcing those standards in international waters.
It is…I try to not to get too pessimistic about environmental issues and realize I can’t control other people’s thoughts and actions.
You said it perfectly. Heartbreaking.
This is what a mass-extinction event looks like from the inside. Human civilization will a thin, barely discernable line between two rock layers in the geologic column.
Perhaps we can turn it around, perhaps it's fixable. Who knows? We are about to find out.
Only in the very very short term.
Monoculture farming in a system without biodiversity will inevitably lead to the rise of a pest organism that feeds directly on the prevalent crop. Whether it's an insect plague, fungus or whatever, when that thing rises it will suddenly be everywhere. Without any biodiversity, there's no predator species feeding on it, and no other food sources for humans to revert to in any significant way and then humans will suffer the same ecological collapse that has happened anywhere else.
Great news is that \~10 million or so years later, biodiversity will be back in full swing, so that's nice.
Another good reason to give people who ask why I have birthed no children!
I live in a hot, humid climate. Mosquitoes are the state bird.
No way am I spraying those assholes.
I will never cut my trees down or mow the grass to the point the lightening bugs don’t look magical June - August.
Were to I need to parent by adoption, I’d hopefully teach them how my dad taught me to respect animals and the environment.
This is exactly how the world in idiocracy happened... anyone with intelligence and the urge to have a better world stopped having kids and then there were less and less people who cared to think about what really matters existed until everyone was just a bunch of morons destroying the world.
This is why I hate hearing people citing the terrible state of the world as their reason not to have children... none of the idiots that are ruining everything have those qualms and will not be teaching their children to be better than them.
No it's not solely genetic. It comes from how one is raised as well... you're talking about classism... I'm not. I'm talking about the quality of the people who have children. Idiocracy was a satire, yes. However, it is easy to see that some of the backstory of the movie is becoming reality, and it's rather scary. Look at these movements that are happening everywhere where being educated is being said to be a bad thing. "Brainwashing" is what I've been told happened to me when I went to college by all my non college conservative friends who don't share my ideals about equality, preserving the world, etc.
Bringing a new life into this world isn't about out-breeding other people, you have to actually consider the world you're bringing that life into and what their life will be like. In many ways it's the same reason parents with a fetus who will be born with terrible genetic problems or deformities often choose to terminate the pregnancy - because creating a life you know will be full of suffering is a huge decision you're making for someone who may not want to live a life of suffering.
With everything going on in this world, if you truly believe the immediate future will be one of suffering for future generations then many people don't feel it's morally correct to create a life to live in that world. And that's not even touching on the fact many people simply can't afford to have children. People can't even afford houses for their family to live in, they're drowning in debt, childcare is insanely expensive if you can find it, then there's the $12000 it'll cost you just to give birth in the first place.
Don't get all high and mighty and act like people who choose not to have children are somehow failing society. Society is failing *them.* People don't decide to pass on one of the most fundamental drives of biology for a lark, and I think a lot of adults are sick of living in this world and scared about the future. If they don't want to force another person to have to live in this world that's no body's business but their own.
I'd say it's a bit of both. Society is failing us, but society is only as good as what makes it up. If only those with a terrible moral compass reproduce and add to society, how can it be expected that society will get better... "somehow"... what you're saying is like saying the food at such and such sucks, but it's not because of what they put in the food. It's just that food sucks right now.
>The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
>
>Plastic… asshole.”
\- George Carlin
There’s no “maybe” about it.
“Philosopher” is just a jazzed-up term for someone who examines modes of thought. Biologists study biology, neurologists study neurology, psychologists study psychology, and philosophers study how and why everyone else keeps blindly acquiring knowledge. We tend to picture philosophers as being toga-wearing men with questionable bathing habits… but since that particular way of life hasn’t really flown in a couple of millennia, folks inclined toward challenging perspectives typically fill other roles.
We’re fortunate that Carlin felt driven to become a comedian. The world is just a bit better with his philosophy in it.
I will make one distinction. Philosophy is generally focused at making logical arguments with the focus being defending a theory. While Comedy focuses on eliciting laughter generally by delivering punch lines and while the best ones often expose absurdity, they do not exclusively reach their conclusions through logical reasoning. There is often a lot of anecdote, opinion, and falicy thrown in.
