this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
129 points (93.9% liked)

Science Memes

16994 readers
2250 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Seeing as we don't fully understand the effects of micro plastics, it might not be.

I'm still convinced that micro plastics will be the final nail in humanity's coffin, not climate change.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

humanity’s

idiocracy but plastics based - yep.

[–] somethingp@lemmy.world 32 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

I think worrying about something that's an unknown risk while ignoring the very real known risk is somewhat illogical. Especially since I'd imagine there are more than 2 possible solutions for a problem like this. Also this assumes that the produce wouldn't end up being packaged in some form of plastic at some point before arriving to the consumer anyway.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 12 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Humans have had several generations of exposure to microplastics. Other closely related mammals like rats have had potentially a hundred generations. One of the reasons plastics are so successful in so many applications is that they are chemically extremely inert. I'm not saying there will be no problems, but if there was going to be a catastrophe, I think you would be able to point to signs by now.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 10 points 17 hours ago (4 children)
[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Oh nooo... Not the fertility. We definitely aren't an overpopulated species putting extreme strain on all our environments and the planet as a whole. How can we get by if some, not all, breeders can't fulfill their animalistic urge to have shitty kids?

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

And that's why I think they'll be the nail in our coffin.

Humanity can survive climate change; adapting to our environment is one of the reasons we're the dominant life form.

Obviously this isn't saying that climate change is good, but humans have made it through a bottle neck before. But you can't survive a bottle neck if you can't make more people.

Plus, the environment would recover when most of humanity is wiped out. Plastics are here for the next few hundred years at least.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 15 hours ago

Don't threaten me with a good time; human infertility is a good thing. But if we are affected, it's likely others are as well.

[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago

Too many people anyway