DZODZO: nejak sem to tam nenasel, co vim, tak dopad na zivocichy je porad predmetem dohadu, nepodarilo se nic poradne prokazat, i kdyz by si to hodne lidi pralo. zato jsem nasel:

However, it is the management of plastic waste that determines the risk of plastic entering the ocean. High-income countries have very effect waste management systems; mismanaged waste – and plastic that ends up in the oceans – is therefore very rare. Poor waste management across many middle- and low-income countries means that these are the main sources of global ocean plastic pollution

...

protoze jsem se tim sam driv zabejval, tak tak 70% plastovyho odpadu v oceanech zpusobuji tri reky, prochazejici rozvojovymi staty. zbytek maji na svedomi dalsi reky a namorni doprava.

jinymi slovy, ten problem neni v pouzivani plastu, ale v chovani lidi, jako vzdy. kdyz budem v cr pouzivat petky a nakladat s odpadem nejlip co umime, nikomu to moc neuskodi a muze to naopak pomoct pred sirenim nemoci, dodat trvanlivosti vyrobku apod.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/...tics-are-everywhere-but-their-health-effects-on-humans-are-still

WHO
WHO calls for more research into microplastics and a crackdown on plastic pollution
https://www.who.int/...lls-for-more-research-into-microplastics-and-a-crackdown-on-plastic-pollution

Based on the limited information we have, microplastics in drinking water don’t appear to pose a health risk at current levels. But we need to find out more. 

SHEFIK: nieco k mikroplastom a vplyvu na prirodu je tuto:

Plastic Pollution - Our World in Data
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution

There is increasing evidence that microplastic ingestion can affect the consumption of prey, leading to energy depletion, inhibited growth and fertility impacts. When organisms ingest microplastics, it can take up space in the gut and digestive system, leading to reductions in feeding signals. This feeling of fullness can reduce dietary intake.

samotne mikroplasty v ludskom tele asi nie su taky problem, nieco ako ked zjes kocku lega, tak ju najdes v zachode celu, ale opat to nemozeme vztahovat iba na seba, treba to brat komplexne ako cely ekosystem a ten je ovlivneny dost zasadne

DNF: jinak si me mozna od zacatku spatne pochopil, nikdy jsem neporovnaval rozlozeni petky oproti rozlozeni okurky. co jsem porovnaval, je pocet vyhozenych okurek a nutne vstupy pro jejich vypestovani, vs pouziti jednoho kondomu z min nez 1g ropy, ktera diky tomu zachrani X okurek pred zbytecnou dopravou a vyhazovanim, protoze nevydrzela dostatecne dlouho cerstva

DNF: porovnej si materialovej vstup na kondom kolem okurky a jeho ekologickou stopu a vstupy na okurku a jeji ekologickou stopu, pak se muzeme bavit.

to co nevidis jsou objemy. na ten pytlik, nebo petku potrebujes opravdu minimum materialu. diky tomu mas pak uspory z rozsahu v doprave, cimz snizujes tu ekologickou stopu, a to pravdepodobne i pri zapocitani tezby.

hadat se nebudu, mysli si co chces.

jinak mikroplasty v prirode problem co vim nedelaj. posli mi plz studii, pokud nejakou znas

DZODZO: To mi neprijde jako zbytecna otazka.

SHEFIK: nebudes porovnavat pozkozeni ekosystemu mikroplastama vs rozlozenyma castma okurky, ze ne? Navic - to co prisuzujes okurce ma petka za sebou taky - od tezby materialu, ktera je super cista, sure, pres vyrobu v chemickach az po zlikvidovani. Oproti okurce taky neexistuje zpusob jak ji vypestovat zcela ekologicky. Jakoze s motykou a seminkem - ukaz se :) Opet to mas prekroucene aby to vyhovovalo tvoji technooptimisticke vizi - a navic si myslis, ze to je pravda, vid?

Uz jsem si zvykli, ze ty tvoje primery jsou fakt z jinyho sveta, ale tohle je jedno z nejhorsich co jsem od tebe slysel.

Zijeme v dobe intenzivniho zemedelstvi, ten problem jsi aspon pojmenoval spravne.

SHEFIK: jedna petka v krovi urcite nikoho nezabila, ale to je opat vztiahnute na nase prostredie, miliony petiek v mori uz su problem

v tom clanku z idnes co som postoval pisali, ze miera znovupouzitia recyklovaneho PET na lahve vyrobcami napojov je 6,6%... to bolo sice v roku 2017 ale neocakavam odvtedy nejaky raketovy rast pouzivania recyklatu, takze k tej ekologickej stope petky asi tolko, ze stejne sa vyraba z novej ropy, takze zacat treba opat u vyrobcov balenych vod, ktori nam tuto svoju propagandu tlacia