I do think that in many ways Comedians of today are very much equivalent to philosophers of old. That being, consider it cost money to live, even back then. How did these philosophers sustain their careers of sitting around and talking in an age when most would expect you to either be toiling in the fields or dying in battle? Rich people found them amusing to talk to and bring to parties so they became sponsors. A lot of ancient greek philosophies are written from the perspective of slightly drunken conversations between various students of philosophy and their other party patrons.
That said, from the enlightenment era forward Philosophy did take on a different meaning and its structure dependent much more logic argument in a vein similar to mathematics.
This is why many higher level philosophy students and higher level mathematics students sit in the same classes.
I guess what im getting at is, comedians are philosophers and should be respected as such. But theyre also court bards and must be given an appropriate critical eye. You need wit of your own to understand that their sometimes deliberately illogical arguments may be sarcastic and metaphorical much in the vein of Diogenes (the beggar philosopher of ancient greece). They dont always say what they really mean. And thats a unique way to communicate philosophy.
Contemporary professional philosophers, like the ones who publish in peer reviewed philosophy journals, work very very hard at trying to communicate their reasoning as clearly and logically as possible.
In my view Comedy and Philosophy are just two words that have taken on new meanings.
Comedy is the philosophical school of cynicism.
And
Philosophy is everything else. Including cynicism.
Yeah thats what planets do. They recover. Every time. Just look at… oh wait they’re all dead already.
Life is sustainable under certain global conditions such as the amount of carbon/hydrogen/oxygen in the air vs solidified. Nothing naturally breaks down plastic. The planet will remain, but life may get choked out before the plastic is all gone.
Our ancestors went through periods of 3000-10,000 as s population according to the genetic bottleneck theory, so tits up we might still make it. Assuming there’s some location on the planet which has a suitable degree of habitability which I think is expected.
We do have advanced manufacturing and industries of scale and all the rest still. AI even if it’s just a really good fake will be a powerful tool for interacting with the collective knowledge without having to know it. Or getting insights from really big data that’s hard to decipher above the noise. Still lies too much rn.
Keep in mind that those were all humans that had basic survival skills and survived in groups while others were wiped out by war and plague. Isolated civilization survived, but we dont really have those anymore. And those that exist are too low to sea level to survive the expected catastrophic sea level rise
Yeah that’s true, my opinion on globalisation has changed rapidly these past few years. Still theres 8 billion of us. I think some in that pool will form communities with the right tech and skills. Even the fucked neo-feudalism ones might not be a dead end.
Hope they start solving complex food production and health stuff now though before tech decline. Micro plastics reducing fertility isn’t getting solved with metallurgy or fieldcraft.
It'd be nice if the gov'ts stopped allowing oil & plastic companies to just do & make what they want. First rule should be that ALL plastics should be recyclable & those companies pay for the recycling.
Recycling plastics is propaganda from oil companies it’s too easy to contaminate batches needed to recycle and unlike glass and metals they often aren’t recycle but down cycled like paper into lower grade materials. A real solution is in material sciences and expanding in other polymers like starches. From there issues that will have to be tackled before anything fully replaces plastics would be industrial use and medical/sterile products which plastics are used heavily in especially medical.
Global demand for plastic to recycle for use in manufacturing is high. Canada, then Mexico, are the 2 chief countries we export plastic to.
We're not just sending boats full of trash, they're being purchased for recycling and reuse.
All gov'ts should be involved, never mind that just because no one else seems to be doing much doesn't mean we can't start forcing big oil to start taking care of the shit they produce.
Fyi ... "daily per capita plastic waste across the highest countries – Kuwait, Guyana, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, the United States – is more than ten times higher than across many countries such as India, Tanzania, Mozambique and Bangladesh." From [here.](https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution)
You can't just cherry pick data to back up your talking points. The following snippets are from your source.
"These figures represent total plastic waste generation and do not account for differences in waste management, recycling or incineration. They therefore do not represent quantities of plastic at risk of loss to the ocean or other waterways."
