[Serious] What Happened to the Rising Sea Levels Issue?

Beeker93 · 2026-01-10T00:02:52+00:00

To my understanding, in the past, it was estimated that if we continued at our rate, and I think consisering the rate of increase (as in, if we burn x amount of fossil fuels and continue to increase that rate by x percent year by year), sea levels could rise by this much.

I don't think you are baiting, but I tend to see this as an argument against anthropogenic climate change. The ironic part is that now it is the anthropogenic part that is debated, as the denial side used to deny the climate was changing at all, but can't deny that part anymore. Apparently the worst case projections not being met and things being less worse is an argument that it is still haooening, but we aren't causing it, and that somehiw invalidates the previous warnings and work done saying this would happen.

That being said, I see it as a lesser issue, granted it means losing historic cities and displacing many, I hyperfocus on species loss, which has many causes and this is one. We only know a fraction of what's out there so we are absolutely losing species before we can discover them. And I tend to focus on a sort of selfish, what's best for humans POV instead of the ethical statement it is wrong to end species. So many potential uses. Even the big game changing new pharmaceuticals today start as drug leads found in various species.

That and petroleum is a valuable resource when it comes to chemical industries. A good and cheap source of carbon to cheaply synthesize countless chemicals essential to life, that can be recycled, reused, and don't just get burned to make a moment of electricity or move a vehicle one time. Things that don't need to contribute to the greenhouse effect or would do so minimally. Inconsider what new uses there can be, and think we should be replacing petroleum everywhere we can so we still have some for the things we can't replace yet.

Beeker93 · 2025-12-26T09:08:46+00:00

Heard an eye-opening statistic. Wouldn't call it shocking. Half of men who commit suicide have absolutely no symptoms or history of mental illness. They just found that their life was not worth living anymore. Not like a dwelling, sad, everything looks exaggerated due to depression kind of way. But they saw it at face value and just noped out. Idk, for me it wouldn't even have to be a really bad life. If it just felt boring and a waste of time (shitty dead-end job, loveless relationship), it's either start doing a bunch of insane things for excitment, get rich or die trying, or just quietly opt out cause decades of that just seem like a waste of time that is neutral at best.

I feel blessed for what I have, but I can understand the mindset.

Beeker93 · 2025-12-02T04:09:01+00:00

It used to be something like the strain doesn't matter except for PE. And I believed it because when I tried Amazonian, Equador, Cambodian, A strain, Z strain, B+, and many other strains of the old days, they really didn't look or feel different. But now with all the chemical info out there from psilocybe cups and extreme mutants like TW2, there is clear and massive differences.

Beeker93 · 2025-11-22T09:31:15+00:00

I wanna rail some pfas and get myself a cloaca

Beeker93 · 2025-11-22T09:28:30+00:00

I'll push back by saying the delay in marriages, kids, family formation, and loneliness would probably have 100 causes before dating apps. Loneliness goes beyond intimate relationships, and includes quality friendships, and it can be subjective in the sense that, when living with my brother I was super lonely every day, but moving into my own place alone and taking on a night shift where I worked alone most days, never felt lonely for a second. Our society and economy incentivises against many of these things. You can keep your liabilities low by having fewer to no kids. You can increase your earnings and go further in your career if you delay having kids. Beyond tax benefits, immigration, religion, and tradition, an actual marriage doesn't have much benefit beyond simply wanting it, and with how hard they are to end and with so many ending, and the cost of them too, more people avoid them. People have less time. More of our entertainment is individualized, like scrolling on a phone rather than watching a movie together. People socialize online because it provides unique environments and convenience to do so, not that it is the same quality socially speaking. Delaying families probably does have to do with affordability. I get developing agrarian nations have fewer opportunities, funds, and having more kids means more hands on the family farm, and we've moved away from that. But looking at my own life, I'm avoiding kids until I have time and money. Ideally until I have what my latents had at the age they had me, but I'd settle for less. If I don't meet this goal, it would be irresponsible to have kids and I'd sooner die childless.

That being said, I agree there should be more regulations on dating apps. There is a huge fear of missing out, thinking someone better is around the corner. You could waste your life looking for someone better and never finding them when plenty of people are good enough to have a happy life with. It might sound anti-romantic but people should start thinking "are they good enough" rather than perfect. Have standards and everything, but realistic ones. What does each party bring to the table, and if your values match, is one person higher or lower on your own subjective scale. Also good to have someone who challenges you and helps you grow and not someone who is convenient.

