We've ruined the sea

[Napoléon]

I don't even know why I am bothering sharing this shit to be honest.

It might just make people care about the environment that bit more that they try and do something about it.

It's the careless attitude that's already led to this mess.

[naimless]

I don't even know why I am bothering sharing this shit to be honest.

It might just make people care about the environment that bit more that they try and do something about it.

It's the careless attitude that's already led to this mess.

Yes, and that is always the initial intention, to help people... but then I realise how the majority of other people probably genuinely believe a sieve might actually help re-separate things at a molecular level and I don't actually want to live on this planet any more.

I mean, I can't communicate this in a way which average people genuinely have empathy with. You're right, people do have a careless attitude, and it does lead to this mess. But their lack of education or tolerance for sincerity probably isn't through choice and it probably allows them to live a happier existence than all of us aware of how fucked the resources are for 7 billion + people, and especially for those of us who aren't going to Disneyland after we die.

I think I'd rather think that this could be solved with a sieve. After all, me not using plastic for the rest of my life still isn't going to give me a clean conscience when I have to pay taxes to a government that thinks depleted uranium missiles are a good idea.

It's never the facts or the severity of nature that bothers me... it's just trying to co-exist with people who I know can't comprehend it in a similar way and probably never will, no matter how many ways I try and communicate it.

[Autumnlicious]

Yes, and that is always the initial intention, to help people... but then I realise how the majority of other people probably genuinely believe a sieve might actually help re-separate things at a molecular level and I don't actually want to live on this planet any more.

The majority of people would shrug their shoulders and say "So?"

They wouldn't even care to envision a solution.

Of course, if they get panicked into action, they might choose to follow some sieve toting jackass.

I mean, I can't communicate this in a way which average people genuinely have empathy with. You're right, people do have a careless attitude, and it does lead to this mess. But their lack of education or tolerance for sincerity probably isn't through choice and it probably allows them to live a happier existence than all of us aware of how fucked the resources are for 7 billion + people, and especially for those of us who aren't going to Disneyland after we die.

To communicate to others not like yourself requires you to, in some way, pick up their mannerisms, their concerns and most importantly, how they go about identifying a problem.

Asking questions on an increasingly specific level is useful as a tactic for mapping such.

I think I'd rather think that this could be solved with a sieve. After all, me not using plastic for the rest of my life still isn't going to give me a clean conscience when I have to pay taxes to a government that thinks depleted uranium missiles are a good idea.

Now we see why you can't communicate.

Ironically, you're manner of thinking for the quoted above is precisely how the common parsnip... I mean person thinks.

Let's diagram it out:
1) You encounter a problem (garbage plastic in the ocean)!
2) You think up a simplistic solution that will never work.
(Please note said solution may have parts of it included into a much greater and more complex solution)

3) You come up with a Prohibition-style answer if the former simplistic solution would not work
3A) You do not notice that Prohibition is a simple answer in it of itself and suffers from the same faults the first solution runs into

4) Bargaining. You bargain away your disappointment at there being unpleasant solutions that you thought of by exchanging it with another "evil".

5) And that's where you give up.

Surprisingly, I've grown very used to defusing precisely the above, but only if I can inject before step 2 something like:
" 2A) Assuage yourself or the other that it is not hopeless/lost/impossible."
" 2B) Setup a collaboration between learned experts to consult on methodologies from solving 1)"
" 2C) Based on the cost-benefits analysis of 2B, decide upon a course of action to support."
" 2D) Continue on evaluating through your ideas and compare/contrast."

It's never the facts or the severity of nature that bothers me... it's just trying to co-exist with people who I know can't comprehend it in a similar way and probably never will, no matter how many ways I try and communicate it.

If I can teach a six year old girl on the public subway the essential background of wave/particle duality using shoes, mirrored surfaces (windows) and arm gestures, what makes you think that the other (they) can't comprehend it in a similar way?

The primary rejection of external, deeper thoughts for most people is an identification of the other as "not friendly".

When you assuage them, build a rapport, have them trust your approach, you'll find other people to give you many deep and interesting insights of their own.

[naimless]

I think I'd rather think that this could be solved with a sieve. After all, me not using plastic for the rest of my life still isn't going to give me a clean conscience when I have to pay taxes to a government that thinks depleted uranium missiles are a good idea.

Now we see why you can't communicate.

Ironically, you're manner of thinking for the quoted above is precisely how the common parsnip... I mean person thinks.

Let's diagram it out:
1) You encounter a problem (garbage plastic in the ocean)!
2) You think up a simplistic solution that will never work.
(Please note said solution may have parts of it included into a much greater and more complex solution)

3) You come up with a Prohibition-style answer if the former simplistic solution would not work
3A) You do not notice that Prohibition is a simple answer in it of itself and suffers from the same faults the first solution runs into

4) Bargaining. You bargain away your disappointment at there being unpleasant solutions that you thought of by exchanging it with another "evil".