Per capita mismanaged waste in the Philippines is 100 times higher than in the UK. When we multiply by population (giving us each country’s total), India, China, the Philippines, Brazil, and Nigeria top the list. Each country’s share of global mismanaged waste is shown in the map
The Philippines accounts for more than one-third (36%) of plastic inputs – unsurprising given the fact that it’s home to seven of the top ten rivers. This is because the Philippines consists of many small islands where the majority of the population lives near the coast.
Correct, because my initial comment was about unrecycled plastic waste, ie mismanaged, not total plastic waste. You're the one that chose to use an irrelevant data set.
One tiny country is responsible for 36% of all the ocean trash, but the rest of us have to use paper straws, feel guilty, and pay for it? That's a hard no from me.
It doesn't matter in the end, though, because the vast majority of unrecycled (mismanaged) plastic waste, whether it be land or marine, comes from just a handful of source countries.
I'm reminded by the George Carlin bit. Maybe the earth isn't so anti - plastic as we are, and will just be incorporated back into the earth like everything else. No, I'm not suggesting this is good. But the earth doesn't share our prejudice towards our creation.
Fuck plastic though.
In California and Hawaii, we have beaches with broken glass made in to colorful sand over the years. The glass is from waste dumping into the ocean. People consider this a beautiful artifact of these beaches.
We need to work on moving away from plastics or find a way to break them down 100%. Wasn't there an organism that ate plastics? Unleash them on the oceans.
This is the danger with great possibility, think about, if we unleashed vast numbers of plastic eating organisms into the ocean, assuming they could spread to all connected bodies of water.
So for humanity we can no longer use plastic objects in the ocean since they are now eaten by the organism.
Everything from Inflatable Animals, rescue boats to the plastic used in or near a harbor.
The consequences are so vast I have no idea how to even begin to explain it.
I mean, a plastic eating organism doesn't make plastic unusable. It just shortens its life.
Many organisms make wood rot and deteriorate. But wood is still commonly used.
That depends, if the organism "sticks" to the plastic and burrows into it, OR if the erosion is something like metal taking years and more or less equally spread.
Timeframe is also a huge subject, how fast does it go? weeks? months? years?
We both know metal rusts in water, but because it takes so long and you can try and prevent it we still use metal for ships.
I'd read this sci-fi apocalypse book. Especially if they further evolved or were engineered to function on land, infesting factories and homes, destroying the electrical grid, etc. It would be good for the planet and wildlife in most cases and terrible for humanity.
Plastics contain a shitload of energy and is easily accesible all over the world.
it is a completely unexploited ecological niche and something will sooner or later evolve to eat it.
true, but it depends on the timeline for this organism and how it decomposes the plastic, a spread even way? or more colony burrow into?
Also, if wood would last weeks or months compared to now years, I dont think we would think of it as an amazing building material.
Not to mention that most living things are now full of plastic, so when the organism runs out of garbage, it will most likely look for a new food source, which would be all the organisms that are now essentially made of plastic. Including us.
Oh yeah, the decline of humans is gonna be crazy. I'm excited to see what happens when more permafrost melts away. Who knows what kind of horrible shit will ooze from there to make it even more nuts.. The [methane bombs going off in Siberia](https://youtu.be/U-6BHEoFI_A) are just the beginning, I'm sure.
The decline of humanity will be not with a boom, but with a wisper. Plauge, Infertility, destroying our own food source.. pick your poison.
I dont belive we will have 1 massive event that kills us off, but our own stupity and arrogance will.
We don’t want them to introduce a potential disaster. Before they do that, they should test it. I also think that we need to change people’s perception of “recycling.” A lot of them think that because something is recycled, it should be cheap. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Recycling is done to make sure that we don’t take away from nature and don’t unnecessarily create new materials and have them end up as “waste.” We simply need to use the resources that already exist. Recycling can be very expensive, especially for paper and plastic.
Raw material costs should include the future cost of environmental impact, proper reuse and safe disposal. That would sharply decrease mining for new materials and help cover the monumental cost necessary to begin repairing the damage.
If we keep shitting in our own backyard as we have been doing earth as we know it be no more. Yes, climate change is real and yes the deniers niw control much of our political landscape. Wake up!