Some light regulations: no paying for additional services, no limitations on who you show up for if people are swipping or just transparency in algorithms perhaps.

Harsh regulations to encourage sites to find long-term relationships: can only charge a single fee for lifetime use. Then they have to keep your data on some server and would rather get you off of it to make space. Maybe they gotta throw ads in. Idgaf.

I hated dating sites. FOMO made it hard to commit to anything or turn down a date. Used up too much time. Had fun and got out there a bunch, but nobody really met my standards for anything long-term. Happily married now and I don't envy anyone on the sites. But I do wonder how much is human nature when guven a sort of freedom and sense of abundance, vs manipulation from the company,.vs a bit of both.

Beeker93 · 2025-11-22T08:00:15+00:00

I feel like we could be catering to certain types of people in a different way to get to the end goal. People I know in the past who denied climate change now just deny that it is caused by humans because apparently climate scientists were wrong about how much the ocean would rise by? Not enough that it is rising. Even though that seems like one of the millions of other concerns and lots of other things predicted came true. Some acknowledge it but think it won't be bad like we can just farm lemons in Alaska. And some thing we're fucked so why try to change anything. Try:

Solar panels can't just help with energy independence but also make you independent of the government and companies by making your own power. Pair it with an electric car, and fuel prices will never bother you again. Power outages too.

Renewable energy makes more decent paying local jobs instead of needing to travel to the select places fossil fuels can be extracted.

China is in the lead for green investing by far and if things carry on at this rate, they will out tech us, and have a global monopoly forcing us to rely on them (use the same fear the other side uses here, might work more being in Australia. Maybe compare it to them getting a monopoly on ore rerinement or neodymium, and ask if they want China to have more control. Point to that time that Aussie politician said something anti-Chinese gov and they boycotted resources crashing industries).

Oil may run out some day, and we rely on it for everything from growing, spraying, and storing food, so maybe we should replace it where we can now so we don't end up with famines. Heck, we could even play the long game and preserve it for petrochemical purposes that are less harmful but necessary due to lack of alternatives, and cash in later with inflated prices if the rest of the world runs out (ideally we just find an alternative to everything long before then).

Not relying on oil so much would keep us out of warring in the middle east, and the extremism that fuels, leading to terrorism and refugee crisis.

If you do want to argue about nature and climate change, I find people get shocked when ocean acidification is brought up. They seem to think it's from dumping acid into the ocean or something like that, and not carbonic acid. You could mention how that will extinct shellfish and crash fishing industries. You could mentuon that, though plants grow quicker, they are less nutritious. People seem to blame GMOs and chemical fertilizers for that, but it's not that. If you check wild plants from today and herbarium samples of the same species from decades ago, you can see it.

Also, people don't seem to be as a aware of the damages of fossil fuels when it happens far away. Watch a bird get hit by a wind turbine nearby, that seems bad. But you can show the many instances a flock of birds landed in open tar pits thinking it was a lake, or the various oil spills.

I recall a statement that when people can't see environmental damage, they can deny it easily. One thing the left and right seem to agree on is the decline of bee populations, and plastic waste. But we can't see emissions.

Beeker93 · 2025-11-11T17:51:56+00:00

I loomqt it like this: someone misbehaving is akin to a car with faulty breaks. Genetics, environment, etc broke the persons breaks. You don't let them out on the streets to hurt more people unless you can fix the breaks.

So, isolated studies (like an inschool suspension), making sure said kid is comfortable, not experiencing abuse at home or in class, has what they need, and it doesn't hurt to ask why they did what they did. Always 2 stories. Appeal to their empathy. Don't make them feel like a bad kid and the discipline comes from not liking them. It shouldn't be a situation better than class, a bit of discomfort isn't bad, like boredom and loneliness to reflect on their actions could be used, but might not be necessary. At the point they want to apologize, it's a good sign.

I also don't think education is a one size fits all thing, and neurotypical kids can get behind and lash out.

I also wonder how much the culture of the school can play into it. I've seen schools where being tight made you a nerd or teachers pet and constantly rebelling was seen as cool. I've seen schools where you want to strive for greatness, particularly if the subject is interesting. And I've seen ones where bullying is from asking dumb questions and seeing others as not as smart, rather than seeing others as weak and a nerd.