5) And that's where you give up.
Surprisingly, I've grown very used to defusing precisely the above, but only if I can inject before step 2 something like:
" 2A) Assuage yourself or the other that it is not hopeless/lost/impossible."
" 2B) Setup a collaboration between learned experts to consult on methodologies from solving 1)"
" 2C) Based on the cost-benefits analysis of 2B, decide upon a course of action to support."
" 2D) Continue on evaluating through your ideas and compare/contrast."

The long term cost-benefit analysis to humanity is very different to the cost-benefit analysis of a politician funded by business lobbyists. Generally the latter have an "exit strategy" or just a realisation that their death is probably coming a lot quicker than the death of humanity.

It's never the facts or the severity of nature that bothers me... it's just trying to co-exist with people who I know can't comprehend it in a similar way and probably never will, no matter how many ways I try and communicate it.

If I can teach a six year old girl on the public subway the essential background of wave/particle duality using shoes, mirrored surfaces (windows) and arm gestures, what makes you think that the other (they) can't comprehend it in a similar way?

The primary rejection of external, deeper thoughts for most people is an identification of the other as "not friendly".

When you assuage them, build a rapport, have them trust your approach, you'll find other people to give you many deep and interesting insights of their own.

In my experience, six year olds are genuinely a lot wiser than adults who are already socially conditioned and have a lot invested in plastic.

[Autumnlicious]

The long term cost-benefit analysis to humanity is very different to the cost-benefit analysis of a politician funded by business lobbyists. Generally the latter have an "exit strategy" or just a realisation that their death is probably coming a lot quicker than the death of humanity.

To agree with the above requires me to accept that lobbyist corruption in Washington is immutable and permanent.

However, given that nations rise and fall on the scale of several hundred years, it's quite clear the even Washington isn't immutable by any sense of the word.

If anything, one would need to look at it in terms of generations and cultural attitudes engrained.

As it stands now, the generation mostly in power has a belief in bargaining, mania and depression.

It stands to reason that the next generation that is passed on a fair bulk of the decision making power is not completely beholding the prior generation's beliefs.

If that wasn't true, then we'd still be wrestling over when to give Blacks the right to vote.

In my experience, six year olds are genuinely a lot wiser than adults who are already socially conditioned and have a lot invested in plastic.

Six year old children are variable. They are human.

Humans can learn... when they want to.

[naimless]

The long term cost-benefit analysis to humanity is very different to the cost-benefit analysis of a politician funded by business lobbyists. Generally the latter have an "exit strategy" or just a realisation that their death is probably coming a lot quicker than the death of humanity.

To agree with the above requires me to accept that lobbyist corruption in Washington is immutable and permanent.

However, given that nations rise and fall on the scale of several hundred years, it's quite clear the even Washington isn't immutable by any sense of the word.

If anything, one would need to look at it in terms of generations and cultural attitudes engrained.

As it stands now, the generation mostly in power has a belief in bargaining, mania and depression.

It stands to reason that the next generation that is passed on a fair bulk of the decision making power is not completely beholding the prior generation's beliefs.

If that wasn't true, then we'd still be wrestling over when to give Blacks the right to vote.

Considering there are still warlords in Liberia who murder and drink the blood of innocent children to feel invincible before engaging in massacre, I'm not sure that adapting blacks back into society after slavery worked very well.

In my experience, six year olds are genuinely a lot wiser than adults who are already socially conditioned and have a lot invested in plastic.

Six year old children are variable. They are human.

Humans can learn... when they want to.

There are things that determine what a human wants. TV "programs" for example.

People are very limited to what they have experienced.

[Something completely different]

YES!

I think "Vice magazine" has far to few suscribers and I think they do epic investigative journalism!

Heres some rep for suscribing to them!

[popeyespappy]

Here’s my plan.

Euthanize everybody but me (and a couple of dozen gorgeous women.) In a few decades humans will be gone entirely (I’m fixed.) In a million years or so either the oceans will have healed themselves, or life will have adapted to the new norm.

Problem solved.

[naimless]

YES!

I think "Vice magazine" has far to few suscribers and I think they do epic investigative journalism!

Heres some rep for suscribing to them!

I have a thread on it here in case you are interested:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17326.html

Would love to find more media outlets that cover things I can't get on the mainstream news.

[festive1]

This is my only holdback when it comes to having kids. What are we leaving them? A world where women's breastmilk is going to be so toxic they have to use formula? Then my 6 year old smiles at me and tells me he's going to invent a machine to fix the holes in the ozone layer.