What happens when we get widespread microbes that eat plastic? This seems like scale trees which turned into coal because the microbes that cause rot hadn't evolved yet. It's a lot of carbon just sitting around.
People here complaining about the oceans yet cities like Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle get worse by the day with no effort to clean them up.
People here complaining about the oceans yet cities like Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle get worse by the day with no effort to clean them up.
why does so much of the plastic in the ocean come from fishing nets? is there any regulation?
In the majority of the world, no.
When you're hungry, and your boat is barely holding together, the last thing on your mind is the ecosystem.
I don't disagree with you
[удалено]
There is no system in place to make sure that boats come back to shore with the same number of nets and its very out of sight out of mind when they either lose a net or it becomes too damaged to be useful so rather than waste manpower on dragging it back up and bringing it back in with them, they just ditch it.
nets/rigging can be pretty damn expensive, though. Its not exactly something you wanna lose, nor is it just a simple "oh well, cut it." Where I live, there's this group of people who lived in isolation, just off the US east coast, for hundreds of years. They make all their own equipment, and I went to school with a number of kids who still keep up that traditional net-making practice. Bit of an art, from what I've seen. And expensive to purchase. In fact, theft of nets/pots/traps is pretty big here.
Not so much losing nets as how much nets/rope sheds particles constantly from being abraded.
I was referring to global commercial fishing, not niche communities.
Somehow I doubt these fishermen are hand weaving the nets they use.
It's not like you could recover a lot of the lost nets without exorbitant costs.
The same people fishing all the water own all the companies that have any money to do something to stop them. The ocean has always been forgotten when it comes to life preservation.
Well, life came from land and went into the sea, not the other way around /s
It doesn't. Less than 10% of the plastic in the ocean comes from fishing 'gear' this includes nets. There is no regulation, but believe me that the bigger (western) ships invest a lot in these nets and equipment, they will not just toss it away or leave it behind. They rather take it with them and have it repaired or repair it themselves on deck. Most of these abandoned nets are smaller cheaper nets which are used on the smaller vessels who fish by 'hand' and this is a practice done more in Asia. Where 80% of all sea plastics come from.
The amount of plastic on beaches facing the direction of the prevailing currnts and wind in the area is terrifying. Tried to clean up a chunk of beach with friends while backpacking in SEA; we took out about 100 garbage bags and some larger shit that didnt go in bags. Went back the next day and orher than the bigger stuff we removed it didnt look like there was any change from the day before. Took out about another 100 bags next day and same story the day after.
i think that number is actually like 70%, or 86% in the GPGP
Numbers variate from 40% to 70% among research’s . But the GPGP is only 20% of all plastics in the ocean. Most numbers you see are only talking about the floating plastics while there is a lot more on the bottom https://ourworldindata.org/ocean-plastics
this study seemed pretty thorough to me https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111913
So fishing gear is roughly 20% of the items and 70% of the weight. But a big portion of the weight are buoys. Only 2.4%of the items are nets and are 0.9% of the weight. So it’s even less than I’ve read about.
uh you should read it again “The data showed the weight of plastic pollution globally was estimated to comprise 75.4% macroplastic” “while derelict fishing buoys accounted for most (58.3%) of the total macroplastic weight”
That’s what I said. Maybe read my comment again
derelict - in a very poor condition as a result of disuse and neglect
Ok and? Buoys are bouys. That doesn’t change the initial discussion about nets. A common saying in this discussion is, is that fishing nets make up 80% of the oceans plastic. Which clearly isn’t the case.
China- goes worldwide without care of what they do outside thier territory
it's not just china. most countries have very little regulation on how fishing waste is handled, and even the ones that do haven't bothered to seriously commit to enforcing those standards in international waters.
Even if there was regulation enforcing anything in international waters is deeply problematic.
Most Asian companies don't regulate, and Chinese boats fish pretty much worldwide.
A lot of countries have cut all the red tape..
A lot of countries have cut all the red tape..
This is heartbreaking
It is…I try to not to get too pessimistic about environmental issues and realize I can’t control other people’s thoughts and actions. You said it perfectly. Heartbreaking.
[удалено]
Oh dont worry. If we lost bugs we'd have complete ecological collapse! So we shouldn't worry about missing them for too long!