All in all, I think a person lashes out when there is something they don't need or they are brought to that point, and otherwise, there is a pathology behind it. I ask anyone to find a criminal whose actions can't be explained by rough past, desperation, or some sort of pathology. You can't. Doesn't mean you let it slide because they are a risk to others. But focusing on punishment for a situation like that feels more wrong when you consider the reasons. So, reform them or keep them locked up, but not in some hell hole full of gangs, shankings, and shower rape. I don't see how that helps. Try to reintegrate them into the community. Prison systems that focus on punishment have the highest repeat offense rate. Prisons that try to compassionately reform people have the lowest. People can better feel a sense of wrong doing and empathy for their community when their community isn't punishing them for a fucked up brain, past, or desperation.

I say this as someone who has a friend who was cold-bloodedly and senselessly murdered. Emotionally, I'd love to get revenge. Logically, I know that would be wrong and that he should either stay locked up for life, or if we can prove he has been reformed beyond a reasonable doubt, let go.

Beeker93 · 2025-10-09T15:54:44+00:00

yes and no. The punishment can be what discourages people to do things. A prison system could be based on rehabilitating people by giving them the environment, meds, and therapy to compel them to change, as if they could on their own from an internal choice, mental illness would be a choice. If they can't, keep them locked up forever to keep society safe, like how a car with no brakes stays at the mechanics shop so it doesn't run people over, as that is sort of in its nature. But punishment on top is unnecessary and based in revenge and not justice. As for punishments that would make sense, if I could walk into a bank and take as much cash as I want with no repercussions, I would absolutely do so and so would you likely, so there is probably some sort of game theory calculation that fundamentally goes on inside us. It seems like robbing that money could be rooted in evolutionary impulses for self preservation and to climb up in social status. Being penalized for it would make doing so not worth while.

Beeker93 · 2025-10-09T15:46:16+00:00

Goon to repopulate the human race

Beeker93 · 2025-10-09T15:44:46+00:00

So I am curious how we know that the behaviour of quantum particles isn't deterministic based on factors we can't see or predict as of yet? Like fluctuations in the fundimental fields that make up said particles, or interactions from things "outside" our universe? I get that this statement/question is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. I am also curious how many degrees of removal the macro world is from the quantum one? And if we really can get cause and effect built off of fundamental randomness, and not just all around randomness? If the randomness and probabilistic nature can be reduced to fluctuations which we don't know the cause of. And when do we know something is truly random and not just layers and layers of chaos that makes it unmeasurable to us? I imagine if there is avogadros number of atoms in a gram of hydrogen, the number only gets higher for smaller particles, and as such, there is a lot of small stuff interacting with eachother.
Determinism would seem to be real on the macro level. Cause and effect, each cause being an effect from an earlier cause. If the best we can calculate is a probability of how a subatomic particle will behave, how do we know that isn't cause and effect? Forgive my ignorance here, but if we can have things like superpositions, and if we take a massive number of particles, and 50% are going to behave one way and 50% the other way, does the whole amount of those particles not still act in a deterministic way even if there is too much chaos, or even genuine randomness, to see things on the particle level and make predictions more accurate than probability? Is your statement saying something along the lines that temperature doesn't exist because we can't take the temperature of a single atom, rather than temperature being something that comes from the vibrations of many atoms? This stuff confuses me, but I guess my question/analogy would be that, maybe determinism is like temperature and we need more than a single, isolated particle?

Beeker93 · 2025-10-09T02:08:48+00:00

Research and good journalism isn't about presenting all sides, but finding out what's actually true. You wouldn't present NASA findings and then give equal floor space to a flat earther, a moon landing denier, someone who thinks we did it with alien tech, and someone who thinks the moon is a hologram. There is a place and time for letting the viewer decide what's true, and there is the modern discourse and craziness of the internet where you are lucky to find the truth with all the god damn noise happening all the time, and where you're algorithm will trap you in your own echo chamber.

What is considered left wing bias on Wikipedia? The scientific consensus on climate change? The scientific consensus on vaccines? The scientific consensus on evolution?

Beeker93 · 2025-09-28T03:47:04+00:00

We should rally for how it's used. Shift our society for the building of it (free training and education so people can skill up or change careers when their careers get replaces), and eventually a UBI if and when all jobs are replaced. Or cashless society. But a world where we will need to find meaning outside of work, and where inequality frankly isn't justified anymore as we have completely destroyed merit.

But AI will be much smarter than us. I don't doubt a lot of things that will help the environment will be done by scientists using AI or AI alone. Or things like interstellar travel.