DZODZO: tohle je uplne zbytecna otazka. neni dulezity, co je petka a kolik ji pouzivame, ale jak velkou ma ekologickou stopu a jak ji predejit, nebo znovu zpracovat tak, aby se snizila

k tvy diskuzi, jestli je lepsi vyhodit plast, nebo okurku, ti chybi ta druha strana rovnice, kolik ta okurka stoji a jakou ma ekologickou stopu ona - prostorove (suchy pole misto jiny vegetace), rust (voda, hnojiva, biocidy, traktor), pece na poli (tezka technika, udrzba, nafta, oleje), dusledky (eroze, vycerpani pudy, ekosystemu, ubytky fauny), distribuce (jak z pole, tak na sklad, tak do kramu a nasledne domu), atd.

troufam si rict, ze nizsi ekologickou stopu ma ten kondom kolem okurky, a pokud ho druhotne zpracujes / materialove premenis za pomoci green energie, muze byt per okurka blizky nule.

bez potravin neprezijeme a zijeme v dobe intenzivniho zemedelstvi. kdezto par pytliku umime zpracovat, i kdyz mozna globalne pokulhavame v recyklaci. nicmene petka v krovi jeste nikoho nezabila a dopad mikroplastu na prirodu je porad predmetem vyzkumu, s tim, ze se neprokazala skodlivost (neco jineho jsou velke casti plastu v mori, ktere si zvirata pletou s potravou naopak s mikroplasty si bakterie v mori umi poradit).

KEB: a tebe to pride normalne ze ludia kupuju mraky petek?

Mediterranean basin facing irreversible environmental damage, warns new UNEP report | UNEP - UN Environment Programme
https://www.unep.org/...s-release/mediterranean-basin-facing-irreversible-environmental-damage-warns

DZODZO: a přesně proto by ti to nefungovalo. Finsko záloha na pětku půl eura, jestli si to dobře pamatuju a na plechovku 20c a viděl jsem jich povalovat po zemi naprosté minimum a když jo tak je houmledi sbírali.

DZODZO: to v přírodě znamená u na skládce a pak to není nijak nadstrelene číslo. Normální realita co vidím trčet v parku z košů.

Dej zálohu dvacku a vyhozených jich skončí minimum. Protože přesně ti bezdaci to po omladině posbiraji na cuco.

Ale nechme to být. Zacyklil ses na tom, že ty petek kupuješ minimum a nedokážeš pochopit, že jsou lidi co jich kupují mraky.

Heidegger and Stiegler on failure and technology
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2019.1654855

Stiegler has several important addendums to Heidegger's thesis. Heidegger fails to fully appreciate the early Greek myth of Prometheus, and the technological depth that fire offers all human societies. The fall, or failure, is doubled in the myth of Prometheus, and is at the root of all cultures. Since the onset of Information Technology, the acceleration of life is disorientating our Being. I argue the fall in both Heidegger and Stiegler has encaptured their imagination. Education is vital for generating the imaginary, along with the ability to think critically, and ensures the authenticity of political processes, but as importantly, it helps us to imagine the future beyond the Armaggedon scenarios of climate change, and ecological devastation. The Arts and Humanities are at the core of generating a new future.

The Crisis of Global Politics - Perspectives from Continental Philosophy
The Crisis of Global Politics
https://lseideas.atavist.com/philosophy

How does this relate to technology and the ‘we’? Heidegger argues that this classical 'Cartesian' subjectivity of Descartes is actually just how technology also operates. The essence of technology is how it reveals the world to human comprehension in a very specific way: as a representation of objects in being, in an ongoing process Heidegger terms enframing. The danger is, the deeper down this path one goes, and the more enframed objects become, the greater the difficulty is in reconciling the certainty of the subject with the increasingly complex (and mathematical) object. If science reaches the point where the object is lost to the senses, then the subject as ‘I’ is lost as well. It can no longer be certain of itself. Heidegger terms this state an ‘objectlessness’.

For instance, this enframing can be observed in General Circulation Models (GCM), which form the basis of climate science. GCMs work by examining the changes within and between a system of smaller and smaller grids of air, placed upon the planet. Earth Systems science, which is responsible for bringing the Anthropocene into being, uses a similar form of ‘Integrated Assessment Model.’ And, although it is only through these models that we are aware of the Anthropocene, they are so incredibly complex that no human mind can actually comprehend their processes and calculations. Hence, in something as large and complex as the Anthropocene, there is no ‘object’ to represent back to subjectivity. There is no certainty for this ‘I’ in this objectlessness of endless calculations. Hence, with no ‘I’, the subiectum becomes the ‘We’ of all of humanity.

The danger is that both sides of the debate over the Anthropocene are falling into the same trap of positing a planetary humanity as ‘we’, arguing that ‘we’ can only see ourselves as a species now, and that humankind is a unified entity (the anthopos), the central actor in a new kind of ‘Anthropocene earth’. This implies risk and disaster for any distinct cultural, religious, linguistic, geographical etc. pluralities or groups, that do not wish to become part of this homogenous ‘we’. It endangers any form of difference, outside of the collective ‘we’ of the group.

This global crisis is not merely ecological, therefore, but also conceptual. A loss of certainty in where ‘I’ am in the world, means people seek self-certainty more from group and identity politics, where the ‘we’ is more easily established across greater scales of time and space.