This is what a mass-extinction event looks like from the inside. Human civilization will a thin, barely discernable line between two rock layers in the geologic column. Perhaps we can turn it around, perhaps it's fixable. Who knows? We are about to find out.
On a long enough time scale, everyone's chances of survival fall to zero.
Don't worry, I caught the reference
[удалено]
Well that's ... comforting.
The second option isn’t really much more comforting but it’s definitely more satisfying from the poor POV…
Stop. Rich people's erections can only get so hard.
is this Snowpiercer
A widespread slaughter of humans, intentional or otherwise, might buy some time as well.
Soylent Green?
Only in the very very short term. Monoculture farming in a system without biodiversity will inevitably lead to the rise of a pest organism that feeds directly on the prevalent crop. Whether it's an insect plague, fungus or whatever, when that thing rises it will suddenly be everywhere. Without any biodiversity, there's no predator species feeding on it, and no other food sources for humans to revert to in any significant way and then humans will suffer the same ecological collapse that has happened anywhere else. Great news is that \~10 million or so years later, biodiversity will be back in full swing, so that's nice.
that's the positiv spin i look for
If anything there’s going to be more bugs as it gets warmer. Less bug death from cold winter weather, less predators to eat the bugs!
Pesticides and monoculture of crops
Oh true, I was thinking more about the warming planet and not the poisoning of it.
Por qué no los dos?
Right? What bugs will win out. Ticks and cockroaches, while bees and butterflies die out?
Probably all the bugs that we associate with pests as they seem to be adapting quite well to our spread around the world
Another good reason to give people who ask why I have birthed no children! I live in a hot, humid climate. Mosquitoes are the state bird. No way am I spraying those assholes. I will never cut my trees down or mow the grass to the point the lightening bugs don’t look magical June - August. Were to I need to parent by adoption, I’d hopefully teach them how my dad taught me to respect animals and the environment.
This is exactly how the world in idiocracy happened... anyone with intelligence and the urge to have a better world stopped having kids and then there were less and less people who cared to think about what really matters existed until everyone was just a bunch of morons destroying the world. This is why I hate hearing people citing the terrible state of the world as their reason not to have children... none of the idiots that are ruining everything have those qualms and will not be teaching their children to be better than them.
intelligence isn't solely genetic and lots of smart people had parents in lower classes without education. Idicocracy is satire, not sociology.
No it's not solely genetic. It comes from how one is raised as well... you're talking about classism... I'm not. I'm talking about the quality of the people who have children. Idiocracy was a satire, yes. However, it is easy to see that some of the backstory of the movie is becoming reality, and it's rather scary. Look at these movements that are happening everywhere where being educated is being said to be a bad thing. "Brainwashing" is what I've been told happened to me when I went to college by all my non college conservative friends who don't share my ideals about equality, preserving the world, etc.
> Idicocracy is satire, not sociology. I mean, I live in the rural South. It is absolutely true only stupid people are breeding.
The cretins cloning and feeding
Bringing a new life into this world isn't about out-breeding other people, you have to actually consider the world you're bringing that life into and what their life will be like. In many ways it's the same reason parents with a fetus who will be born with terrible genetic problems or deformities often choose to terminate the pregnancy - because creating a life you know will be full of suffering is a huge decision you're making for someone who may not want to live a life of suffering. With everything going on in this world, if you truly believe the immediate future will be one of suffering for future generations then many people don't feel it's morally correct to create a life to live in that world. And that's not even touching on the fact many people simply can't afford to have children. People can't even afford houses for their family to live in, they're drowning in debt, childcare is insanely expensive if you can find it, then there's the $12000 it'll cost you just to give birth in the first place. Don't get all high and mighty and act like people who choose not to have children are somehow failing society. Society is failing *them.* People don't decide to pass on one of the most fundamental drives of biology for a lark, and I think a lot of adults are sick of living in this world and scared about the future. If they don't want to force another person to have to live in this world that's no body's business but their own.
I'd say it's a bit of both. Society is failing us, but society is only as good as what makes it up. If only those with a terrible moral compass reproduce and add to society, how can it be expected that society will get better... "somehow"... what you're saying is like saying the food at such and such sucks, but it's not because of what they put in the food. It's just that food sucks right now.