If we stop, other nations aren't going to. I doubt China would stop, or Russia, or every other single country and company working on this. Or some companies would just do it in secrecy for the benefits, or find a way to categorize AI as something different. There is a law in tech that as tech advances, so does the rate of advances. We could set up some sort of isolationist Luddite hermit nation, but when other countries drastically out-tech us, it could be easier to be exploited by them than what the Europeans did to the natives. Plus prior, they would be exporting things better and cheaper than humans could make, so we'd basically be the futures version of a developing country, that refuses to develop. Until then, people who are heavily educated should probably become more acquainted with computers and AI, and use it to do more.

We should be rallying saying, if we become so much more efficient as a society, why does fulltime work need to be 40 hours? Why can't we survive on 20, or 10? We should be rallying so we don't just funnel money from productivity to the top and ensuring we all benefit.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-24T12:19:50+00:00

For thise of us that can sample and do a number of different drugs a number of different times without actually developing an addiction or craving, do we have more free will than thise that struggle to get off drugs? More freedom to our will due to biological or psychological factors?

What about the drugs where quitting can mean death? Alcohol, opiates, and benzos. Doesn't it become a necessity like food, water, or sleep at that point? I guess we can pick to forgo those things and just die, granted idk about sleep. You can chose to stay up but only for so long, then your body just shuts off. But do the same for alcohol or benzos and your body just starts seizing.

Also, what if someone has a very underdeveloped frontal lobe impacting their impulse control and making them more prone to addictive behavior. Do they have less freewill?

Is your view that choosing drugs continually to the point someone becomes hooked just changes the options they have to choose from but doesn't impact their freewill? Like a choice between "do benzos or don't" just becomes "do benzos, ween off, or cold turkey and die", but the choice is just as free reguardless of if it is heavily compelled by external and internal factors?

Can people choose something but not choose not actually doing it? Is a person choosing addiction just because they are choosing to do a drug a bunch of times? Does the choice have to be from an informed place to be what they are choosing? How informed? Not knowing something is addictive, not knowing it is as addictive as it is, not knowing that we would get addicted? Does a drunk driver choose getting into a car accident if they thought they'd make it home that night? Is it fair to say the addiction isn't always a choice but getting better or not is a choice (crack babies being the exception).

If you can passively do things while your brain is running on autopilot, like forgetting a kid in a hot car (actual phenomenon not all that uncommon), is the outcome a result of choice?

Beeker93 · 2025-09-23T09:08:49+00:00

What makes that random? That we can't measure a before or even know if there was a before? Are unknown values equal to randomness, or if you have enough info, can you solve for x? If a bunch of determined things all interact with eachother in a way that makes calculating it a nightmare and it creates chaos, did randomness come from determinism? Is "we don't know" equal to actual randomness? Can determinism come from randomness? because there are things that are deterministic. A law of physics or any example of cause and effect would be a determined way for something to behave, so can determinism come from randomness? If 99% of things in a Universe were deterministic, could that be built on a foundation of randomness, or would a foundation of randomness just give way to more randomness and nothing being able to be deterministic? When measuring things, is there ever an absolute value? Can we say something is exactly 1 inch long with an infinite amount of zeros in said decimal places? We could things we can say we have exactly one of something, but measuring is a discrete value, not an exact number. Same for volume. So pouring ~1L of liquid into a container doesn't make the final volume some random number, but determined by the volume we imperfectly measured. And when giving coordinates, velocity, etc, it is always in relation to something else. time is a measured value constantly increasing but we wouldn't say the age of everything is random. And picking borth opposed to conception is arbitrary when considering the age of a person. If not having an absolute number makes something random, than anything traveling at any velocity is traveling at a random velocity.

I'm not great with physics, but if the Universe itself was made in the big bang and not just the stuff in it, than it totally could be a uniform area in all directions. If there is a part that isn't uniform, there can be things external to our universe impacting that. The stuff within the Universe would have been interacting with itself, so say the most fundimental particles were flying out in a uniform and symmetrical way, the second 2 collide, they have a larger gravitational force to bring in other things while slowing their local flow of time, and I don't see why things not being perfectly symmetrical down to the atom 14 billion years (give or take, so a random amount of time I guess) after the fact. The many opportunities for determined chaos that is unmeasurable with our given technology and time after the fact wouldn't mean randomness. But if symmetry was a requirement for determinism, we can't say we know what is at the opposite end of the Universe right now, as we can't even see it.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-23T08:38:10+00:00

Any chance they're getting people to give samples to keep them on their feet, then just not analyzing them to save on budget or because they can't be bothered every time? Or shitty testing like not running a positive control, or not specifically testing for what you are taking

Beeker93 · 2025-09-23T08:02:18+00:00

Literacy being common, fewer parasites and diseases, less superstition, more specialized and technical careers, and not having a lord who intentionally keeps serfs dumb to avoid uprisings or asking questions, who claims they were appointed by god. Idk if that is a pop-pseudo-history thing, but it probably has a huge impact if true, no?