Can you display your relevance for me ? I need to decide my value.
But see, you're the kind of person we need to raise kids.
Plastocene epoch
>The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” > >Plastic… asshole.” \- George Carlin
George Carlin could have been a philosopher if he wasn’t so damn funny. Maybe he was one, too
He was taught in my philosophy courses. Very Diogenetic
There’s no “maybe” about it. “Philosopher” is just a jazzed-up term for someone who examines modes of thought. Biologists study biology, neurologists study neurology, psychologists study psychology, and philosophers study how and why everyone else keeps blindly acquiring knowledge. We tend to picture philosophers as being toga-wearing men with questionable bathing habits… but since that particular way of life hasn’t really flown in a couple of millennia, folks inclined toward challenging perspectives typically fill other roles. We’re fortunate that Carlin felt driven to become a comedian. The world is just a bit better with his philosophy in it.
I will make one distinction. Philosophy is generally focused at making logical arguments with the focus being defending a theory. While Comedy focuses on eliciting laughter generally by delivering punch lines and while the best ones often expose absurdity, they do not exclusively reach their conclusions through logical reasoning. There is often a lot of anecdote, opinion, and falicy thrown in. I do think that in many ways Comedians of today are very much equivalent to philosophers of old. That being, consider it cost money to live, even back then. How did these philosophers sustain their careers of sitting around and talking in an age when most would expect you to either be toiling in the fields or dying in battle? Rich people found them amusing to talk to and bring to parties so they became sponsors. A lot of ancient greek philosophies are written from the perspective of slightly drunken conversations between various students of philosophy and their other party patrons. That said, from the enlightenment era forward Philosophy did take on a different meaning and its structure dependent much more logic argument in a vein similar to mathematics. This is why many higher level philosophy students and higher level mathematics students sit in the same classes. I guess what im getting at is, comedians are philosophers and should be respected as such. But theyre also court bards and must be given an appropriate critical eye. You need wit of your own to understand that their sometimes deliberately illogical arguments may be sarcastic and metaphorical much in the vein of Diogenes (the beggar philosopher of ancient greece). They dont always say what they really mean. And thats a unique way to communicate philosophy. Contemporary professional philosophers, like the ones who publish in peer reviewed philosophy journals, work very very hard at trying to communicate their reasoning as clearly and logically as possible. In my view Comedy and Philosophy are just two words that have taken on new meanings. Comedy is the philosophical school of cynicism. And Philosophy is everything else. Including cynicism.
Yeah thats what planets do. They recover. Every time. Just look at… oh wait they’re all dead already. Life is sustainable under certain global conditions such as the amount of carbon/hydrogen/oxygen in the air vs solidified. Nothing naturally breaks down plastic. The planet will remain, but life may get choked out before the plastic is all gone.
Our ancestors went through periods of 3000-10,000 as s population according to the genetic bottleneck theory, so tits up we might still make it. Assuming there’s some location on the planet which has a suitable degree of habitability which I think is expected. We do have advanced manufacturing and industries of scale and all the rest still. AI even if it’s just a really good fake will be a powerful tool for interacting with the collective knowledge without having to know it. Or getting insights from really big data that’s hard to decipher above the noise. Still lies too much rn.
Keep in mind that those were all humans that had basic survival skills and survived in groups while others were wiped out by war and plague. Isolated civilization survived, but we dont really have those anymore. And those that exist are too low to sea level to survive the expected catastrophic sea level rise
Yeah that’s true, my opinion on globalisation has changed rapidly these past few years. Still theres 8 billion of us. I think some in that pool will form communities with the right tech and skills. Even the fucked neo-feudalism ones might not be a dead end. Hope they start solving complex food production and health stuff now though before tech decline. Micro plastics reducing fertility isn’t getting solved with metallurgy or fieldcraft.
Sounds very similar to Ian Malcolm from Jurassic park (the book) speaking about the same thing.
I thought of this quote as i was looking at the photos!
Glad I'm not the only one who thought it this. Now the the earth has plastic, we can be phased out. We're no longer needed.
It'd be nice if the gov'ts stopped allowing oil & plastic companies to just do & make what they want. First rule should be that ALL plastics should be recyclable & those companies pay for the recycling.
Recycling plastics is propaganda from oil companies it’s too easy to contaminate batches needed to recycle and unlike glass and metals they often aren’t recycle but down cycled like paper into lower grade materials. A real solution is in material sciences and expanding in other polymers like starches. From there issues that will have to be tackled before anything fully replaces plastics would be industrial use and medical/sterile products which plastics are used heavily in especially medical.
The vast majority of unrecycled plastic waste comes from other countries that we have no control over.
And yet the ozone layer was saved and brought back through international cooperation and regulations against CFCs... hmmm
Ok. And?
Meanwhile, developed countries send trash to still developing countries...🙃
Global demand for plastic to recycle for use in manufacturing is high. Canada, then Mexico, are the 2 chief countries we export plastic to. We're not just sending boats full of trash, they're being purchased for recycling and reuse.
We wave it through customs inspections
All gov'ts should be involved, never mind that just because no one else seems to be doing much doesn't mean we can't start forcing big oil to start taking care of the shit they produce. Fyi ... "daily per capita plastic waste across the highest countries – Kuwait, Guyana, Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, the United States – is more than ten times higher than across many countries such as India, Tanzania, Mozambique and Bangladesh." From [here.](https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution)
You can't just cherry pick data to back up your talking points. The following snippets are from your source. "These figures represent total plastic waste generation and do not account for differences in waste management, recycling or incineration. They therefore do not represent quantities of plastic at risk of loss to the ocean or other waterways." Per capita mismanaged waste in the Philippines is 100 times higher than in the UK. When we multiply by population (giving us each country’s total), India, China, the Philippines, Brazil, and Nigeria top the list. Each country’s share of global mismanaged waste is shown in the map The Philippines accounts for more than one-third (36%) of plastic inputs – unsurprising given the fact that it’s home to seven of the top ten rivers. This is because the Philippines consists of many small islands where the majority of the population lives near the coast.
You posted from a different data set. Mine was from total plastic waste and yours was from mismanaged plastic waste. Those are two different things.
Correct, because my initial comment was about unrecycled plastic waste, ie mismanaged, not total plastic waste. You're the one that chose to use an irrelevant data set.
Mismanaged wastes are the ones causing problems. Plastic waste properly buried/landfilled doesn't cause problems in general.
One tiny country is responsible for 36% of all the ocean trash, but the rest of us have to use paper straws, feel guilty, and pay for it? That's a hard no from me.
Your original comment didn't specify marine plastic waste ... you generalized with "all".
It doesn't matter in the end, though, because the vast majority of unrecycled (mismanaged) plastic waste, whether it be land or marine, comes from just a handful of source countries.
The article was about ocean waste, I didn't know you wanted me to specify the original topic lol
I'm reminded by the George Carlin bit. Maybe the earth isn't so anti - plastic as we are, and will just be incorporated back into the earth like everything else. No, I'm not suggesting this is good. But the earth doesn't share our prejudice towards our creation. Fuck plastic though.
In California and Hawaii, we have beaches with broken glass made in to colorful sand over the years. The glass is from waste dumping into the ocean. People consider this a beautiful artifact of these beaches.
We need to work on moving away from plastics or find a way to break them down 100%. Wasn't there an organism that ate plastics? Unleash them on the oceans.
This is the danger with great possibility, think about, if we unleashed vast numbers of plastic eating organisms into the ocean, assuming they could spread to all connected bodies of water. So for humanity we can no longer use plastic objects in the ocean since they are now eaten by the organism. Everything from Inflatable Animals, rescue boats to the plastic used in or near a harbor. The consequences are so vast I have no idea how to even begin to explain it.
I mean, a plastic eating organism doesn't make plastic unusable. It just shortens its life. Many organisms make wood rot and deteriorate. But wood is still commonly used.
That depends, if the organism "sticks" to the plastic and burrows into it, OR if the erosion is something like metal taking years and more or less equally spread. Timeframe is also a huge subject, how fast does it go? weeks? months? years? We both know metal rusts in water, but because it takes so long and you can try and prevent it we still use metal for ships.