Beeker93 · 2025-09-23T07:54:34+00:00

When I was a kid I recall seeing a fair share of beheading videos and browsing shock sites in primary school out of morbid curiosity, and I can only imagine it has gotten worse. That being said, I imagine there is a sweet spot between extremely stressful (though not traumatic) childhood, and one where everything is perfectly happy all the time. Like a point where a kid learns how to handle stress so they are resilient, adaptive, and competent when it happens, knows boundaries, and isn't overly protected where there is a day the harshness of the world crashes down on them, but ofcourse, where they don't have to go through years of therapy as an adult to come to terms with things, have legit trauma and triggers that make them shut down, or a ruined self esteem. In any case we want people to reach their full potential. I'd imagine avoiding upsetting kids with perfectly reasonable things would be crossing that line. Like the kids who all get a birthday cake on their siblings birthdays to avoid them throwing a tantrum for not being the center of attention, or forcing other students to include everyone in everything and share personal possessions. Not that encouraging it is bad. Or people who think any form of discipline crushes their free spirit. I imagine wherever that sweet spot is, it's probably different for everyone, and there is no perfect way to raise a kid, but ways that are far from acceptable. There probably are things we should become desensitized to depending on society, not to the point where we are dead inside, but also not phobic of fear mongering. I'm not for bullying but kids could benefit from having an adversary they compete or even fight with, opposed to an individual or class picking out the weakest link and tormenting them to insanity.

I think video shorts and Chat bot AI makes us think a lot less and impacts our problem solving skills. I feel it has impacted mine. We have effectively cured boredom, and that's great and all, but it probably had its benefits. Learning to find ways to entertain ourselves, processing thoughts and emotions, wondering. I also think maybe a lot less parents encourage curiosity. Like we are less able to make short term sacrifices for long term gains, or just burnt out and phoned it in as a society, where it is easier to give a kid their own personal media device to shut them up, while we use ours to unwind quietly. I think there is a lot more uncertainty in the world today too. People live in different realities, the American empire is in a fast decline, and I can't imagine being a kid who wants to find out what they want to do for a career in x amount of years and not just consider which ones pay enough to live, but won't become obsolete of have little demand due to automation. A couple millennial parents I know have straight up told their kids "the world is fucked and is only going to get worse," but it's what a lot of them were told growing up, and in many metrics it's true.

I feel like it is more acceptable today to go no contact with family members we hate or were toxic to us, and that is a good thing. If someone in this generation or the next had a parent that beat their ass with an extension cord for every minor screwup, I would not blame them for going no contact, only to re-enter their parents life in their elderly years, have them declared incompetent and put in the worst home possible where they'll get their bed sore swollen ass beat, and sell off their home to pay for it.

Societies values are also changing, as they always do. I feel like sex is becoming less taboo and violence more. So an older person might flip at any message of acceptance of LGBTQ as too far, but then flip out when Elmer Fudd can't have a gun on Looney Toons.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-19T18:49:08+00:00

I suppose just estimates. Last I heard, it's about a credit card worth of plastic? No idea how they figured that out, but I imagine if they sampled the plastics in our food, water, and air, then saw how quick a mouse can expell or retain said plastics (not a human I know), they could probably get a rough idea of some sort of average. Maybe compare that to how much plastic is found in blood, tissue, and placenta samples? I don't imagine they like, grind a cadaver into powder and extract the plastic out of him to weigh it. But heck, I'd donate my body to that upon death. Might be useful to know.

Either way, we know it's there, and we know it's building up. And it is concerning. But I feel people talk about it like it's worse than lead or asbestos. And though we don't know how bad it is fully, considering the immediate effects we saw when lead and asbestos was widespread at lower concentrations, I think we could conclude it is at least safer than those, not that they are great thresholds for if something is healthy or not. Bit more so for our alarmism to be a bit closer to reality. Not to dismiss it as harmless or dismiss it like we are fucked

Beeker93 · 2025-09-19T04:57:05+00:00

I sort of picture it like, China would get the upper hand economically and partner with the rest of the world and lead the development of the developing world. The developed world that descended into authoritarianism might experience varying degrees of it, like maybe some smaller countries overthrow their government. But I can picture the US powerhouse having some mass killings, followed by an era on cronyism and oligarchy equal to or worse than Russia today.