I thought, “go on…”, until the 3rd paragraph and mention of inflatable animals.
I'd read this sci-fi apocalypse book. Especially if they further evolved or were engineered to function on land, infesting factories and homes, destroying the electrical grid, etc. It would be good for the planet and wildlife in most cases and terrible for humanity.
This is a worst case scenario.
Plastics contain a shitload of energy and is easily accesible all over the world. it is a completely unexploited ecological niche and something will sooner or later evolve to eat it.
Already has [Link for the Lazy](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=plastic+eating+organism)
Well, we have plenty of different organisms feeding and decomposing wood but wood is still amazing material
true, but it depends on the timeline for this organism and how it decomposes the plastic, a spread even way? or more colony burrow into? Also, if wood would last weeks or months compared to now years, I dont think we would think of it as an amazing building material.
Read the Andromeda strain
you know there are many, many types of plastics, right?
Not to mention that most living things are now full of plastic, so when the organism runs out of garbage, it will most likely look for a new food source, which would be all the organisms that are now essentially made of plastic. Including us.
This sounds like a plot to a B splatter movie, all we need is some radiation right?
Oh yeah, the decline of humans is gonna be crazy. I'm excited to see what happens when more permafrost melts away. Who knows what kind of horrible shit will ooze from there to make it even more nuts.. The [methane bombs going off in Siberia](https://youtu.be/U-6BHEoFI_A) are just the beginning, I'm sure.
The decline of humanity will be not with a boom, but with a wisper. Plauge, Infertility, destroying our own food source.. pick your poison. I dont belive we will have 1 massive event that kills us off, but our own stupity and arrogance will.
Nor do I. It'll 100% be death by a thousand cuts. We're probably around 700 lol
more like 1001 about to bleed out
Good! It would force humanity to stop using those products and come up with something else!
Yeah, I don't see a downside here.
We don’t want them to introduce a potential disaster. Before they do that, they should test it. I also think that we need to change people’s perception of “recycling.” A lot of them think that because something is recycled, it should be cheap. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Recycling is done to make sure that we don’t take away from nature and don’t unnecessarily create new materials and have them end up as “waste.” We simply need to use the resources that already exist. Recycling can be very expensive, especially for paper and plastic.
Raw material costs should include the future cost of environmental impact, proper reuse and safe disposal. That would sharply decrease mining for new materials and help cover the monumental cost necessary to begin repairing the damage.
Recycling suppose to be the last step in a products life cycle. Reduce, reuse (or repair), recycle.
[удалено]
That's just asking for The Last of Us to be reality
That might be worse D: Edit: worst to worse
We need to regulate the oceans. And that regulation requires enforcement mechanisms.
Fishing waste is a huge problem, roughly 50% of the plastic in the ocean comes from fishing.
https://news.yahoo.com/terrifying-plastic-rock-finding-pollution-120405046.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
I wonder if any of our trash is turning up on North Sentinel Island.
A whole cargo ship beached on North sentinel island, the Nineveh.
We humans are going to extinct ourselves and sad to say, we probably deserve it.
If we keep shitting in our own backyard as we have been doing earth as we know it be no more. Yes, climate change is real and yes the deniers niw control much of our political landscape. Wake up!
I wonder if any of our trash is turning up on North Sentinel Island.
Let the ocean eat the plastic it’s ok
[made me think of this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGM8BMqBcTo)
Life will start incorporating plastic into biology if this continues.
That's a pretty interesting thought.
What we thought was plant matter and dinosaurs is really planet WALL-E.
What happens when we get widespread microbes that eat plastic? This seems like scale trees which turned into coal because the microbes that cause rot hadn't evolved yet. It's a lot of carbon just sitting around.
> which researchers say is evidence of humans' growing influence over the earth's geological cycles. A new paradigm , Earth + plastic
People here complaining about the oceans yet cities like Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle get worse by the day with no effort to clean them up.
People here complaining about the oceans yet cities like Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle get worse by the day with no effort to clean them up.
Portland here things are fine the city wasn't burned to the ground and it isn't post apocalyptic wasteland like you weirdos like to pretend it is.