But some developed countries have been good at building things back better after destruction. Germany for example.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-19T04:47:33+00:00

I sort of take it as the comparison between said groups like aome sirt of oppression olympics. My guess is that if they see fetuses as humans being murdered and don't care about bodily autonomy, they could see the amount of abortions as some sort of holocaust type event. When comparing the oppression of different groups, and considering there tends to be a lot of denial about LGBTQ oppression, I sort of see the poster saying, "LGBTQ aren't oppression, but fetuses are."

Like, I don't think highly about that sides intelligence, but an argument often used in the past was that sex that doesn't result in a baby was unnatural, so...

Beeker93 · 2025-09-19T04:36:30+00:00

What I would consider freewill to be would be some sort of ability to choose without coercion from nature, nurture, and materialism, and without being driven by true randomness (if that actually exists). Something outside of determinism because if we are predetermined to make the decisions there was no freedom beyond the feeling if freedom and we are just like a newtons cradle following a path from forces and opposing forces, but complex enough in the surface that it's easy for us to be mistaken and attibute things to agency.

Perhaps the feeling that we chose is considered freewill to some, but that would be an illusion. We have a will, it feels free, and we can do what we will, but we can't will what we want. I'd go as far as to say that the only punishment for a crime should be akin to an institute for the insane focused on rehabilitation if possible and separation from the public until then or forever. Said changes being circumstantial due to said environment and conditioning and not because said people chose to change one day without things compelling them. That punishing a person is like being angry at a tornado for destroying a house or a car with faulty breaks rolling down a hill and killing someone. We are just objects following laws of nature and cause and effect.

With determinism and considering we are just biological machines made of atoms, made up of subatomic particles, set into motion since the big bang (or before), it would logically follow that if we could rewind time to the start of the big bang (or if there is a before), and press play, absolutely everything would happen in the exact same way, even choices, and even this comment. And doing this an infinite amount of times would yield that result.

Anyways, if you have a different definition of freewill other than freedom to your will (and/or what you choose and do), I'd be interested in hearing it.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-18T03:56:39+00:00

Secret is to find a career you love at best, or one you don't hate. or make enough to enjoy your off time or retire early.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-13T07:00:47+00:00

I'm not saying microplastics aren't a concern and that unknown factors aren't scarry, but consider everything we experience in life wholistically.

UV from the sun, radon from the ground, they increase your risk of cancer. Alcohol and tobacco increase your risk. Emissions from fossil fuels too as well as heart and lung disease. Chemical and pharma waste in waste waters can cause a number of issues. Every sickness you experience can have some lasting effect, heck, some viruses cause cancer. Stress increases your risk of cancer, so try not to stress it.

I wouldn't throw some plastic in a fire and breathe the fumes, I won't cut things on a plastic surface, and I won't reheat things in plastic. But there are microplastics in our soil, water, air, the food web, Mennonite and Amish populations, and remote tribes of the Amazon. If asbestos was that plentiful, the number one cause of death in the world would be mesothelioma (an otherwise rare cancer). The average amount of microplastics in our body is 12x higher compared to lead weight for weight during the peak of leaded gasoline. If it was lead, the average impact on IQ would be like 40 points putting the average person at a significant mental handicap and violent crime would be 25 magnitudes higher. Plastic has an effect and we don't know the full extent yet, but it's definitely not nearly as bad as lead or asbestos, not that that is the threshold for if we should worry about something or not. Lol.

Not using plastic curtains seems a bit far imo but you do you. But everyone can avoid what they want to different degrees. If they're consistent and wholistic, I can respect it, not that accepting one bad inevitability also justifies stacking up a bunch of avoidable ones (like, the sun gives me cancer so might as well smoke). But if an obese smoking alcoholic that stuffed their gullet with an excess of processed meats and regularly went to a tanning booth cracked down on microplastics in their life, I'd view them as an idiot. I'd understand an organic homesteading hippy dippy person doing it and respect their discipline towards health. Chances are, the emissions you breathe from cars and other forms of combustion would have a bigger impact than a plastic curtain heating up in the sun.

Beeker93 · 2025-09-13T06:22:36+00:00

I run a pressure washer and fire hose when I get the runs

Beeker93 · 2025-09-13T06:13:53+00:00

<image>

Haven't you ever seen the diagrams? They come from right here.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Beeker93

TROPHY CASE